A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[Artevelde]

OK, Just as I thought. People in favor of the redefinition of marriage have no social constraints what-so-ever.

Would you legalize public sex by the same reasoning?

Wrong, bucko. I have many social constraints that I live in accordance by, and will teach my children to adhere to. However, I don’t believe it is the place of the government to ENFORCE social constraints upon my life unless absolutely necessary when my rights or my property is at risk.

Personally, I would rather live in an environment where I am free to choose, vs a communist state where the government makes those choices for me.

What about you?

I would like to live in an environment where local governments do ENFORCE laws against public sex, and disturbingly loud noises in public. How about you?

I would have to agree.

 

[WinterBorn]

OK, Just as I thought. People in favor of the redefinition of marriage have no social constraints what-so-ever.

Would you legalize public sex by the same reasoning?

Wrong, bucko. I have many social constraints that I live in accordance by, and will teach my children to adhere to. However, I don’t believe it is the place of the government to ENFORCE social constraints upon my life unless absolutely necessary when my rights or my property is at risk.

Personally, I would rather live in an environment where I am free to choose, vs a communist state where the government makes those choices for me.

What about you?

Newsflash: if you want to live in society there are societal constraints. Of course you can always decide to become a hermit and seperate yourself completely from society. Good luck with that.

And who determines what those constraints will be?? If no one is harmed, what business is it of anyone else?

Also, any restraints by mutual agreement in society is fine. But when you use the gov't to reward one couple and withhold that reward from another, without legitimate reason, you have reduced out gov't to an institution of prejudice and bigotry.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Most of the polls I have seen do not show this amendment passing. So I guess we'll see gay marriages being performed in Ashville in the mountains??

Actually the polls do show it passing, mostly because the people voting don't understand what it really does.

The polls show the majority likely voters support the ban on same-sex marriage component, but don't support the ban on civil unions component.

PPP: NC Marriage Amendment Poised To Pass | TPM Livewire



The fact that this vote was scheduled on the day of the Republican primary I'm sure in coincidental.


>>>>

 

[KevinWestern]

OK, Just as I thought. People in favor of the redefinition of marriage have no social constraints what-so-ever.

Would you legalize public sex by the same reasoning?

Wrong, bucko. I have many social constraints that I live in accordance by, and will teach my children to adhere to. However, I don’t believe it is the place of the government to ENFORCE social constraints upon my life unless absolutely necessary when my rights or my property is at risk.

Personally, I would rather live in an environment where I am free to choose, vs a communist state where the government makes those choices for me.

What about you?

Newsflash: if you want to live in society there are societal constraints. Of course you can always decide to become a hermit and seperate yourself completely from society. Good luck with that.

Art – You totally lost me here as I have no idea what you’re talking about. When did I say that I want to do away with social norms and constraints?

My argument was that social norms should NOT be maintained and regulated by the government, as they would in a Communist setup. I think individuals should have the freedom to choose. If their wild choices means that they get alienated from whatever culture they’re a part of – so be it. I just don’t think that the choice itself should be made illegal if it’s not threatening another individuals rights or property. See the difference?

 

[WinterBorn]

North Carolina will always be a no we are going to have a Constitutional amendment. So if you want a gay marriage do not come to North Carolina.

I'll remember you, when that day comes.

Well after tomorrow and the amendment get's past gay marriage is dead in the water for North Carolina that is.

And if it does not pass? Will you say gay marriage is alive and well for NC?

 

[Artevelde]

Wrong, bucko. I have many social constraints that I live in accordance by, and will teach my children to adhere to. However, I don’t believe it is the place of the government to ENFORCE social constraints upon my life unless absolutely necessary when my rights or my property is at risk.

Personally, I would rather live in an environment where I am free to choose, vs a communist state where the government makes those choices for me.

What about you?

Newsflash: if you want to live in society there are societal constraints. Of course you can always decide to become a hermit and seperate yourself completely from society. Good luck with that.

And who determines what those constraints will be?? If no one is harmed, what business is it of anyone else?

Also, any restraints by mutual agreement in society is fine. But when you use the gov't to reward one couple and withhold that reward from another, without legitimate reason, you have reduced out gov't to an institution of prejudice and bigotry.

Every single piece of legislation is the imposition of societal constraints. In most Western countries we have a democratic process for this.

 

[Artevelde]

Wrong, bucko. I have many social constraints that I live in accordance by, and will teach my children to adhere to. However, I don’t believe it is the place of the government to ENFORCE social constraints upon my life unless absolutely necessary when my rights or my property is at risk.

Personally, I would rather live in an environment where I am free to choose, vs a communist state where the government makes those choices for me.

What about you?

Newsflash: if you want to live in society there are societal constraints. Of course you can always decide to become a hermit and seperate yourself completely from society. Good luck with that.

Art – You totally lost me here as I have no idea what you’re talking about. When did I say that I want to do away with social norms and constraints?

My argument was that social norms should NOT be maintained and regulated by the government, as they would in a Communist setup. I think individuals should have the freedom to choose. If their wild choices means that they get alienated from whatever culture they’re a part of – so be it. I just don’t think that the choice itself should be made illegal if it’s not threatening another individuals rights or property. See the difference?

Since I lost you, let's try and see if I can find you again.

A society cannot exist without some of its rules being enforced by the state. Mind you, for me society is always much broader than the state and the sphere of the state should be limited. But it has a place nevertheless.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You've got it backward. It's a very tiny minority who wants to change this social norm.

Actually, let last to vote (Prop 8 California, and Question 1 Maine) both passed by less than 3%.

That means 47% voted FOR allowing same-sex couples to be treated the same under the law as different sex couples.


47% is not a "tiny minority", it is a significant minority and history shows that in general that minority has been growing in every demographic examined.



>>>>

 

[WinterBorn]

I think a better question is: why do you want to use the government to as a tool force upon the population what you happen to think is normal?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the government to just step back, and allow people the right to choose who they would like to spend the rest of their lives with? I’m done with the authoritarian nanny-state regulations that you appear to support (what are you, some kind of commie?), I want a government that puts the power of choice in the hands of the individual.

The role of the Federal Government is to protect our rights and our property. It’s NOT to nanny-sit us and restrict our freedoms unnecessarily.

.
.
.

I am all for removing the gov't from the marriage equation. And removing the benefits that go with it.

Wow, Your statement is proof that the gay marriage debate IS destroying the institution of marriage.

However, I do agree that the federal government shout stay out of it. Marriage has always been an issue for the states. I also believe in a Flat tax with no deductions for anyone, the rich, the poor or the married.

My statement does nothing of the kind. In fact, I would argue that removal of the gov't and the benefits would strengthen marriage. There are couples who marry strictly for the benefits. That certainly weakens the institution. Without those benefits and without gov't interference, the institution itself would be stronger.

 

[WinterBorn]

Newsflash: if you want to live in society there are societal constraints. Of course you can always decide to become a hermit and seperate yourself completely from society. Good luck with that.

And who determines what those constraints will be?? If no one is harmed, what business is it of anyone else?

Also, any restraints by mutual agreement in society is fine. But when you use the gov't to reward one couple and withhold that reward from another, without legitimate reason, you have reduced out gov't to an institution of prejudice and bigotry.

Every single piece of legislation is the imposition of societal constraints. In most Western countries we have a democratic process for this.

And any legislation that bans something that does no harm is wrong. Yes, we have a somewhat democratic process for this.

 

[Artevelde]

You've got it backward. It's a very tiny minority who wants to change this social norm.

Actually, let last to vote (Prop 8 California, and Question 1 Maine) both passed by less than 3%.

That means 47% voted FOR allowing same-sex couples to be treated the same under the law as different sex couples.


47% is not a "tiny minority", it is a significant minority and history shows that in general that minority has been growing in every demographic examined.



>>>>

I tend to look at things that are so fundamental as marriage in a bit broader perspective. 47% of the California electorate translates into a very tiny fraction of the US population and an almost meaningless spat of global society.

 

[BDBoop]

You've got it backward. It's a very tiny minority who wants to change this social norm.

As for how it would harm society. Marriage is the foundation stone of the family unit which is the cornerstone of society (in many ways, one of the most important of which is also the raising and education of children). This is not something that should be tampered with lightly, on a whim.

This is hardly a whim.

But the important distinction you are ignoring is that these gay couples are already living together in our society. They are already productive members of our society. They are often already raising children. We simply think they should have the same gov't benefits for doing so.

It is a whim. You point it out yourself by writing that they are already living together. Obviously they are, so what?

And government benefits as an argument? Please. Personally, I don't see why there should be any government benefits to being married.

So what? They should be able to live together with full legal and religious rights accorded. I know this will come as a total shock to you, but some among them are christians, and feel they are living in sin.

 

[WinterBorn]

Newsflash: if you want to live in society there are societal constraints. Of course you can always decide to become a hermit and seperate yourself completely from society. Good luck with that.

Art – You totally lost me here as I have no idea what you’re talking about. When did I say that I want to do away with social norms and constraints?

My argument was that social norms should NOT be maintained and regulated by the government, as they would in a Communist setup. I think individuals should have the freedom to choose. If their wild choices means that they get alienated from whatever culture they’re a part of – so be it. I just don’t think that the choice itself should be made illegal if it’s not threatening another individuals rights or property. See the difference?

Since I lost you, let's try and see if I can find you again.

A society cannot exist without some of its rules being enforced by the state. Mind you, for me society is always much broader than the state and the sphere of the state should be limited. But it has a place nevertheless.

And those societal rules are great when they protect someone, or prevent harm. But to have societal rules (enforced by the gov't) against things you simply find distasteful is simply using the power of the mob to enforce worthless restrictions by busybodies.

 

[BDBoop]

You've got it backward. It's a very tiny minority who wants to change this social norm.

Actually, let last to vote (Prop 8 California, and Question 1 Maine) both passed by less than 3%.

That means 47% voted FOR allowing same-sex couples to be treated the same under the law as different sex couples.


47% is not a "tiny minority", it is a significant minority and history shows that in general that minority has been growing in every demographic examined.



>>>>

I tend to look at things that are so fundamental as marriage in a bit broader perspective. 47% of the California electorate translates into a very tiny fraction of the US population and an almost meaningless spat of global society.

What, because extrapolation is against your personal belief system?

 

[Artevelde]

And who determines what those constraints will be?? If no one is harmed, what business is it of anyone else?

Also, any restraints by mutual agreement in society is fine. But when you use the gov't to reward one couple and withhold that reward from another, without legitimate reason, you have reduced out gov't to an institution of prejudice and bigotry.

Every single piece of legislation is the imposition of societal constraints. In most Western countries we have a democratic process for this.

And any legislation that bans something that does no harm is wrong. Yes, we have a somewhat democratic process for this.

Well, most people disagree with you that it does no harm. Many things are banned "that do no harm." And for the record: nothing is "banned" here. Marriage is simply what it is meant to be and not what it is not meant to be.

 

[Artevelde]

Art – You totally lost me here as I have no idea what you’re talking about. When did I say that I want to do away with social norms and constraints?

My argument was that social norms should NOT be maintained and regulated by the government, as they would in a Communist setup. I think individuals should have the freedom to choose. If their wild choices means that they get alienated from whatever culture they’re a part of – so be it. I just don’t think that the choice itself should be made illegal if it’s not threatening another individuals rights or property. See the difference?

Since I lost you, let's try and see if I can find you again.

A society cannot exist without some of its rules being enforced by the state. Mind you, for me society is always much broader than the state and the sphere of the state should be limited. But it has a place nevertheless.

And those societal rules are great when they protect someone, or prevent harm. But to have societal rules (enforced by the gov't) against things you simply find distasteful is simply using the power of the mob to enforce worthless restrictions by busybodies.

So broadcasting hardcore pornography on a big screen in the middle of town shouldn't be banned according to you?

 

[Artevelde]

Actually, let last to vote (Prop 8 California, and Question 1 Maine) both passed by less than 3%.

That means 47% voted FOR allowing same-sex couples to be treated the same under the law as different sex couples.


47% is not a "tiny minority", it is a significant minority and history shows that in general that minority has been growing in every demographic examined.



>>>>

I tend to look at things that are so fundamental as marriage in a bit broader perspective. 47% of the California electorate translates into a very tiny fraction of the US population and an almost meaningless spat of global society.

What, because extrapolation is against your personal belief system?

I know you are too stupid to grasp this, but "extrapolation" is not a democratic process.

 

[WinterBorn]

Since I lost you, let's try and see if I can find you again.

A society cannot exist without some of its rules being enforced by the state. Mind you, for me society is always much broader than the state and the sphere of the state should be limited. But it has a place nevertheless.

And those societal rules are great when they protect someone, or prevent harm. But to have societal rules (enforced by the gov't) against things you simply find distasteful is simply using the power of the mob to enforce worthless restrictions by busybodies.

So broadcasting hardcore pornography on a big screen in the middle of town shouldn't be banned according to you?

Kind of extreme example, isn't it? Also, showing pornography in public would expose children to it. And that would cause harm.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You've got it backward. It's a very tiny minority who wants to change this social norm.

Actually, let last to vote (Prop 8 California, and Question 1 Maine) both passed by less than 3%.

That means 47% voted FOR allowing same-sex couples to be treated the same under the law as different sex couples.


47% is not a "tiny minority", it is a significant minority and history shows that in general that minority has been growing in every demographic examined.



>>>>

I tend to look at things that are so fundamental as marriage in a bit broader perspective. 47% of the California electorate translates into a very tiny fraction of the US population and an almost meaningless spat of global society.

OK, I show you were those who support Same-sex Civil Marriage are not a "tiny minority" based on state actions, now the claim is that those who support Same-sex Civil Marriage are only a tiny fraction of the US population. Yet voting history comparing 2000/2004 and 2008/2009 shows huge shifts in the support for Same-sex Civil Marriage and polling data going back 25-years shows a consent trend in continued support.


Any way you slice it, voting history or polling history - the idea that support for Same-sex Civil Marriage only exists in a "tiny minority" or "tiny fraction" of the population is - well - false.


>>>>

 

[BDBoop]

Christ! It's like the entire season of Dancing With the Stars being broadcast in one thread. You make a good point, he switches partners and does the fandango. Then the cha-cha. Then the morange. The the foxtrot, generally at the end of whiskey-tango.

Pick a hill and die on it. You lose, you lose but you've changed the dance so many times, half the board is seasick.