Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 175

Thread: Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator

  1. #51
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator

    Quote Originally Posted by Declan View Post
    Depends. Grilling them will reduce your chances of choking to death on one. Some brands do not grill as well as others IMHO.
    Gotta go raw. More vitamins.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  2. #52
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    "Individual liberty is an indefensible position" - a conservative.
    "Any Limitation Is Bigotry Except Those I Approve Of" - A liberal.

  3. #53
    Guru
    Declan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 04:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    4,670

    Re: Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Gotta go raw. More vitamins.
    Barebacking your peanuts isn't safe buttering.

  4. #54
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,807

    Re: Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    "Any Limitation Is Bigotry Except Those I Approve Of" - A liberal.
    I approve of limitations on individual liberty when such actions would cause harm to others.

    How dastardly of me.
    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.

  5. #55
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,938
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    The Pro-Life are growing to outweigh the Pro-Choice in this country, and are capturing more and more of the young (who are otherwise generally more socially liberal). Plessy v Ferguson was on the books for decades, too, until we recognized it as the injustice that it was.



    The problem being that they all too often fail to realize that social conservatism is a necessary precondition to fiscal conservatism. Women and children require a support model. That model will either be "husbands" or it will be "big government". Those who cannot work for themselves require a support model as well. That model will either be "family, savings, and society" or it will be "big government". So long as we live in a world in which non-optimal family structure are encouraged or enabled, you will have demand for big, expensive government to make up the gaps.



    This is a claim that begs the assumption. If an unborn child is indeed a human child (as the pro-life hold), then it is no more "statist" for a government to restrict abortion than it is Statist for that government to restrict any other killing of one person by another.



    If that were honestly the policy alternative. Instead it is is libertarians (generally) supporting positions to change what government decides about to whom it shall issue a marriage license rather than deciding not to do so. I still think that the first is a deeply problematic position (society has a host of reasons why it is good policy to encourage successful marriages), but it isn't what is actually being de facto supported.



    So you would indeed maintain a role for government in marriage, meaning that you are not "libertarian" on the issue, but merely socially liberal. Polygamy comes additionally with a host of issues - polygamous societies are less stable, for example.



    I don't recall the government aggressively pursuing a law that states "If you are married to one woman, you cannot live with and sleep with a second as well". The government isn't in the bedroom relegating action, it is simply having limits placed on it by the populace (namely, the limits defining when it will or will not issue a marriage license) - and that is a function that you would keep, only adjusting the particulars a bit.



    Well, given the past few elections, the answer to that is plain - Social Conservatives are the base, if you don't bring them out, you lose. Those who are A) socially liberal B) fiscally conservative and C) likely to either sit out a vote or vote Democrat aren't a big enough proportion of the populace to justify losing the base to.

    Generally speaking, it's also a shrinking portion of the populace - the American people are becoming more ideologically uniform within the camps - we are more likely to be both socially and fiscally liberal or both socially and fiscally conservative than in the past.
    I never heard anything on the young being more and more pro-life. Time will tell if you are right. It is possible and I always believe in possibilities. Perhaps when it comes social conservatism I do not that that is a precondition to fiscal responsibility. To me being fiscal responsible is not spending more than one takes in. Having 18 trillion and rising in debt is very fiscal irresponsible. Now yes, I would rather have the families of the 1950's when out of wedlock birth was looked down on and was a disgrace. A Father Knows Best or Ozzie and Harriet type family for one and all.

    But that is impossible today. How or why society moved away from that I do not know. Perhaps it was the hippies and free love of the 60's. There is nothing wrong in letting a woman decide her own fate. I still look upon it as more as an individual freedom than having the state dictate she must give birth. Then who is going to take care of all these unwanted babies? The state? Would each pro-life family open their homes to these babies?

    A government role in marriage, no. Although it will be very hard if nearly impossible to get government out of marriage. The IRS code is full of deductions and taxes based on marriage and there is government benefits and the like. But should there be and is it necessary? This government never kept track who was married until some states began the practice after the civil war. If memory serves me right, Kentucky became the last state to finally keep records on marriages around 1911. But there was no income tax back then.

    Polygamy doesn't fit into western society but quite nicely in other societies. But then again with governments involvement in marriage and other things dealing with the repercussions of marriage a ton of laws would have to be changed.

    Now I agree this nations is divided, it has become much more polarized one way or the other. I think ideally for me, I would like the government to be fiscal responsible by not spending more than it takes in and not be involved in things that do no harm to others. So as to the direction of the country, we will see, time will tell.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  6. #56
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,938
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    I guess where we differ Perotista is I don't see it so cut and dried as you do. Just because someone is socially conservative doesn't mean they are not fiscally conservative too. Many are. In fact for the socially conservative they see personal responsibility paramount to what their religions teach them. They have become big advocates for constitutional civil liberties since they have seen their own violated in current days. They don't much like having government define marriage for them. They now see it as a state issue. Same with guns. Most social and fiscal conservatives believe in a strong defense. More and more social conservatives are beginning to see the need to the return to federalism because of failed policies they once supported. Many have changed abortion rules in their own states significantly. Don't paint them with such a broad brush Pero.
    I realize there are a lot of people who are fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, most of them are Republicans. The reverse is true for Democrats or the new Liberals/progressives, but not the Classic Liberal. I too believe in personal responsibility, this trying to say one is not responsible for their actions and decision they make in their life is due to their environment, their parents, everything but them is destroying this country. One does not have to be religious to believe in personal responsibility. When it comes to welfare and the safety net, I also believe in the principal of the hand up vs. the hand out which is so popular with the progressives. So I would never make a good Democrat today.

    Classic Liberals and Traditional conservatives were big believers in civil liberties. It is the stance of today’s neo-conservatives and progressives that I find hard to understand. Is government defining marriage or is it people defining marriage? Who should be married? Should that be decided by the government? Marriage is not listed in section 8 Article I as a power for government to decide nor is it prohibited to the states in section 10 Article I. So what may or may not apply is the 14th amendment. But the 14th does not apply if one goes by original intent, it only applies if one throws out the original intent and then in my mind it is questionable. But apparently not in the SCOTUS.

    I suppose what I am saying is let love decide who marries or not. But if government is to define marriage which I think they should not, it should be at the state level. Let the social conservative define marriage as they wish, churches too. They can either recognize gay marriages or not which is up to them. But they should push their definition on others. Gays can be married in their mind and according to the law, if they are not in the minds of some of the religious folks, so be it. I can live with that. They should be able too.

    With dealing with guns I believe in the second amendment where it say shall not be infringed upon means exactly that. A strong defense, that is a no brainier considering my background. But being for a strong defense does not mean I am for all of our around the world escapades or the way they are being handled. I do not think we should be the policeman of the world.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  7. #57
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,351

    Re: Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    I realize there are a lot of people who are fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, most of them are Republicans. The reverse is true for Democrats or the new Liberals/progressives, but not the Classic Liberal. I too believe in personal responsibility, this trying to say one is not responsible for their actions and decision they make in their life is due to their environment, their parents, everything but them is destroying this country. One does not have to be religious to believe in personal responsibility. When it comes to welfare and the safety net, I also believe in the principal of the hand up vs. the hand out which is so popular with the progressives. So I would never make a good Democrat today.

    Classic Liberals and Traditional conservatives were big believers in civil liberties. It is the stance of today’s neo-conservatives and progressives that I find hard to understand. Is government defining marriage or is it people defining marriage? Who should be married? Should that be decided by the government? Marriage is not listed in section 8 Article I as a power for government to decide nor is it prohibited to the states in section 10 Article I. So what may or may not apply is the 14th amendment. But the 14th does not apply if one goes by original intent, it only applies if one throws out the original intent and then in my mind it is questionable. But apparently not in the SCOTUS.

    I suppose what I am saying is let love decide who marries or not. But if government is to define marriage which I think they should not, it should be at the state level. Let the social conservative define marriage as they wish, churches too. They can either recognize gay marriages or not which is up to them. But they should push their definition on others. Gays can be married in their mind and according to the law, if they are not in the minds of some of the religious folks, so be it. I can live with that. They should be able too.

    With dealing with guns I believe in the second amendment where it say shall not be infringed upon means exactly that. A strong defense, that is a no brainier considering my background. But being for a strong defense does not mean I am for all of our around the world escapades or the way they are being handled. I do not think we should be the policeman of the world.
    Greetings, Pero.

    Just because we can do something doesn't mean we always should. How are we helping in the ME? Those religious zealots have been killing each other for 1300 years and we are not going to stop them, IMO. They resent us for even trying, Forcrissakes, and laugh at us! That's the appreciation we get for our efforts? Those that are being beheaded should not have been there as targets for those depraved thugs, even though some were only trying to provide humanitarian aid. That's a reason to kill them? We are not dealing with rational people, and that both scares and disgusts me. So why are we there?

    Off topic, but I hope I chose the correct deity to look after your wife today. She seemed so right for the job!

  8. #58
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    I never heard anything on the young being more and more pro-life. Time will tell if you are right. It is possible and I always believe in possibilities.
    Yup. They are also more pro gay marriage. If that's the trade, it's one I'm happy, frankly, to make.

    Perhaps when it comes social conservatism I do not that that is a precondition to fiscal responsibility. To me being fiscal responsible is not spending more than one takes in. Having 18 trillion and rising in debt is very fiscal irresponsible. Now yes, I would rather have the families of the 1950's when out of wedlock birth was looked down on and was a disgrace. A Father Knows Best or Ozzie and Harriet type family for one and all.

    But that is impossible today. How or why society moved away from that I do not know. Perhaps it was the hippies and free love of the 60's.
    I would bet that a host of government incentives that punish marriage and reward single-parenthood financially also have something to do with it.

    However, if you want to not run a deficit, then you have to reduce social spending. If you want to reduce social spending, then you have to increase social strength. If you want to increase social strength, then you've got to look for ways to enable all of those structures that government is trying (and failing) to take the place of.

    There is nothing wrong in letting a woman decide her own fate. I still look upon it as more as an individual freedom than having the state dictate she must give birth. Then who is going to take care of all these unwanted babies? The state? Would each pro-life family open their homes to these babies?
    I don't know - what do you think should be done with (say) an unwanted three month old? Should the child be thrown off a cliff a'la the Spartans?

    A government role in marriage, no.
    If you are merely expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual and polygamous relationships, then you are keeping a government role in marriage, and simply modifying the relationships that they involve themselves in.

    Although it will be very hard if nearly impossible to get government out of marriage.
    That is because families are (generally) joint economic ventures.

    The IRS code is full of deductions and taxes based on marriage and there is government benefits and the like. But should there be and is it necessary?
    Yes there should be - however, it shouldn't be as it is, where low-income workers are punished for getting married. Stable marriages form the basis for a stable society. Lose the one, and you'll watch the second degrade. They additionally make the best environment for the raising of children, whom society has additional vested interests in protecting.

    This government never kept track who was married until some states began the practice after the civil war. If memory serves me right, Kentucky became the last state to finally keep records on marriages around 1911. But there was no income tax back then.
    There was also precious little divorce back then. Poverty kept us together.

    Polygamy doesn't fit into western society but quite nicely in other societies.
    That is unfortunately not true. Societies that broadly practice polygamy face higher rates of crime, violence, and instability as a result. The main internal problem facing societies is how to civilize and integrate the energies of young males (women, it seems, are less likely to getting into small groups and deciding it might be fun to shoot up a crowd). Pairing them with a woman via marriage is the single best-known methodology for doing that. Polygamy removes that possibility for a portion of the young male populace by soaking up the supply of available females. That is why polygamous societies also tend to be more warlike - you've got to direct the aggressive tendencies of young males outwards and (hopefully) kill enough of them off that the competition over women doesn't threaten social stability. Polygamy tends to damage the societies that feature it.

    But then again with governments involvement in marriage and other things dealing with the repercussions of marriage a ton of laws would have to be changed.
    And much to the worse. What is going to happen when suddenly you lack a basis for buying a car for your wife without having to pay gift tax, or a widow finds herself having to pay gift tax in order to access her financial assets in the event of the death of her husband?

    Now I agree this nations is divided, it has become much more polarized one way or the other. I think ideally for me, I would like the government to be fiscal responsible by not spending more than it takes in and not be involved in things that do no harm to others. So as to the direction of the country, we will see, time will tell.
    Sure. But if we want to do that, we have to provide alternatives to problem-solving for the gaps that would be created by a shrinking government. And that is why you have to start with social conservatism before you can get to fiscal conservatism.

  9. #59
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I approve of limitations on individual liberty when such actions would cause harm to others.
    Liberty is freedom of action. What actions are being limited through government issuance of a marriage license?

  10. #60
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,807

    Re: Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Liberty is freedom of action. What actions are being limited through government issuance of a marriage license?
    Selective issuance of a marriage license limits the choice in whom a private citizen can enter a private contract with.
    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.

Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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