Govt Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]

Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?

What are they thinking, really.[/quote]

You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]

And the fact that one group of people can easily get all those rights bundled up in one package, in a system where no judge will ever arbitrarily decide to ignore them, compared to another group who has to go through a complex, lengthy, and expensive procedure for some of those same rights, where any judge can simply decide to ignore those agreements, is a blatant form of discrimination on the part of the government.[/quote]

Easily? No, not really that easily. And, Judge’s ignore the institution of marriage all the time. It’s not a complex, lengthy, expensive procedure for someone to be put on the visitation list. If you put a card in your wallet with the names of non-family members who are allowed to visit the hospital will check ID and allow you to enter. Power of attorney is as simple as redrafting your living will and giving it to your lawyer.

Yes it is discrimination, so is not letting me be a mother. But, guess what suck it up.[/quote]

You not being able to be a mother is a case of discrimination?

Maybe you want to look up the word “discriminate”.

[/quote]

No, but people equate not getting their way with discrimination. It’s called not having it your way.[/quote]

Discrimination? I’m currently being discriminated against because of my age. Where do I go to have new laws written so that I don’t feel the pain of not being able to join the US military? I can easily pass their physical fitness test. But alas because of my age the US government will not allow me to join.

One can only imagine the pain that polygamists and incestuous couples are currently feeling because of discrimination. Is there no end to the unfairness that the government has brought to bear on us?[/quote]

Different scenario, the government discriminating as an employer is different from the government discriminating by preventing two people to close a contract.[/quote]

you’re splitting hairs orion. It doesn’t matter the reason for the discrimination all that matters is that there IS discrimination. I could produce literally hundreds of documents which shows a high degree of evidence that practicing homosexuality is dangerous, but so what? The point is these poor…poor homosexuals are not allowed to marry. AND, similarily keeping someone who is older than the traditional recruit out of the military is discrimination pure and simple.

I don’t think there should be any more discrimination of any kind by the government.

I just want people to be happy and pretty much do whatever they want - I want everyone to be able to live by their own code. I’m so sick of the same old same old.

What we need is hope and change…oh wait we have that huh?[/quote]

I am not splitting hairs.

If a government wants to hire someone like a firefighter it makes perfect sense to have physical and psychological requirements.

To pass laws however what kind of contracts private persons can make is a completely different animal.

And yes, they can even make contracts that endanger them financially, psychologically or physically.

That is part of that elusive “freedom”.

As a sidenote, no matter how dangerous homosexuality may or may not be, I doubt that a piece of paper will have a significant impact. A piece of latex however just might.

62

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

What is wrong with making rational and moral judgments? And, I don’t believe in divorce so unless their marriage is annulled, then it is a pseudo-polygamy situation. [/quote]

Then why don’t you support laws making it illegal for someone to marry if they’re already divorced and not annulled?

Why don’t you support laws making it illegal to marry if you practice sex that doesn’t always include vaginal intercourse?[/quote]

I don’t think the state should be involved, just because I am against same-sex marriage doesn’t mean I’m not against the state intervening. And your last sentence doesn’t make sense, if someone practices sex that doesn’t always include vaginal intercourse that doesn’t mean it won’t produce children when they do have vaginal intercourse. Same-sex marriage will never produce children. However, I do support correcting those that practice immoral sex which as you said includes the conjugal act when it is not finished in the vaginal canal.
[/quote]

If you don’t think the state should disallow immoral unions with the divorced or with people that don’t always have vaginal sex, then the state shouldn’t disallow gay marriages, even if you similarly consider them immoral.

63

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]

Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?

What are they thinking, really.[/quote]

You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]

This is a common misperception. My partner and I have done everything we can possibly do through our attorney, but we are still second class citizens in many ways. We don’t have social security survivorship, can’t file joint tax returns, can’t adopt children in some states, can’t immigrate our partners into the country, etc. [/quote]

Yeah, and I can’t do any of that with my friend. I was talking about the hospital and power of attorney, both of those are relatively easy.[/quote]

But you can do all of that with your spouse. Which is kinda the point.[/quote]

Yes, because she would be part of my immediate family.[/quote]

My partner is part of my immediate family.

64

This is an unlawful power grab and even tho I support gay marriage this is not the way to do it.

65

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

What is wrong with making rational and moral judgments? And, I don’t believe in divorce so unless their marriage is annulled, then it is a pseudo-polygamy situation. [/quote]

Nothing.

If this moral jusgement is based on a book that is a few thousand years old and claims to be be “rational” on top of it, as if there was such a thing as a rational value judgement, well, it better should not be the basis of laws that aspire to prevent bloodshed.[/quote]

No, it is a moral judgement based on Aristotle’s and Aquinas writings on Natural Law, you knowing Ayn Rand should know Rand’s three A’s (Aristotle, Aquinas, Ayn) and her views on Natural Law. As well, Kant put forth a few good arguments in figuring if something is moral. I don’t use the Bible when it comes to talking to people that do not believe in the Bible. That is ridiculous, the Bible is for those in the Church so what weight does it have for those that do not hold to the faith of the Church?

That would be like a Muslim trying to convince me of something and stating it says so in the Koran. The Koran is a nice book, but it holds no weight with me. If a Catholic or Christian would disagree with me I suppose I could use the Bible, but I’m not totally sure if the Bible says anything about gay marriage.

I’m all for peaceful solutions, but I’m do not hold to quietism or pacifism. That doesn’t mean I am going to force people against their wills to do what I want, but that doesn’t mean that I have to let them do something against my will with my money. I don’t want them to get married for moral and economical reasons. I also don’t want heterosexual couples receiving money for being married from the Gov’t for economical reasons.[/quote]

Aquinas and Aristotle could not make “rational” value jusdgements either.

I also doubt that Aristotle had too much of a problem with homosexuality and, if he had, he was a weird freakish outlier and definitely not a prime example of his time.

66

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Thankfully, most Americans disagree with you. Last August a poll conducted by the Associated Press found that 52% of people in the United States believe the government should recognize same-sex marriage (with 46% against).

In the 1950s almost all Americans would have agreed with you. Your line of thinking is nothing more than a dim vestige of our barbarous past. You can believe in any fairy tale you want as long as you keep it out of other people’s homes. “An invisible bearded man in the sky told me to” is not sufficient enough reason to enact oppressive legislation in modern America.[/quote]

Lol, in the 1930’s I’m sure if a poll was conducted in Germany it would find that the majority of the people in Germany thought they should exterminate the Jews. Appeal to the majority you say? Well, why not majority makes right? Or, is that might makes right?

P.S. Who in the hell is this invisible bearded man in the sky?[/quote]

You make a good point about the possibilities of majority tyranny. However, I wasn’t saying that you’re wrong because people tend to disagree with you in modern America; I was simply stating my gratitude for that disagreement.

Why do you think same-sex marriage immoral? For religious reasons?

67

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

On the other hand maybe we should allow polygamous and incestuous marriage. How dare the state deny these groups their fair share of happiness. It’s barbaric I tell you. Why those groups of people are treated like second class citizens.

[/quote]

Zeb,

You are an idiot, and a bigot. No one on these forums respects anything you say, and I, personally, hope you die.[/quote]

Why not open the flood gates to other weird arrangements? Tell me why homosexuals should top the list when we have polygamists and incestuous couples chomping at the bit. Who are YOU to deny them their happiness? Why do you want to enforce your morality on on others…tsk, tsk…very closed minded of you.

Oh and I wish you a long life and much happiness.

(see the difference between mean spirited liberals and kind hearted conservatives?)

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Your argument is a flimsy straw man, no one is arguing the case for polygamous marriage or incestuous behavior and it has nothing to do with the topic. Shut up.

I agree, almost everything I’ve read from you comes across as hateful and bigoted. You really are the definition of a bigot actually, you read like an insincere nanny talking to a bunch of children. And your little smirk face at the end of posts is without a doubt the gayest thing i’ve seen in my life.

68

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

On the other hand maybe we should allow polygamous and incestuous marriage. How dare the state deny these groups their fair share of happiness. It’s barbaric I tell you. Why those groups of people are treated like second class citizens.

[/quote]

Zeb,

You are an idiot, and a bigot. No one on these forums respects anything you say, and I, personally, hope you die.[/quote]

Why not open the flood gates to other weird arrangements? Tell me why homosexuals should top the list when we have polygamists and incestuous couples chomping at the bit. Who are YOU to deny them their happiness? Why do you want to enforce your morality on on others…tsk, tsk…very closed minded of you.

Oh and I wish you a long life and much happiness.

(see the difference between mean spirited liberals and kind hearted conservatives?)

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Your argument is a flimsy straw man, no one is arguing the case for polygamous marriage or incestuous behavior and it has nothing to do with the topic. Shut up.

I agree, almost everything I’ve read from you comes across as hateful and bigoted. You really are the definition of a bigot actually, you read like an insincere nanny talking to a bunch of children. And your little smirk face at the end of posts is without a doubt the gayest thing i’ve seen in my life.

[/quote]

Really?

Then make an argument that can be made aginst polygamy, or polyandry for that matter, that cannot be turned around and made against gay marriage.

69

[quote]orion wrote:

If a government wants to hire someone like a firefighter it makes perfect sense to have physical and psychological requirements.[/quote]

And I can pass all of those test requirements but because of my age ONLY I am kept out. That is discrimination my friend.

[quote]As a sidenote, no matter how dangerous homosexuality may or may not be, I doubt that a piece of paper will have a significant impact. A piece of latex however just might.
[/quote]

Yeah, and that piece of latex has been known to this group since day one - BUT they just don’t use them. I guess they don’t care if they spread HIV and endanger others with their poor choices. Oh well, what’s a few million cases of HIV right? Let’s keep promoting this sort of thing and I’m sure eventually we’ll all be better off, that makes sense.

70

[quote]forlife wrote:

My partner is part of my immediate family.[/quote]

Awe…no he isn’t, he’s just your partner. Darn those rotten discrimination laws. Now you know how polygamists feel. Yeah…not funny is it?

71

There is nothing either side will say that will convert the other side. We might as well go and throw paint at a wall; at least the wall would be a different colour.

72

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

If a government wants to hire someone like a firefighter it makes perfect sense to have physical and psychological requirements.[/quote]

And I can pass all of those test requirements but because of my age ONLY I am kept out. That is discrimination my friend.

[quote]As a sidenote, no matter how dangerous homosexuality may or may not be, I doubt that a piece of paper will have a significant impact. A piece of latex however just might.
[/quote]

Yeah, and that piece of latex has been known to this group since day one - BUT they just don’t use them. I guess they don’t care if they spread HIV and endanger others with their poor choices. Oh well, what’s a few million cases of HIV right? Let’s keep promoting this sort of thing and I’m sure eventually we’ll all be better off, that makes sense.

[/quote]

Of course it is discrimination, but then I have no problems with an employer discriminating for any reason.

Now in the case of governments we are obviously running into some problems here, but how am I responsible for inconsistencies of a system that grows like a cancer.

If someone wants to have sex without a rubber he automatically accepts the risk that comes with it. The same is true for riding a bike without a helmet, climbing a tree, climb a mountain or snort cocaine.

If some people get their kicks by putting it into someones pooper, more power to them.

As far as I am concerned they can masturbate with power tools as long as they do not expect me to pay the bills when it goes terribly, terribly, yet histerically entertainingly wrong.

73

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

Your argument is a flimsy straw man, no one is arguing the case for polygamous marriage or incestuous behavior and it has nothing to do with the topic. [/quote]

It has everything to do with the topic but because you are a first class BIGOT and a hate monger you don’t want to talk about the rights of other classes of people who have been discriminated against.

More liberal hate. When anyone looks like they might be wondering off the liberal politically correct talking points they’re met with wishes for death by some and simply “shut up” by others. Also you’re known as an Internet tough guy so that probably plays into this blather.

I’m the one who wants to include other groups of people into this equation and you’re the one who only wants to give certain rights to homosexuals. You’re the bigot and an idiot as well. But then you know about that last part as I’ve pointed it out to you before.

Well, if the shoe fits…

[quote]And your little smirk face at the end of posts is without a doubt the gayest thing i’ve seen in my life.
[/quote]

Let me get this right. You are pro homosexuals getting married, however you insult my smiley faces by calling them gay, which is a put down. I see…well this is about up to par with the rest of your logic.

Anyway about the smiley faces, why don’t we do this, the next time you see me make a smiley face just think of it as me walking up to you and sticking my middle finger in your face, (and I mean right in your face) and smiling. Ready?

:slight_smile:

74

[quote]Bambi wrote:
There is nothing either side will say that will convert the other side. We might as well go and throw paint at a wall; at least the wall would be a different colour.

[/quote]

Bambi nice of you to show up with your usual light weight commentary.

75

[quote]orion wrote:

Now in the case of governments we are obviously running into some problems here, but how am I responsible for inconsistencies of a system that grows like a cancer.[/quote]

Well, we agree on that.

But what happens when we have on classs of people who are consistently acting out dangerous behavior. Theoretically we shouldn’t care (as you say) because they assume such risk. But in reality it is costing us a great deal of money in time and medicine to take care of these people (and it is certainly horrbile to see them suffer). So in a sense we all suffer for the dumb mistakes made by this one group of people.

More power to the people or their pooper? Seriously though as I’ve stated we all pay for their mistake one way or the other. So no, not more power to them. Less power to them until they learn to behave responsible and stop draining our wallets.

[quote]As far as I am concerned they can masturbate with power tools as long as they do not expect me to pay the bills when it goes terribly, terribly, yet histerically entertainingly wrong.
[/quote]

But of course we are paying, and paying, and paying…And if the far left lunatics get their way we will continue to pay. But then again it may not matter if the US continues on this spending binge. There won’t be enough money left to pay for their stupidity.

76

Zeb, what exactly is your objection to homosexuality?

(The only one I’ve even remotely understood is the biblical prohibition; if you believe in God it makes some sense to take that seriously, though not to enshrine it in law. Apart from that, I simply don’t understand.)

77

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Zeb, what exactly is your objection to homosexuality?

(The only one I’ve even remotely understood is the biblical prohibition; if you believe in God it makes some sense to take that seriously, though not to enshrine it in law. Apart from that, I simply don’t understand.)[/quote]

I just feel really badly for those other minorities who are down trodden. No one seems to care that there are other “different” types of relationships that are not going to get what homosexuals are getting. I think it’s only fair to give the rights that homosexuals want to all groups don’t you? You don’t want polygamists or those who practice incestual relationships to be discriminated against do you? I sure don’t. Don’t they have feelings too? Why must we minimize their relationships?

You seem like someone who has great compassion for people so I’m sure you’ll agree.

78

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This is an excellent discussion of the political fallout that will likely occur:

EXCERPT:

If that approach becomes widely adopted, then it would seem to bring a considerable power shift to the Executive Branch. Here�?�¢??s what I fear will happen. If Congress passes legislation on a largely party-line vote, the losing side just has to fashion some constitutional theories for why the legislation is unconstitutional and then wait for its side to win the Presidency. As soon as its side wins the Presidency, activists on its side can file constitutional challenges based on the theories; the Executive branch can adopt the theories and conclude that, based on the theories, the legislation is unconstitutional; and then the challenges to the legislation will go undefended. Winning the Presidency will come with a great deal of power to decide what legislation to defend, increasing Executive branch power at the expense of Congress�?�¢??s power. Again, it will be a power grab disguised as academic constitutional interpretation.[/quote]

Picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore is what goes on in every city, county, state, and federal district as we speak. Usually based on the prefernces of those in power. US law was intended to deal with DIRECT ‘Force or Fraud’ matters.
Any idealogy, moral code, or religion that requires laws that punish others that behave in a manner it objects to, is malevolent by nature, and therefore without credibiliy. If your arguement is so weak you are unable to persuade others…
[/quote]

Ah, so it is a matter of persuading others. I see, so Hitler was very persuasive, so was Joseph Stalin, so was Muss, so their arguments had credibility because they were persuasive and got a lot of people to agree with them?[/quote]

You have missed my point. Your position is much closer to that of Hitler/Stalin etc. in that you wish to use the state/law to PUNISH others that behave in a manner you disagree with. There are things that the law should have nothing to so with, regardless of how the majority feels. You are free to try to persuade your children, your family members, your friends. You can rent billboards, hold seminars and social gatherings, etc. All of your reasoning centered on ‘population reduction’ may be true, but it doesn’t matter, not one bit. Others are free to decide not to pro-create if they choose, and the decision has no bearing on their morality, and no direct affect on your life. You may be an honorable person BC, but you loose the ‘high ground’ when you express the desire to force everyone to comply with your view.

79

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Now in the case of governments we are obviously running into some problems here, but how am I responsible for inconsistencies of a system that grows like a cancer.[/quote]

Well, we agree on that.

But what happens when we have on classs of people who are consistently acting out dangerous behavior. Theoretically we shouldn’t care (as you say) because they assume such risk. But in reality it is costing us a great deal of money in time and medicine to take care of these people (and it is certainly horrbile to see them suffer). So in a sense we all suffer for the dumb mistakes made by this one group of people.

More power to the people or their pooper? Seriously though as I’ve stated we all pay for their mistake one way or the other. So no, not more power to them. Less power to them until they learn to behave responsible and stop draining our wallets.

[quote]As far as I am concerned they can masturbate with power tools as long as they do not expect me to pay the bills when it goes terribly, terribly, yet histerically entertainingly wrong.
[/quote]

But of course we are paying, and paying, and paying…And if the far left lunatics get their way we will continue to pay. But then again it may not matter if the US continues on this spending binge. There won’t be enough money left to pay for their stupidity.
[/quote]

So your main problems is that you have to pay for their behavior?

If you have the same problem with other kinds of risk taking your problem is basically that there is a bunch of people who want to turn the whole planet into a padded cell where noone is responsible for anything. Good on you, but how is that the the fault of homosexuals?

On the other hand, if homosexuality does bother you more than say, drunk driving, or, I dunno, bowling (dangerous, dangerous sport, look it up), well, you kust might be a tad irrational when it comes to ze gayz.

80

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

You have missed my point. Your position is much closer to that of Hitler/Stalin etc. in that you wish to use the state/law to PUNISH others that behave in a manner you disagree with. There are things that the law should have nothing to so with, regardless of how the majority feels.
[/quote]

OMGDZ, you just compared Obama to Hitler.

Racist.