Page 45 of 159 FirstFirst ... 3543444546475595145 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 450 of 1585

Thread: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

  1. #441
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Are you saying there should be no restrictions to the tyranny of the majority on this?
    Certainly not. If they state (for example) that one cannot get a marriage license if one owns a gun, or if one objects to having troops quartered in their home, let me know. In addition, each State constitution will set limits on the States' actions.

    If california decided to ban christians from being allowed to marry, while everyone else could, would you still champion the "whatever the people want, they get" philosophy? Or would you cry out for equality?
    That would be a violation, because it would be violating the 1st Amendment, which explicitly says no messing around with religion (we don't have religious tests, ,etc). There is no amendment that says "no defining marriage in ways that don't reflect sexual preference. However, if, for example, California were to pass a law stating that you could only marry someone within 2 years of your age (my wife is 4 years younger than me), then I would simply refuse to move there. Hooray for freedom of choice .

    What I wouldn't do is invent a positive right to a marriage certificate. Rights are negative things, not positive things.

    That's the difference between a republic and a democracy. In a republic 51% does not get to vote away the rights of the other 49%.
    And you believe in positive rights, such as to a marriage license? You're a crappy libertarian .

  2. #442
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,581

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Certainly not. If they state (for example) that one cannot get a marriage license if one owns a gun, or if one objects to having troops quartered in their home, let me know. In addition, each State constitution will set limits on the States' actions.



    That would be a violation, because it would be violating the 1st Amendment, which explicitly says no messing around with religion (we don't have religious tests, ,etc). There is no amendment that says "no defining marriage in ways that don't reflect sexual preference. However, if, for example, California were to pass a law stating that you could only marry someone within 2 years of your age (my wife is 4 years younger than me), then I would simply refuse to move there. Hooray for freedom of choice .

    What I wouldn't do is invent a positive right to a marriage certificate. Rights are negative things, not positive things.



    And you believe in positive rights, such as to a marriage license? You're a crappy libertarian .
    No, I believe in equal application of all rights. As a libertarian I don't believe the government should be in the business of marriage at all. However, seeing as they are, I support 100% equality for all citizens. I don't pick and choose which religions or races I like best. So I guess what you meant is I'd be a crappy republican.

    What if a group of gays just started a gay religion, and a major tenant of that gay religion was to get gay married? Would you then support their equality? Or would you claim your religion is better, and thus more deserving of rights?

    You don't technically have a right to be white, black, tall, short, skinny, fat, blonde haired, brown haired, or any of that. Would it then be ok for you if a state prevented all whites or fat people from marrying?

    Based on your anti-homosexual rhetoric, you're a pretty good republican.
    Last edited by RabidAlpaca; 06-22-13 at 07:51 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  3. #443
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    No, I believe in equal application of all rights. As a libertarian I don't believe the government should be in the business of marriage at all. However, seeing as they are, I support 100% equality for all citizens. I don't pick and choose which religions or races I like best.
    That is a strawman argument, no one here is arguing about race or religion. As for the notion of defining "equality" in terms of "the ability to have a marriage license issued on demand", that is a definition that I have not seen anyone be willing to hold to once they are questioned about whether or not they really mean it.

    What if a group of gays just started a gay religion, and a major tenant of that gay religion was to get gay married? Would you then support their equality? Or would you claim your religion is better, and thus more deserving of rights?
    Then they would be free to conduct all the weddings they liked, just as current churches conduct ceremonies for homosexual couples. I could not, for example, invent the Church Of Driving Over 70mph and appoint myself pastor in order to avoid speeding tickets.

    Even within religion we are willing to make some limitations. For example, despite the fact that Islam and Mormonism have allowed for polygamy, we outlaw it. However, you are missing a critical distinction - below:

    You don't technically have a right to be white, black, tall, short, skinny, fat, blonde haired, brown haired, or any of that. Would it then be ok for you if a state prevented all whites or fat people from marrying?
    You are mistaking the ability to marry with the ability to marry whomever you please. We don't have the right to tell gay people they can't get married. We do have the right to say that we shall only issue marriage licenses to couples made up of adult non-related male-female pairs.

    That being said, a States' powers are numerous and indefinite, while the powers accorded to the Federal Government are few and defined.

    Based on your anti-homosexual rhetoric, you're a pretty good republican.
    Fail. Believing in representative government and the rule of law does not make one a homophobe. But it's interesting to note the commonality with which people in this debate pull out its' version of the Race Card.
    Last edited by cpwill; 06-22-13 at 08:04 AM.

  4. #444
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,581

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Huh. It's a good question. I suppose in that venue we would have to ask whether or not their pastors were authorized to act on behalf of the state, as current major church leaders are. If so, then yes. If not, then no. The creation of a false faith in order explicitly to gain access to legal authorizations, however, strikes me as a tactic that will not pass the reasonable person standard. I could not, for example, invent the Church Of Driving Over 70mph and appoint myself pastor in order to avoid speeding tickets.
    Religions are subject to a "reasonable person standard"? If they were, there would be no religions. Driving over 70 mph applies directly, and without exception, to everyone regardless of their religion, orientation, or anything. Human beings are human beings, and that's the way it should be for marriage.

    I guess we figured out how to get the republican seal of approval. The gays just need to make up a religion so they can have the same status as christians.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    You are mistaking the ability to marry with the ability to marry whomever you please. We don't have the right to tell gay people they can't get married. We do have the right to say that we shall only issue marriage licenses to couples made up of adult non-related male-female pairs.
    The two abilities are identical. What use is the right to marry if you can't marry the person you love? Did you do it to exercise a right, or because you wanted to commit to your soul mate?

    I'm really curious, what is your REAL reason for being anti-SSM? What do you think is going to happen to America if this passes?


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    That is a strawman argument, no one here is arguing about race or religion. As for the notion of defining "equality" in terms of "the ability to have a marriage license issued on demand", that is a definition that I have not seen anyone be willing to hold to once they are questioned about whether or not they really mean it.
    Seeing as how the fundamental pillar of the republican/conservative anti-SSM stance is religion, we certainly are talking about religion.

    Many, if not most, gays were born the way they are. Harassing someone because of the way they were born just goes against my fundamental belief system. As for your belief system, I'd like to see a quote from Jesus saying "Thou shalt petition the government to treat sinners less equal."


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Fail. Believing in representative government and the rule of law does not make one a homophobe. But it's interesting to note the commonality with which people in this debate pull out its' version of the Race Card.
    Well, that same representative government is on the path to rule against you on SSM. So I hope you remain quiet like you'd like us to.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  5. #445
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Religions are subject to a "reasonable person standard"?
    Applications of U.S. law often are.

    Driving over 70 mph applies directly, and without exception, to everyone regardless of their religion, orientation, or anything.
    Yup. So does the issuance of Marriage licenses, which, like drivers licenses, have requirements for issuance.

    Human beings are human beings, and that's the way it should be for marriage.
    Why? Do you hate people who love animals?

    I guess we figured out how to get the republican seal of approval. The gays just need to make up a religion so they can have the same status as christians.
    Fail again. See:Episcopalians.

    The two abilities are identical. What use is the right to marry if you can't marry the person you love?
    The idea that you should marry that special one person that you love above all others is a pretty recent (really, barely much more than a century) idea. However, lots of people can't marry those whom they love - for example, I couldn't marry my first cousin, regardless of my feelings toward her, or my mother or daughter. Ditto for whether or not I could marry my three best friends, or my 14 year old cousin back in Pakistan.

    The two are not identical, rights are individual things, not corporate things. Our liberties belong to us, not us only in concert with others.

    Did you do it to exercise a right, or because you wanted to commit to your soul mate?
    I married my wife because I wanted her to be my wife and because we could. If the State had refused us a license, I would have married her anyway, and our lives would be no different except that we would qualify for more government benefits which we would probably not take.

    I'm really curious, what is your REAL reason for being anti-SSM? What do you think is going to happen to America if this passes?
    I wouldn't say that I'm "anti-SSM", any more than I would say I'm "anti-polygamy". I would say that I am pro-strong-marriage because I am pro-strong-families. I think that it will further separate marriage from its' social benefits and push it more in the direction of "two people who love each other". This will have the effects of reducing its' ability to provide them, decreasing national wealth, increasing social instability, and increasing dependency upon already overburdened social safety nets. Remember, oh libertarian, you cannot build a fiscally conservative small government on anything other than a socially conservative strong society. Women with children will depend on husbands, or the government, but they will be dependent. Critical Thought has the best reasoned critique of my argument, here, but I think that it still fails the test when put to experimentation.

    Seeing as how the fundamental pillar of the republican/conservative anti-SSM stance is religion, we certainly are talking about religion.
    It is? They must have forgotten to tell me. Most of my argument here (until you decided to bring up religion - though not as a faith but as an identity group) is about such irrelevant topics as the notion that perhaps we should be a nation ruled by laws rather than by men, that mayhaps our social and political elites should not be authorized to ride roughshod over the populace to implement their own zeitgeist, or that perhaps the idea that States should have the ability to balance the Federal government by exercising their own powers as mandated by the Constitution isn't so outdated after all.

    Many, if not most, gays were born the way they are. Harassing someone because of the way they were born just goes against my fundamental belief system. As for your belief system, I'd like to see a quote from Jesus saying "Thou shalt petition the government to treat sinners less equal."
    Jesus didn't tell us how to govern government. He told us how to govern ourselves.

    Well, that same representative government is on the path to rule against you on SSM.
    I was unaware that SSM was either before the national Congress or the Legislature of Alabama. Can you please link to the relevant legislation?

  6. #446
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    The Constitution leaves defining marriage to the States, and the states themselves are beholden to the expressed will of the people, either directly through referendum or indirectly through the legislature. The States are free to limit marriage in any way they like - which is why some states ban varying levels of kinship, some states have differing ages of consent, so on and so forth. Some states choose to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex, some do not. Simply because you feel that someone should get it is not a good reason to overthrow self-government.
    States aren't given unlimited rights to restrict rights. SCOTUS defines marriage as a right, therefore the states do not get blanket authority to limit marriage. Gender-based classifications require meeting the intermediate level of constitutional scrutiny, hence the mention of "state interest" in the post you quoted. Specifically, the classification must further an important state interest and be done in a manner substantially related to that interest.

    I wouldn't say that I'm "anti-SSM", any more than I would say I'm "anti-polygamy". I would say that I am pro-strong-marriage because I am pro-strong-families. I think that it will further separate marriage from its' social benefits and push it more in the direction of "two people who love each other". This will have the effects of reducing its' ability to provide them, decreasing national wealth, increasing social instability, and increasing dependency upon already overburdened social safety nets.
    Yes, you think these things. You are wrong, however.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #447
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    States aren't given unlimited rights to restrict rights. SCOTUS defines marriage as a right, therefore the states do not get blanket authority to limit marriage.
    SCOTUS was wrong. Rights are negative, not positive in nature. You do not have the right to a marriage license from your state of residence.

    Gender-based classifications require meeting the intermediate level of constitutional scrutiny, hence the mention of "state interest" in the post you quoted. Specifically, the classification must further an important state interest and be done in a manner substantially related to that interest.
    Which in and of itself is fine - the state has a rock solid interest in the items I described.

    Yes, you think these things. You are wrong, however.
    Ah. Yes, of course, I see it now. Thank you so much for the mountain of evidence presented.

  8. #448
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    10-01-17 @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,498

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    And The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) hasn't deemed marriage a right for all. If you were to say, for example, certain state's supreme courts deemed marriage a right for all, you would be right. Get it right. This isn't soley about SSM. It's about every marriage is a right.
    Last edited by cabse5; 06-22-13 at 11:45 AM.

  9. #449
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    10-01-17 @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,498

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Did someone from one of those "pro-family" groups tell you that this might change? It's sad that people calling themselves Christians would stoop to this sort of fearmongering.
    Well Deuce, it's fearmongering but it's also truthtelling. Is fearmongering bad? I guess we'd better tell the global warming alarmists to stop fearmongering, then.
    And what if a pro-family group gave the information?

    BTW, I'm not religious. I'm about fairness.
    Deuce, how much of the info from you posts comes from SSM advocates' talking points?
    I think for myself. I came up with this by myself. It's just common sense.

    I thought I'd copy and paste a portion of a post I made in another thread:
    You say nothing like the IRS scandal has happened before in the US?
    Wrong. It's already happened.

    In 2012, two women filed a law suit in New Jersey court because a Methodist Church prevented their SS civil union ceremony from being performed in a pavilion owned by said NJ Methodist Church. The pavilion had been rented out only for marriages because
    it's a religious structure of that NJ Methodist Church, and SS civil unions are not recognized according to the United Methodist Church Book of Disipline.

    Due to the NJ Methodist Church's refusal to rent the pavilion for SS union, New Jersey punished the NJ Methodist Church, and revoked its tax free status in NJ.

    Here's an example from Boston, Massachusetts in 2006. Boston Catholic Services ran an adoption agency placing children with families. The Catholic Church announced, rather than submitting to Massachusetts' law requiring the agency place children with SSM couples, that Boston Catholic Services would be closed down because a current 2003 Vatican document described SSM adoptions as gravely 'immoral'.

    Here's a secular example:

    The Des Moines, Iowa Human Rights Commission found the local YMCA in violation of public accomodation laws because it refused to allow 'family membership' privileges to a SS FEMALE couple that received a civil union in Vermont. The city of Des Moines, Iowa forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as 'families' for membership purposes, or lose $100,000 in gov't support.

    Soon afterward, the Des Moines, Iowa YMCA closed its doors.
    Why are there no YMCA services in Des Moines, Iowa?
    For sure, we know the organization refused to allow SS FEMALE couples 'family privileges' in the YMCA, and the local gov't punished the YMCA.


    BTW, there was a YWCA in Des Moines, Iowa at the time of the lawsuit.
    Last edited by cabse5; 06-22-13 at 12:08 PM.

  10. #450
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I think that it will further separate marriage from its' social benefits and push it more in the direction of "two people who love each other".
    I think it's being pushed in the direction of "two people who want to have sex with each other and get government benefits for it". And that's even scarier, in my opinion, for the future of society.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •