Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[bodecea]

Because we are allowed to accept or not accept the choices of others without having government force it upon us.... hence why government should be out of the choices of 'marriage' except for things revolving around government such as taxes, inheritance, etc...

You have the right not to accept the behavior of others... you don't have to hire a person who chooses the have facial tattoos or who openly participates in satanic rituals... you don't have to rent your available room out to someone who does not meet behavior that is compatible with yours

And that is the thing here.... have the freedom to choose whomever you wish to be with, file a tax return with them, pass on your worldly possessions, make medical decisions when they are in a coma... fine.. great... but do not use government to force your choice upon the freedoms of others...

being yellow skinned or brown eyes or male or a dwarf or whatever is not a choice and should not be subject to rejection (unless you are a paraplegic applying to paint houses or crap that is that obvious).... a pattern or history of behavior and/or choice can be subject to the freedom of others to accept that behavior or not

I agree that government should be out of the marriage business. But if they are going to extend legal privileges to one group they must extend it equally to all. If they recognize marriage for taxes, survivor benefits, life and death decisions for heterosexuals......they must do the same for homosexuals

The government shouldnt be telling you who you are allowed to love

Not even if who you love is a cocker spaniel.

Hey, if you can get your True Love to consent and sign a marriage contract.....DO let us know.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

[It doesn't really matter because I'm not arguing whether or not gay marriage should be legal. I already said I have no problem with it.

My point is that there is no reason for people to participate in a voter referendum if in the end one party will sue to get the results they ultimately want.

people's rights shouldn't be put to a referendum, imo. your rights are either protected or they aren't.

I agree, so get rid of it.

people would probably vote for jim crow laws in certain places if that was put to a referendum.

Highly unlikely in 2012 and the tyranny and oppression of Jim Crow was inflicted by the hand of government, not your average every day individual. The government has always been the most guilty discriminating body in the country.

 

[g5000]

I could never understand why you would be legally allowed to marry one woman and have illegitimate children with the other two but if you tried to legally acknowledge the other relationships you are breaking the law

Polygamy invariably means one man, more than one woman. It never means one woman, several men.

And so women end up subordinated to men. So that is harm #1.

Through the basics of math, available women for marriage become more and more scarce, which inevitably leads to female children being forced into marriage. It is also very common for incestous marriages to occur for the same reasons. So that is harm #2 and harm #3.

The slippery slope argument fails.

Really... polygamy invariably means one man and many women?

For all intents and purposes, yes. You see any one woman, multiple men marriages in the Bible being so vigrously waved about in this topic?

No. It's all one man, multiple women.

You know of any one woman, multiple men marriages in the Islamic world? What's the ratio to one men, multiple women?

How about in the rogue Mormon sects?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Boy, you could not be more wrong. Libertarian policy is to get the government out of marriage entirely.

No cash and prizes for anyone.

It does not get more equal and more small government than that!

You're right - the government(s) shouldn't recognize marriage....

Marriage is not an issue the government should be involved.

If a state government want's to they have every right to do such and if the residents of the state do not want - and democratically - reject civil unions then that is that.

The federal government should play no role in state issues - especially after direct democracy.

So you oppose the Defense of Marriage Act

And in what universe were individuals prevented to marry under the Bill of Rights???

Once again the TENTH AMENDMENT...

The Bill of Rights never mentioned marriage.

 

[g5000]

people would probably vote for jim crow laws in certain places if that was put to a referendum.

Highly unlikely in 2012 and the tyranny and oppression of Jim Crow was inflicted by the hand of government, not your average every day individual.

What do you think Prop 8 was, an individual?

From where did the Jim Crow government get its power? Why were they not voted out of office?

Because it is what the people wanted. They voted for it.

 

[CausingPAIN]

Homosexuals didn't get to vote?

So the 95% who are not homosexual got to vote on what rights could be extended to the 5% who are

It doesn't really matter because I'm not arguing whether or not gay marriage should be legal. I already said I have no problem with it.

My point is that there is no reason for people to participate in a voter referendum if in the end one party will sue to get the results they ultimately want.

This is a two way street by all anyhow, I can live with high 2/3 and above vote ruling over the
little ones , all others are fair game and the game. Got my hit in face long ago. I know all
are fully aware of this part and plan for it. And they still live next to us in sin and shame!...Well? something.
btw Hang Chad is about the same and real, close so just one vote win game…so you be well that’s it? 50/50 great.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Boy, you could not be more wrong. Libertarian policy is to get the government out of marriage entirely.

No cash and prizes for anyone.

It does not get more equal and more small government than that!

You're right - the government(s) shouldn't recognize marriage....

Marriage is not an issue the government should be involved.

If a state government want's to they have every right to do such and if the residents of the state do not want - and democratically - reject civil unions then that is that.

The federal government should play no role in state issues - especially after direct democracy.

I'm all for the state and federal governments removing cash and prizes from the table. You should be getting married for other reasons.

Agreed.

 

[jillian]

I could never understand why you would be legally allowed to marry one woman and have illegitimate children with the other two but if you tried to legally acknowledge the other relationships you are breaking the law

Polygamy invariably means one man, more than one woman. It never means one woman, several men.

And so women end up subordinated to men. So that is harm #1.

Through the basics of math, available women for marriage become more and more scarce, which inevitably leads to female children being forced into marriage. It is also very common for incestous marriages to occur for the same reasons. So that is harm #2 and harm #3.

The slippery slope argument fails.

Really... polygamy invariably means one man and many women?

actually, yes. iirc, polygyny is one woman, multiple men.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I don't know about you guys but I knew I was straight when I saw a girls naked ass for the first time and got a chubby.

but what about the little guy next to you that got a chubby when he saw your naked ass HG?......

 

[mudwhistle]

Who cares if it is genetic or a personal choice?

If you are in love with someone of your own sex you should be allowed to marry them if you CHOOSE........just like anyone else

Because we are allowed to accept or not accept the choices of others without having government force it upon us.... hence why government should be out of the choices of 'marriage' except for things revolving around government such as taxes, inheritance, etc...

You have the right not to accept the behavior of others... you don't have to hire a person who chooses the have facial tattoos or who openly participates in satanic rituals... you don't have to rent your available room out to someone who does not meet behavior that is compatible with yours

And that is the thing here.... have the freedom to choose whomever you wish to be with, file a tax return with them, pass on your worldly possessions, make medical decisions when they are in a coma... fine.. great... but do not use government to force your choice upon the freedoms of others...

being yellow skinned or brown eyes or male or a dwarf or whatever is not a choice and should not be subject to rejection (unless you are a paraplegic applying to paint houses or crap that is that obvious).... a pattern or history of behavior and/or choice can be subject to the freedom of others to accept that behavior or not

I agree that government should be out of the marriage business. But if they are going to extend legal privileges to one group they must extend it equally to all. If they recognize marriage for taxes, survivor benefits, life and death decisions for heterosexuals......they must do the same for homosexuals

The government shouldnt be telling you who you are allowed to love

They don't.

Not everyone marries for love.

 

[Katzndogz]

No more and no less than if that photographer and a caterer refused service to an interracial couple or an interfaith couple.

You personally would find that the photographer and the caterer has the right then to deny services based on their personal opinion.

That is NOT what she said. She said since the law FORCES them to serve anyone that she is ok with that.

I got that part. It is sad in so many ways because this was a great nation at one time.

 

[g5000]

You're right - the government(s) shouldn't recognize marriage....

Marriage is not an issue the government should be involved.

If a state government want's to they have every right to do such and if the residents of the state do not want - and democratically - reject civil unions then that is that.

The federal government should play no role in state issues - especially after direct democracy.

So you oppose the Defense of Marriage Act

And in what universe were individuals prevented to marry under the Bill of Rights???

Once again the TENTH AMENDMENT...

The Bill of Rights never mentioned marriage.

Where was all this screaming about the TENTH AMENDMENT when the FEDERAL government started handing out cash and prizes to married people?

And since when does the TENTH AMENDMENT permit the violation of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT?

You seem to believe the TENTH AMENDMENT means the people can vote to do anything they wish.

 

[Mr.Nick]

meanwhile....the libertarian ignores the 14th amendment

meanwhile 10 is before 14...

Amendments xi-xxvii are redundant..

you can't much more stupid than this..

in what universe was gay marriage/civil unions illegal in the first place?

In what universe were woman forbidden to vote in the first place.

In what universe was slavery legal in the first place???

So why the fuck would someone write an amendment that protects individuals that were already protected???

Redundancy....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What you're attracted to isn't a choice.

It'd probably be better if i weren't attracted to big knockers and a nice can until i were ready for kids and marriage that way I didn't accidentally get a girl pregnant before marriage.

But that's not how it works.

There are genetic reasons why you are a male or female.. there are genetic reasons why you have brown eyes or blue eyes.. there are genetic reasons why your skin is brown or white or yellow or whatever pigment...

There is no proof that there is a genetic cause to being gay or what you are attracted to... while it may not be ENTIRELY correct that it is conscious choice, it can also be based on exposure, experiences, conditions, etc..

just sayin'

Who cares if it is genetic or a personal choice?

If you are in love with someone of your own sex you should be allowed to marry them if you CHOOSE........just like anyone else

BUT you should not be allowed to marry your sibling right? Even if both of you are adults and it is consensual? And since multiple marriage is illegal when do you plan to protest THAT violation ( according to your theory) of their Civil Rights?

 

[g5000]

meanwhile 10 is before 14...

Amendments xi-xxvii are redundant..

you can't much more stupid than this..

in what universe was gay marriage/civil unions illegal in the first place?

In what universe were woman forbidden to vote in the first place.

In what universe was slavery legal in the first place???

So why the fuck would someone write an amendment that protects individuals that were already protected???

Redundancy....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0]Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr.Nick]

So you oppose the Defense of Marriage Act

And in what universe were individuals prevented to marry under the Bill of Rights???

Once again the TENTH AMENDMENT...

The Bill of Rights never mentioned marriage.

Where was all this screaming about the TENTH AMENDMENT when the FEDERAL government started handing out cash and prizes to married people?

And since when does the TENTH AMENDMENT permit the violation of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT?

You seem to believe the TENTH AMENDMENT means the people can vote to do anything they wish.

The Fourteenth Amendment is redundant, not to mention tyrannical..

 

[Mr.Nick]

Who banned blacks from voting, who banned woman from voting???

Someone tell me that??

 

[g5000]

BUT you should not be allowed to marry your sibling right? Even if both of you are adults and it is consensual? And since multiple marriage is illegal when do you plan to protest THAT violation ( according to your theory) of their Civil Rights?

Incest causes harm. And I have outlined the harm caused by polygamy.

So your comparison of these harmful practices to harmless gay relationships is illogical.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have no links yet.... but same sex marriage is a go in California again.

They let California citizens vote on it via direct democracy - they voted against the idea.

TYRANNY...

The Tenth Amendment won...

Our country is going to shit...

I suppose if you don't like a constitutional outcome you find a judge that will take your position..

Every progressive in this country belongs in prison.

If the Democrat FDR can throw the Japanese, communists and Italians in prison then we can throw progressives in prison - using their own Authoritarian logic...

The Libertarian wants to tell others who they are allowed to fall in love with

The Libertarian wants government in your bedroom

Love is not a valid argument dumb ass.

 

[Luissa]

I have no problem with gay marriage, but the people of California voted not to have it in their state. If judges are just going to overturn the will of the people then why vote at all?

But it was a right already given to the people. The judge ruled it was unconstitutional to then take it away.