Marriage is "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival"...

[The Rabbi]

Come on now, you agree with Rabbi on the fundamentals. You both think the state should be in charge of deciding who we can marry. You're just quibbling over details.

Not really. But if someone wants the benefits the state affords, then he has to play by the rules the state sets.
You should really stop being blinded by knee-jerk narco-libertarianism.

Yes. 'Blind' is a word you can throw around with aplomb. Along with your other non-sense terms.

The state shouldn't be in the business of 'affording benefits' to certain classes of people. That's corporatism in a nutshell.

Thats not "corporatism" at all.
Question: Can you think beyond slogans and catch-phrases? That's a serious question.

 

[bendog]

Yes. 'Blind' is a word you can throw around with aplomb. Along with your other non-sense terms.

The state shouldn't be in the business of 'affording benefits' to certain classes of people. That's corporatism in a nutshell.

but when "certain classes" are comprised of all people over age 67 (or thereabouts), there aren't really any certain classes because the class is comprised of all citizens living that long. Further, corporatism in not involved with setting up a legal system of transferring property from one dead citizen to his/her heirs, nor with defining whom may serve as a healthcare decision maker of another citizen.

Corporatism is involved whenever a person's rights depend on which interest group they belong to, rather than their status as a citizen.

Nyet. Now I'd agree if you'd limit it to treating unmarried differently from married, e.g. why have income tax filed jointly or individually. Why give "breeders" benefits over non-breeders.

But corporatism in not involved when a distinction is made because people grow too old to work, or grow sick and need others to help make decisions, or die and leave property to heirs.

 

[dblack]

but when "certain classes" are comprised of all people over age 67 (or thereabouts), there aren't really any certain classes because the class is comprised of all citizens living that long. Further, corporatism in not involved with setting up a legal system of transferring property from one dead citizen to his/her heirs, nor with defining whom may serve as a healthcare decision maker of another citizen.

Corporatism is involved whenever a person's rights depend on which interest group they belong to, rather than their status as a citizen.

I'd agree if you'd limit it to treating unmarried differently from married, e.g. why have income tax filed jointly or individually. Why give "breeders" benefits over non-breeders.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

But corporatism in not involved when a distinction is made because people grow too old to work, or grow sick and need others to help make decisions, or die and leave property to heirs.

What sort of 'distinction' are you talking about here?

 

[bendog]

Corporatism is involved whenever a person's rights depend on which interest group they belong to, rather than their status as a citizen.

I'd agree if you'd limit it to treating unmarried differently from married, e.g. why have income tax filed jointly or individually. Why give "breeders" benefits over non-breeders.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

But corporatism in not involved when a distinction is made because people grow too old to work, or grow sick and need others to help make decisions, or die and leave property to heirs.

What sort of 'distinction' are you talking about here?

well, corporatism is generally defined at differentiating needs/desires of different segments of society, e.g. agrarian v. urban, industrial based v. agrarian. We've had corporate differences since the founders, as the South was always different socially and economically from the north.

However, how can there be corporatism when govt treats ALL alike? We all will grow old, sick and die. If you treat all old people alike, where's the corporatism? It seems to me we are practicing coporatism if we treat old gay people differently than old straights.

I think I understand your gist that we'd be better off without schemes like soc sec and medicare. I disagree with you. But I accept your logic that essentially there is corporatism in because the interests of those getting benefits is made different by the schemes.

However, all citizens must pay taxes. Even assuming adjusting rates on the ablity to pay is setting differences, it becomes even more a distinction when gays/unmarried are denied some advantage given to married folks.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but it seems to me your beliefs are best served when the same rule(s) apply to all equally.

 

[NYcarbineer]

True enough. But... since when is government in charge of reproduction?

The government is in charge of civil marriage

Really? All of them? Are they also in charge of dating?

I'm not aware of civil marriages that are not regulated by law. Maybe you can tell us about them.

 

[Newby]

No matter how many different internet forum discussions you start, no matter what irrelevant "points" that you try to make, no matter how much you complain and vote, there isn't a law against gay marriage and there never will be, and Christianity does not overpower the US Constitution at all, ever.

Get used to it.

You are correct. There is no law against gay marriage. So what are gays upset about?

What aren't the gays upset about? I know a few... drama queens to the last one. But I digress... it's all part of the larger plan to break down all societal norms to the point that anything is acceptable. At that point, we've succumbed to the point that any abomination is ok, no matter how egregious. Think about it... there's even a push now to deem pedophilia a "sexual orientation".

Not quite true, unfortunately. Because if you think gay sex is 'icky' then that's not 'acceptable'. If you want to show openly in public that you're a Chrsitian, that's not acceptable either. If you're gay, tell everyone, even to the point of making a formal media announcement about it and you'll be celebrated. If you're a Christian, just shut the hell up.

Michael Sam - Announces to the world in a pre-arranged press conference that he's gay, 'the world' applauds, not only applauds, but celebrates his 'bravery'. He's drafted despite the fact of poor performance compared to many other athletes.

Tim Tebow - Gives credit to God for his athletic performance quietly on the field - is scorned, made fun of, and told to 'keep his religion to himself', no one wants to hear it.

 

[Seawytch]

Right. And this is where statist authoritarians and libertarians part ways. In your view, ultimately, government 'owns' society and has 'compelling interest' in telling us how to live. I reject that point of view outright.

Nonsense.



Marriage is contract law, a vital and fundamental component of Western civilization.



Which is why denying gay Americans access to that law is repugnant to the Constitution.

There is no class of "gay Americans." People who prefer homosexual sex have every right to marry, just as people who prefer heterosexual sex. There is no discrimination.

Romer v Evans disagrees.

 

[Seawytch]

You are correct. There is no law against gay marriage. So what are gays upset about?

What aren't the gays upset about? I know a few... drama queens to the last one. But I digress... it's all part of the larger plan to break down all societal norms to the point that anything is acceptable. At that point, we've succumbed to the point that any abomination is ok, no matter how egregious. Think about it... there's even a push now to deem pedophilia a "sexual orientation".

Not quite true, unfortunately. Because if you think gay sex is 'icky' then that's not 'acceptable'. If you want to show openly in public that you're a Chrsitian, that's not acceptable either. If you're gay, tell everyone, even to the point of making a formal media announcement about it and you'll be celebrated. If you're a Christian, just shut the hell up.



Michael Sam - Announces to the world in a pre-arranged press conference that he's gay, 'the world' applauds, not only applauds, but celebrates his 'bravery'. He's drafted despite the fact of poor performance compared to many other athletes.



Tim Tebow - Gives credit to God for his athletic performance quietly on the field - is scorned, made fun of, and told to 'keep his religion to himself', no one wants to hear it.

Which NFL star tweeted about Tebow? I would argue that it was Tebows celebrity as a Christian "Warrior" that kept him going long past what his playing ability warranted.

 

[Howey]

We're here, we're queer, we ain't going anywheer!

 

[Avatar4321]

No matter how many different internet forum discussions you start, no matter what irrelevant "points" that you try to make, no matter how much you complain and vote, there isn't a law against gay marriage and there never will be, and Christianity does not overpower the US Constitution at all, ever.

Get used to it.

No one is arguing for a law against gay marriage. We are asking for the government to not recognize such unions as marriage. Why? The same reason we don't demand a law to start calling cats dogs. Because even if we call them dogs, they are still cats.

 

[Howey]

What aren't the gays upset about? I know a few... drama queens to the last one. But I digress... it's all part of the larger plan to break down all societal norms to the point that anything is acceptable. At that point, we've succumbed to the point that any abomination is ok, no matter how egregious. Think about it... there's even a push now to deem pedophilia a "sexual orientation".

Not quite true, unfortunately. Because if you think gay sex is 'icky' then that's not 'acceptable'. If you want to show openly in public that you're a Chrsitian, that's not acceptable either. If you're gay, tell everyone, even to the point of making a formal media announcement about it and you'll be celebrated. If you're a Christian, just shut the hell up.



Michael Sam - Announces to the world in a pre-arranged press conference that he's gay, 'the world' applauds, not only applauds, but celebrates his 'bravery'. He's drafted despite the fact of poor performance compared to many other athletes.



Tim Tebow - Gives credit to God for his athletic performance quietly on the field - is scorned, made fun of, and told to 'keep his religion to himself', no one wants to hear it.

Which NFL star tweeted about Tebow? I would argue that it was Tebows celebrity as a Christian "Warrior" that kept him going long past what his playing ability warranted.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW long.

 

[Avatar4321]

We're here, we're queer, we ain't going anywheer!

No one has told you to go anywhere. We have just said you don't have the right to force us to change the definition of marriage into something it is not and never will be.

 

[Yurt]

so you can't procreate without marriage? you're doing it wrong....

this is such a silly thread and i love how they dismiss couples who can't conceive...they have to be dismissive because it destroys the entire premise for their flawed argument.

 

[Newby]

What aren't the gays upset about? I know a few... drama queens to the last one. But I digress... it's all part of the larger plan to break down all societal norms to the point that anything is acceptable. At that point, we've succumbed to the point that any abomination is ok, no matter how egregious. Think about it... there's even a push now to deem pedophilia a "sexual orientation".

Not quite true, unfortunately. Because if you think gay sex is 'icky' then that's not 'acceptable'. If you want to show openly in public that you're a Chrsitian, that's not acceptable either. If you're gay, tell everyone, even to the point of making a formal media announcement about it and you'll be celebrated. If you're a Christian, just shut the hell up.



Michael Sam - Announces to the world in a pre-arranged press conference that he's gay, 'the world' applauds, not only applauds, but celebrates his 'bravery'. He's drafted despite the fact of poor performance compared to many other athletes.



Tim Tebow - Gives credit to God for his athletic performance quietly on the field - is scorned, made fun of, and told to 'keep his religion to himself', no one wants to hear it.

Which NFL star tweeted about Tebow? I would argue that it was Tebows celebrity as a Christian "Warrior" that kept him going long past what his playing ability warranted.

Who knows? That would have never seen national attention, you obviously need to revisit all the Tebow threads where libs like you spewed hate on him for talking about his faith.

 

[mal]

We're here, we're queer, we ain't going anywheer!

No one has told you to go anywhere. We have just said you don't have the right to force us to change the definition of marriage into something it is not and never will be.

And we'd like them to keep the assless chaps in the bedroom and off of highrise residential streets in the middle of the day where children are...

There's that also.



peace...

 

[mal]

We're here, we're queer, we ain't going anywheer!

Statistically speaking, if you are a Fag in San Fran, there is a 1 in 4 chance you will end up in a Hospice in your 40's dying from complications to a Virus that the Civilized World and Educated People have known how not to Contract for over 3 decades now.



peace...

 

[dblack]

I'd agree if you'd limit it to treating unmarried differently from married, e.g. why have income tax filed jointly or individually. Why give "breeders" benefits over non-breeders.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

But corporatism in not involved when a distinction is made because people grow too old to work, or grow sick and need others to help make decisions, or die and leave property to heirs.

What sort of 'distinction' are you talking about here?

well, corporatism is generally defined at differentiating needs/desires of different segments of society, e.g. agrarian v. urban, industrial based v. agrarian. We've had corporate differences since the founders, as the South was always different socially and economically from the north.

However, how can there be corporatism when govt treats ALL alike? We all will grow old, sick and die. If you treat all old people alike, where's the corporatism? It seems to me we are practicing coporatism if we treat old gay people differently than old straights.

I think I understand your gist that we'd be better off without schemes like soc sec and medicare. I disagree with you. But I accept your logic that essentially that is corporatism in that the interests of those getting benefits is made different by the schemes.

However, all citizens must pay taxes. Even assuming adjusting rates on the ablity to pay is setting differences, it becomes even more a distinction when gays/unmarried are denied some advantage given to married folks.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but it seems to me your beliefs are best served when the same rule(s) apply to all equally.

That's pretty much it, yeah. The age examples you cite are debatable, but you clearly understand what I'm getting at.

My issue is with the notion that any 'advantage' at all is granted to married folks. I don't accept the idea that government has any business telling us what kind of families to form or even that we should. The aspect of corporatism I'm whinging about is that married people are given special perks that non-married people don't get. That's the core of the problem, and the gay marriage issue goes away when that does. If we simply add gays to the list of 'authorized marriages' we're still excluding all other potential forms of marriage contracts.

 

[Erand7899]

It's "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival"... As the Supreme Court pointed out when Blacks and Whites were Denied Marriage...

Blacks and Whites of the Opposite Sex, that is.

you might want to actually read and understand Loving v Virginia.

the concept wasn't about the people's color. it was about marriage being a fundamental right and government needing to have a governmental interest in limiting that fundamental right before it can do so.

your hate doesn't create a governmental interest.

but feel free to take it up with stevie. he seems to share your obsession, mal.

The only interest that government has in marriage is the care and upbringing of children, and that interest is tenuous at best. States should get the hell out of the marriage business and allow contractual law to govern personal relationships.

Children will be no worse off without government, than they are with government, and in most cases, will be better off under contract law.

That will solve all of the perceived faults, and serve the interests of hetrosexuals, homosexuals, and those who want group marriage. Little boys and little girls will still be off limits to the perverts. Animals may not be.

 

[dblack]

The government is in charge of civil marriage

Really? All of them? Are they also in charge of dating?

I'm not aware of civil marriages that are not regulated by law. Maybe you can tell us about them.

Well, now you're equivocating. They're 'regulated by law' in as much as any contract is, but government is not (or certainly shouldn't be in my view) in charge of our marriage customs. Some of you seem to have no limit to the extent you want government interfering in our lives.

 

[The Rabbi]

so you can't procreate without marriage? you're doing it wrong....

this is such a silly thread and i love how they dismiss couples who can't conceive...they have to be dismissive because it destroys the entire premise for their flawed argument.

Damn, did I call it or what?