Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 87

Thread: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    A little touchy tonight? How would you feel about an anarchist advocating a tax hike to pay for welfare and bailouts. You wouldn't call him an anarchist would you?
    That's what you want the mods to do?

  2. #22
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    No one's telling gays that they can't do something that's in the privacy of their own home
    Well, not anymore, especially after Texas like Sodomy laws were struck down. But remember who enacted those laws in the first place.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #23
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Correction: statist.

    I'm tired of all these big government people on these boards calling themselves libertarians. It's a shame that the mods don't seem to care either.
    Tell me, I'm a statist yet I want government out of marriage and to let individuals and private entities to determine it? Do you know what statist means?

    Just as it's a shame how big government social cons pretend that they aren't big government. And how liberals here pretend they are conservative. What's your point? Many a so proclaimed Conservative here are more liberal than the actual liberals they insult on a regular basis.

    It's fine that you don't stick so dogmatically to your ideology, but when you find yourself on many positions (especially such important ones) to be completely at odds with the ideology that you claim to be, then maybe you're not really a part of that ideology. Just a thought.
    Maybe you're not, but that's not always a bad thing. Dogmatic beliefs generally are asinine beliefs. But with Libertarianism, you push for the most libertarian of the options. The option that maximizes personal freedom within a rational framework. Sometimes that's takes a liberal slant. Sometimes it's Conservative.

    Ideally from a libertarian view, government would get the hell out of marriage and I've gone on record at least five times calling for just that. Realistically, that ain't going to happen. So what's the next freedom maximizing option? Make gay marriage legal. And to anyone who values marriage on external inputs rather than internal inputs, you got bigger problems. When Britney's Spear's weddings impact the value of your marriage more than what you put into it, it's time to see a marriage counselor.
    Last edited by obvious Child; 06-15-09 at 05:57 AM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Well, not anymore, especially after Texas like Sodomy laws were struck down. But remember who enacted those laws in the first place.
    It doesn't matter since their not on the books. Get over it.

  5. #25
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Tell me, I'm a statist yet I want government out of marriage and to let individuals and private entities to determine it? Do you know what statist means?

    Just as it's a shame how big government social cons pretend that they aren't big government. And how liberals here pretend they are conservative. What's your point? Many a so proclaimed Conservative here are more liberal than the actual liberals they insult on a regular basis.
    Yes, you're a statist despite wanting government out of marriage. There is no way that you can call yourself a libertarian without cringing with all of the things that you've said on these boards.

    Maybe you're not, but that's not always a bad thing. Dogmatic beliefs generally are asinine beliefs. But with Libertarianism, you push for the most libertarian of the options. The option that maximizes personal freedom within a rational framework. Sometimes that's takes a liberal slant. Sometimes it's Conservative.

    Ideally from a libertarian view, government would get the hell out of marriage and I've gone on record at least five times calling for just that. Realistically, that ain't going to happen. So what's the next freedom maximizing option? Make gay marriage legal. And to anyone who values marriage on external inputs rather than internal inputs, you got bigger problems. When Britney's Spear's weddings impact the value of your marriage more than what you put into it, it's time to see a marriage counselor.
    Except I can't support that option and I will never vote my support for it. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what's great about libertarianism. The state is out of it and you can call yourselves whatever you want. I don't mind that, but don't expect me to ever support it.

    But I've heard you on other issues and you seem to never choose the "freedom maximizing option."

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  6. #26
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's what you want the mods to do?
    There should be something to prevent people from mislabelling themselves and doing positions injustice.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    There should be something to prevent people from mislabelling themselves and doing positions injustice.
    There is.

    You.

    As a member, that's your job. That's why you created an account and logged in today. To debate.

    Personally, I got tired of having to keep explaining the basic positions over and over, so I created a post defining each and saved it with all relivent url, quote, color code in the drafts file of my e-mail. I simply post it when needed instead of rehashing the same oll argument.

    I'll go find it and post it here.

    ***
    Here it is, a simple copy&paste from my e-mail:

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative]Conservative[/ame]:
    Conservatism is a relativistic term used to describe political philosophies that favor traditional values, where "tradition" refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, conservâre, to conserve; "to keep, guard, observe". Since different cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have different goals. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante.
    Samuel Francis defined authentic conservatism as “the survival and enhancement of a particular people and its institutionalized cultural expressions.” Roger Scruton calls it “maintenance of the social ecology” and “the politics of delay, the purpose of which is to maintain in being, for as long as possible, the life and health of a social organism
    .”
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism]Liberal[/ame]:
    Liberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which advocate individual liberty. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term has taken on different meanings in different time periods.
    Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.
    Many new liberals advocate a greater degree of government influence in the free market to protect individual rights (in a broad sense), often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives in the market are rejected as interference by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights
    .
    ****************************
    Right:
    In politics, right-wing, the political right, and the right are terms used in the spectrum of Left-Right Politics, and much like the opposite appellation of Left-wing, it has a broad variety of definitions: the same name can, in politics, sometimes mean different things. However, it is generally used to refer to the segments of the political spectrum often associated with any of several strains of conservatism, monarchism, fascism, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, reactionism, some forms of populism, the religious right, nationalism, militarism, realism or simply the opposite of left-wing politics.
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrist]Centrist[/ame]:
    In politics, centrism usually refers to the political ideal of promoting moderate policies which land in the middle ground between different political extremes.
    <snip>
    An alternate definition is to assume that the two poles in question (e.g., Left/Right) are well-defined, and then define as 'centrist' any position which the Left considers too far Right and the Right considers too far Left, and define as a 'Centrist' any person who self-identifies more with those positions than either the Left or the Right. The weakness in this argument is that it is difficult to unambiguously and objectively define both poles at once, but that difficulty affects all political definitions, not just centrists.
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate]Moderate[/ame]:
    In politics, a moderate is an individual who holds the middle position between those generally classified as being left-wing, liberal, or socialist and those seen as right-wing, conservative, or capitalist. An alternate definition, and one widely held among swing voters, is that a moderate is one who has firm convictions on all issues, yet some convictions fall just to the left of the spectrum and some fall just to the right.
    Political moderates usually seek conciliation between the views of various political parties, and often take positions partially derived from opposite views. For example, political moderates might not support the end of private property in the way advocated by Marxists, but they also might not support laissez-faire capitalism.
    Some political moderates are "bi-polar" in the sense that they side with right-wingers on certain classes of issues, but with left-wingers on others, rather than consistently staking out intermediate positions across the board. In the United States, however, the term "libertarian" is often used to denote those who hold fiscal-conservative views on economic issues such as taxes and welfare, but are liberal on social and moral issues like abortion and gay rights. A person holding views opposite to this on both counts—taking a liberal interventionist stand on economic issues while lining up with the conservatives socially and morally—is sometimes characterized as a "communitarian."
    "Moderate" is by definition a relative term, since the position considered moderate depends on the nature of the two (or more) competing ideologies that the moderates are trying to conciliate. As such, the moderates in one country often do not share the views of moderates in other countries. Even within the same country or community, the position considered "moderate" changes over time. For example, in the Southern United States during the first half of the 19th century, supporting slavery was considered a sensible and moderate view to hold. Today, in the same geographical area, supporting slavery is considered dangerous and unacceptable extremism
    .
    Left:
    In politics, the left-wing, the political left, and the left are terms used in the spectrum of Left-Right politics, defined as against the political right and associated, to varying degrees, with social (as opposed to classical) liberalism, progressivism, American liberalism, some forms of populism, social democracy, socialism, communism, syndicalism, some forms of anarchism, communalism, communitarianism, and green politics.
    The left is generally secular. However, in some Roman Catholic countries there is a tradition of Liberation theology which focuses upon "social justice", and in most Protestant countries there is a tradition of Christian Socialism. Religion and left-wing politics have sometimes been allies, for example in the U.S. civil rights movement, and sometimes opponents, for example regarding legalized abortion.
    Those on the left view themselves as "progressive", on the side of social progress and openness to change
    .
    ******************************************
    Independent:
    In politics, an independent is a politician who is not affiliated with any political party. In countries with a two-party system, independents may hold a centrist viewpoint between the two parties, or may feel that neither of the two parties adequately represents their viewpoint.
    Other independent candidates are associated with a political party and may be former members of it, but are not able to stand under its label. For instance, after being expelled from the Labour Party but before joining the Respect Coalition, British Member of Parliament (MP) George Galloway described himself as "Independent Labour".
    A third category of independents are those who may belong to or support a political party but believe they should not formally represent it and thus be subject to its policies. This was common among members of most political parties for the purpose of British local government elections until the last quarter of the twentieth century
    .
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism]Libertarian[/ame]:
    Libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty and avoid abusing their liberty. Broadly speaking, there are two types of libertarians: consequentialists and rights theorists. Rights theorists hold that it is morally imperative that all human interaction, including government interaction with private individuals, should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of force by any person or government, against another person or their property — with "force" meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone — who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle. This form of libertarianism is associated with Objectivists, as well as with individualist anarchists who believe opposition to the state is consistent with this principle.
    Consequentialist libertarians do not have a moral prohibition against "initiation of force," but believe that allowing a very large scope of political and economic liberty results in the maximum well-being or efficiency for a society - even if protecting this liberty involves some initiation of force by government. However, such governmental actions are limited in the free society consequentialists envision. This type of libertarianism is associated with Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek. Some writers who have been called libertarians have also been referred to as classical liberals, by others or themselves. Also, some use the phrase "the freedom philosophy" to refer to libertarianism, classical liberalism, or both.
    Libertarians generally do not oppose force used in response to initiatory aggressions such as violence, fraud or trespassing. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose conscription and the welfare state, because they believe coercing someone to provide charity and military service is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both
    .
    Last edited by Jerry; 06-15-09 at 12:46 PM.

  8. #28
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    There is.

    You.

    As a member, that's your job. That's why you created an account and logged in today. To debate.

    Personally, I got tired of having to keep explaining the basic positions over and over, so I created a post defining each and saved it with all relivent url, quote, color code in the drafts file of my e-mail. I simply post it when needed instead of rehashing the same oll argument.
    But there is nothing forcing people to change those labels. If I completely call out someone and show that they're not a part of that position, then they still can leave that label. The debate wouldn't accomplish anything if that person will still keep that same label.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    But there is nothing forcing people to change those labels. If I completely call out someone and show that they're not a part of that position, then they still can leave that label. The debate wouldn't accomplish anything if that person will still keep that same label.
    The debate with that one specific individual (never mind everyone else on the thread) won't result in the mod team altering the settings in that person's profile, no, but a profile setting hardly wins a debate against you, either.

    While not a profile setting, I encounter the same problem with people who call themselves pro-life yet would still allow a woman to make her own decision. If you would allow a choice, you are pro-choice, not pro-life, no matter how much you personally dislike abortion.

    I suggest using their label against them, or ignore it completely.

  10. #30
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    I know. I'm not dumping on you as if you were stating a fact.
    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    That would be extremely difficult to establish, since marriage has been used in every culture since before written history.
    Yes. But, back in those times, in most if not all cases, there WAS no separation of church and state. Thus, marriage could be both without issue. I consider it a hold-over from then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    If the government were to force churches to perform marriages against their tenets, this would be true. However, as it would be courthouses that perform marriages, not churches, the separation of church and state is not threatened.
    The government is allowed to perform religious ceremonies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Conversely, so would allowing gay marriage.
    Not at all. Allowing gay marriage would simply move the marker as to who is defending the government's position from one group to another. The argument would continue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Well, yes. Removing government, and therefore politics, would indeed remove political debate. However, you would only see the issue picked up just as strongly, if not more so, by theological debate.
    Which is EXACTLY what I want to see happen.
    Since I consider it a religious question in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    See, I'm just not aware of any pro gay marriage position that states that various religions must accept gay marriage within their own churches.
    Well, not directly.
    But since (in my mind, and currently) marriage is both a legal and religious institution, the very act by government of allowing or disallowing it forces the people to accept it one way or another.
    From a legal stand point, this is perfectly reasonable.
    From a religious standpoint, I consider it to be a violation of church and state.

    Thus my position that marriage should cease to have any legal ramifications for a couple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Much has been made of the financial aspect of marriage, but it's more than that. Marriage is a symbol throughout civilization of the ultimate bond between two people . Everything else, such as "civil unions," are watered down concepts which is why a lot of gay people aren't settling for it. And frankly, if marriage were only a religious institution, no atheists would be getting married. Of course, you might say that atheists in this regard are misguided, but that would be highly presumptuous.
    I AM highly presumptuous.
    I presume that gay couples would be perfectly happy with a civil union from a legal standpoint, if everyone else had the same.
    I presume that churches would be perfectly happy to use their internal allowance or restriction on gay marriage as a method to attract members.
    I presume that people who dislike gay marriage would be at least reasonable if it were no longer considered to be BY LAW equal to their own marriage in a non-gay-marriage-allowing church.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    I am not personally familiar with courthouses performing marriages with religious overtones, unless you're interpreting the marriage itself as connoting the religious overtone.
    I was, and am.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    No prob.
    Excellent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    The world is always changing. Sometimes these changes make me uncomfortable, sometimes not. In the end all I can do to deal with it is determine how concretely or abstractly they effect me. If they affect me personally (and perhaps negatively), I decide if I need to adapt or fight back. If abstractly, I adjust my outlook and roll with it. Not only will governments continue to perform marriages, but gay marriage, nationally, is inevitable. People who were against gay marriage will need to adjust their outlook so that they don't feel their own marriages somehow mean less. I'm not trying to sound condescending, it's just that I genuinely see all this as inevitable.
    I personally feel that side-stepping the issue is a better option, from a governmental view. Gay couples getting married in a church which allows such would be a result.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    True that.
    Glad you agree.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •