"Smaller government" advocates

[frigidweirdo]

Funny how the US Constitution becomes soooo important for some things, but when the 14th Amendment protects people's ability to marry, like gay people, then the Constitution is suddenly bad.

People's ability to marry was never in jeopardy. What was in question was whether our government should recognize the marriage or not. In most states, people voted against such recognition, but our weak kneed judges obviously thought that the vote of the people shouldn't count.

You can apply the 14th to just about anything, but our founders never once mentioned marriage in the US Constitution.

Well, marriage wasn't necessarily the issue anyway. It was whether people could gain the benefits from marrying or not. This is about recognizing the marriage.

Yeah, in some states people failed to understand the principles the country is based upon. Hardly surprising seeing how they vote on a consistent basis.

The "weak kneed judges" who implemented the Constitution AS IT SHOULD BE clearly thought that human rights should NOT be available for the general public to decide who get protections and who shouldn't, just like the "weak kneed" founding fathers too.

Really? The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

The Founding Fathers made the BILL OF RIGHTS, and they made the Bill of Rights to be protected for ALL PEOPLE, not just the will of the majority. That was my point. It wasn't about whether they'd agree with the 14th or not.

Fine, marriage should have nothing to do with the govt.

However under the LAW the govt does get in on it, and it does offer things that you only get if you're married. Therefore gay people need to be able to get such things, and the only way to get such things is through marriage.

So, two choices. Govt gets out of marriage, or gay people can get married. Seeing as the former isn't going to happen, the latter is there.

I see, so the reason to allow gay marriage is because of government benefits?

Okay, so what if brother and sister want such benefits, should they be allowed to marry too?

How about father and daughter? I'm sure she could use that extra SS money after pop dies.

And let's not leave out the gay community: how about mother and daughter getting married? We certainly can't deny them any government benefits.

But I'm sure our founders would welcome these types of marriages so that nobody is left out of government benefits, don't you think?

The reason to allow gay marriage is because it's fair.

The theory of Human Rights basically dictates that you can do what you like as long as you don't hurt others. Brother and sister marrying is not allowed because any offspring from such a relationship is at risk, because for some biological reason bad things happen when children are born to such close relatives.

Also, when you marry you become related. You're already related as brother and sister. Therefore you don't need to get married to be related. Things like inheritance aren't a problem between siblings whereas they are for those who can't get married.

For example, a gay couple decided that the older one (by a year or two) would adopt the younger one in order to get the security they could not get because gay marriage had been unavailable.

Gay couple, one of whom adopted the other, has adoption vacated now that they can marry

"
Gay couple, one of whom adopted the other, has adoption vacated now that they can marry"

"So, in 2000, Novak adopted MacArthur – two years his junior – as his son. The move reduced their inheritance tax liability and gave them hospital visitation and other legal rights then unavailable to same-sex couples."

Inheritance tax is a massive issue.

How Marriage Inequality Prompts Gay Partners to Adopt One Another

"The couple told ABC News that they were primarily concerned about Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax, which could make one partner liable for a 15 percent tax on the estate (as opposed to 4 percent if they pushed ahead with adoption). "

An Overview of Federal Rights Granted to Married Couples | Human Rights Campaign

"There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law."

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

Well said...

I'd only add, that 'Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman'.

And cheese means mold, well it did in the olden days, but the word changed.

Things change. The English speaking world has the UK, Australia, South Africa, the US and parts of Canada with marriage meaning two consenting adults. I'm sorry you can't cope with change.

Yet Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman.

This being defined through the physiological standard of the human species... Wherein such is designed with two distinct, but complementing genders; each specifically designed to join with the other.

See how that works?

 

[Arianrhod]

The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

Well said...

I'd only add, that 'Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman'.

And cheese means mold, well it did in the olden days, but the word changed.

Things change. The English speaking world has the UK, Australia, South Africa, the US and parts of Canada with marriage meaning two consenting adults. I'm sorry you can't cope with change.

Yet Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman.

This being defined through the physiological standard of the human species... Wherein such is designed with two distinct, but complementing genders; each specifically designed to join with the other.

See how that works?

Not throughout most of human history, especially as cited in the Bible.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

Well said...

I'd only add, that 'Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman'.

And cheese means mold, well it did in the olden days, but the word changed.

Things change. The English speaking world has the UK, Australia, South Africa, the US and parts of Canada with marriage meaning two consenting adults. I'm sorry you can't cope with change.

Yet Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman.

This being defined through the physiological standard of the human species... Wherein such is designed with two distinct, but complementing genders; each specifically designed to join with the other.

See how that works?

But it's not, you see? You only need to look at the English speaking world to see that it's changed.

I see how it USED TO WORK. If only you'd see how it NOW WORKS.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

People's ability to marry was never in jeopardy. What was in question was whether our government should recognize the marriage or not. In most states, people voted against such recognition, but our weak kneed judges obviously thought that the vote of the people shouldn't count.

You can apply the 14th to just about anything, but our founders never once mentioned marriage in the US Constitution.

Well, marriage wasn't necessarily the issue anyway. It was whether people could gain the benefits from marrying or not. This is about recognizing the marriage.

Yeah, in some states people failed to understand the principles the country is based upon. Hardly surprising seeing how they vote on a consistent basis.

The "weak kneed judges" who implemented the Constitution AS IT SHOULD BE clearly thought that human rights should NOT be available for the general public to decide who get protections and who shouldn't, just like the "weak kneed" founding fathers too.

Really? The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

The Founding Fathers made the BILL OF RIGHTS, and they made the Bill of Rights to be protected for ALL PEOPLE, not just the will of the majority. That was my point. It wasn't about whether they'd agree with the 14th or not.

Fine, marriage should have nothing to do with the govt.

However under the LAW the govt does get in on it, and it does offer things that you only get if you're married. Therefore gay people need to be able to get such things, and the only way to get such things is through marriage.

So, two choices. Govt gets out of marriage, or gay people can get married. Seeing as the former isn't going to happen, the latter is there.

I see, so the reason to allow gay marriage is because of government benefits?

Okay, so what if brother and sister want such benefits, should they be allowed to marry too?

How about father and daughter? I'm sure she could use that extra SS money after pop dies.

And let's not leave out the gay community: how about mother and daughter getting married? We certainly can't deny them any government benefits.

But I'm sure our founders would welcome these types of marriages so that nobody is left out of government benefits, don't you think?

The reason to allow gay marriage is because it's fair.

The theory of Human Rights basically dictates that you can do what you like as long as you don't hurt others. Brother and sister marrying is not allowed because any offspring from such a relationship is at risk, because for some biological reason bad things happen when children are born to such close relatives.

Also, when you marry you become related. You're already related as brother and sister. Therefore you don't need to get married to be related. Things like inheritance aren't a problem between siblings whereas they are for those who can't get married.

For example, a gay couple decided that the older one (by a year or two) would adopt the younger one in order to get the security they could not get because gay marriage had been unavailable.

Gay couple, one of whom adopted the other, has adoption vacated now that they can marry

"
Gay couple, one of whom adopted the other, has adoption vacated now that they can marry"

"So, in 2000, Novak adopted MacArthur – two years his junior – as his son. The move reduced their inheritance tax liability and gave them hospital visitation and other legal rights then unavailable to same-sex couples."

Inheritance tax is a massive issue.

How Marriage Inequality Prompts Gay Partners to Adopt One Another

"The couple told ABC News that they were primarily concerned about Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax, which could make one partner liable for a 15 percent tax on the estate (as opposed to 4 percent if they pushed ahead with adoption). "

An Overview of Federal Rights Granted to Married Couples | Human Rights Campaign

"There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law."

Wait a minute, I thought you said marriage was necessary because of government benefits; that we shouldn't be allowed to deny any people those benefits.

No, you are not "related" once you are married. You are simply two different people that took a religious vow or obtained a government sanction.

So you have marriage standards and limitations but others shouldn't? How is that right? If this is all about government benefits as you say, then no two people should be forbidden that right as you call it. For that matter, several people shouldn't be forbidden those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids if they get married. Well, why can't brother and sister have kids without being married? If that's the problem, then it okay that father and son get married, or sister and sister? You're okay with that, right?

It seems to me you are a hypocrite. Most of society wanted to limit marriage to one man and one woman, but those standards are not acceptable to you and others. You have no grounds to expand those standards that shouldn't apply to everybody else.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, marriage wasn't necessarily the issue anyway. It was whether people could gain the benefits from marrying or not. This is about recognizing the marriage.

Yeah, in some states people failed to understand the principles the country is based upon. Hardly surprising seeing how they vote on a consistent basis.

The "weak kneed judges" who implemented the Constitution AS IT SHOULD BE clearly thought that human rights should NOT be available for the general public to decide who get protections and who shouldn't, just like the "weak kneed" founding fathers too.

Really? The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

The Founding Fathers made the BILL OF RIGHTS, and they made the Bill of Rights to be protected for ALL PEOPLE, not just the will of the majority. That was my point. It wasn't about whether they'd agree with the 14th or not.

Fine, marriage should have nothing to do with the govt.

However under the LAW the govt does get in on it, and it does offer things that you only get if you're married. Therefore gay people need to be able to get such things, and the only way to get such things is through marriage.

So, two choices. Govt gets out of marriage, or gay people can get married. Seeing as the former isn't going to happen, the latter is there.

I see, so the reason to allow gay marriage is because of government benefits?

Okay, so what if brother and sister want such benefits, should they be allowed to marry too?

How about father and daughter? I'm sure she could use that extra SS money after pop dies.

And let's not leave out the gay community: how about mother and daughter getting married? We certainly can't deny them any government benefits.

But I'm sure our founders would welcome these types of marriages so that nobody is left out of government benefits, don't you think?

The reason to allow gay marriage is because it's fair.

The theory of Human Rights basically dictates that you can do what you like as long as you don't hurt others. Brother and sister marrying is not allowed because any offspring from such a relationship is at risk, because for some biological reason bad things happen when children are born to such close relatives.

Also, when you marry you become related. You're already related as brother and sister. Therefore you don't need to get married to be related. Things like inheritance aren't a problem between siblings whereas they are for those who can't get married.

For example, a gay couple decided that the older one (by a year or two) would adopt the younger one in order to get the security they could not get because gay marriage had been unavailable.

Gay couple, one of whom adopted the other, has adoption vacated now that they can marry

"
Gay couple, one of whom adopted the other, has adoption vacated now that they can marry"

"So, in 2000, Novak adopted MacArthur – two years his junior – as his son. The move reduced their inheritance tax liability and gave them hospital visitation and other legal rights then unavailable to same-sex couples."

Inheritance tax is a massive issue.

How Marriage Inequality Prompts Gay Partners to Adopt One Another

"The couple told ABC News that they were primarily concerned about Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax, which could make one partner liable for a 15 percent tax on the estate (as opposed to 4 percent if they pushed ahead with adoption). "

An Overview of Federal Rights Granted to Married Couples | Human Rights Campaign

"There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law."

Wait a minute, I thought you said marriage was necessary because of government benefits; that we shouldn't be allowed to deny any people those benefits.

No, you are not "related" once you are married. You are simply two different people that took a religious vow or obtained a government sanction.

So you have marriage standards and limitations but others shouldn't? How is that right? If this is all about government benefits as you say, then no two people should be forbidden that right as you call it. For that matter, several people shouldn't be forbidden those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids if they get married. Well, why can't brother and sister have kids without being married? If that's the problem, then it okay that father and son get married, or sister and sister? You're okay with that, right?

It seems to me you are a hypocrite. Most of society wanted to limit marriage to one man and one woman, but those standards are not acceptable to you and others. You have no grounds to expand those standards that shouldn't apply to everybody else.

I'm not saying it all makes sense. It would be better if the govt stayed out of marriage altogether.

But marriage is the linking of two people. But brother and sister are already linked. You are linked. Clearly. Women in many European societies take on the surname of their partner and are considered by the state to be linked.

A brother and sister are "simply two different people" who happen to have the same parents.

Is it right? It's not necessarily fair that sister and brother should be kept apart. But that's the way of the world and it should be something that is encouraged for logical reasons. However, like I said, gay couples who couldn't marry ended up being adopted by the other in order to gain most of the important benefits, so, brother and sister, father and son, already have many of those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids without being married. However it's a matter of making sure that society sends the message that it is not okay for brother and sister to be together in such a relationship. Again, its biology, not necessarily fair.

It seems I'm a hypocrite huh? Well I'm sure you're one too.

You're looking for holes in an argument which will inherently have holes. Why? Because there are various parts to it that aren't necessarily compatible. However, like I've said, I'd prefer it if the govt stayed out of marriage and churches or institutions can decide who is married under their own house and nothing else matters. No benefits, not privileges.

If people want someone to inherit, then they merely write a legal document to say so.

However.... what we're talking about, and which you're trying to push, is what you might call a half way house.

If the govt is going to be a part of marriage, then it needs to abide by the 14th Amendment equality of the laws. Now, you say brother and sister should be able to marry, but under the law brother and sister already get lower inheritance tax and many of the other benefits. So.... is it unfair?

Society makes some things illegal. Murder is illegal. We discourage doing it by making laws. Brother and sister marrying is also discouraged for reasons I have said. It's not fair. It's life. Get over it. If you want that to be hypocritical, then so be it, I don't care.

However, which is better, fighting for the govt out of marriage and not getting anywhere, or having gay people able to marry and get the benefits and live their life as they so wish as the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights dictate?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Can’t agree with this post in its entirety, but the fundamental premise of the thread is correct.

Conservatives – the social right in particular – have no interest in ‘less’ or ‘smaller’ government; indeed, many on the right seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

No more so than those on the left

 

[Skull Pilot]

Most wacko lefties like to argue that smaller government equal no government.

I'm all for a strong military but I think that military should be based solely in this country to protect our borders and our borders only

One of the reasons so many of our allies have significantly smaller armed forces is that we take up the slack

Our military should be on our borders and patrolling our coastlines exclusively let everyone else defend their own countries

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Can’t agree with this post in its entirety, but the fundamental premise of the thread is correct.

Conservatives – the social right in particular – have no interest in ‘less’ or ‘smaller’ government; indeed, many on the right seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

No more so than those on the left

But the right CLAIM to be for smaller govt, that's the difference.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Can’t agree with this post in its entirety, but the fundamental premise of the thread is correct.

Conservatives – the social right in particular – have no interest in ‘less’ or ‘smaller’ government; indeed, many on the right seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

No more so than those on the left

But the right CLAIM to be for smaller govt, that's the difference.

Some on the right do most don't

I've said all along that there is no difference between the right and left as both parties have always increased the size scope cost and indebtedness of government

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Can’t agree with this post in its entirety, but the fundamental premise of the thread is correct.

Conservatives – the social right in particular – have no interest in ‘less’ or ‘smaller’ government; indeed, many on the right seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

No more so than those on the left

But the right CLAIM to be for smaller govt, that's the difference.

Some on the right do most don't

I've said all along that there is no difference between the right and left as both parties have always increased the size scope cost and indebtedness of government

I'd say some on the right don't, most do. I'd say most people on the right, left or center, don't really have a set of principles. They just react. And therefore will say they're for smaller govt, but then when someone says something else they'll be for or against based on their whims.

Libertarians, true libertarians, are the ones on the right who are the most principled by far, and the ones for smaller government, whereas "normal" conservatives are just reactionaries.

 

[RicO'Shea]

Those on the right who cry for a smaller government are wanting cuts to government agencies or their total disbandment with the hopes of a free market without checks and balances so that the market can screw and rip-off the consumer without the fear of being fined or penalized. They also seek the disbandment of agencies like the EPA (freedom to destroy our quality of air and water), the Department of Education (so the right can insert Creationism and God and Christianity in our children's curriculum), and the Department of Energy (so we don't pursue alternative energy and kiss the oil companies asses at the same time). I have to admit that there's one government agency that I would like to see downsized, and that's the DEA. We continue to imprison non violent drug offenders at a record rate, and it's to please the privatized "correctional" facilities. It's no different than the military industrial complex - they must continue to reap profits while lives are ruined and families are torn apart.

 

[RicO'Shea]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Nice attempt at a strawman.

First you say "I don't get people who say they want smaller government" and then proceed to spout all this nonsense about what they believe, you might actually get their point if you started listening to what people that believe in "smaller" government actually have to say on the subject instead of just making up a whole bunch inane bullshit out of thin air.

So tell us, what do they actually have to say on the subject?? Right wingers are great at stating generalizations, but they absolutely suck at actually explaining what they mean. The reason for that is obvious - they see Fox news doing it all the time - and it's why right wingers can't debate worth a shit.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Nice attempt at a strawman.

First you say "I don't get people who say they want smaller government" and then proceed to spout all this nonsense about what they believe, you might actually get their point if you started listening to what people that believe in "smaller" government actually have to say on the subject instead of just making up a whole bunch inane bullshit out of thin air.

So tell us, what do they actually have to say on the subject?? Right wingers are great at stating generalizations, but they absolutely suck at actually explaining what they mean. The reason for that is obvious - they see Fox news doing it all the time - and it's why right wingers can't debate worth a shit.

A lot of people can't debate for anything on both sides.

Many people who vote Democrat are as clueless as those on the right.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

Well said...

I'd only add, that 'Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman'.

And cheese means mold, well it did in the olden days, but the word changed.

Things change. The English speaking world has the UK, Australia, South Africa, the US and parts of Canada with marriage meaning two consenting adults. I'm sorry you can't cope with change.

Yet Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman.

This being defined through the physiological standard of the human species... Wherein such is designed with two distinct, but complementing genders; each specifically designed to join with the other.

See how that works?

But it's not, you see? You only need to look at the English speaking world to see that it's changed.

I see how it USED TO WORK. If only you'd see how it NOW WORKS.

LOL!

You idiots are dense as a stone.

When you changed the word that describes sexual deviancy to "Gay". You did not transfer the legitimacy inherent in the word Gay, to sexual deviancy... you merely stripped "Gay" of legitimacy.

When you decided that you couldn't be communist anymore and decided to use socialist, then socialist to progressive and progressive to liberal, your cult did not gain the legitimacy of the new words you hijacked. You simply transferred the illegitimacy of your ideas to those words.

But in none of those instances, was there a central legitimacy that was trying to be hijacked, as there is in Marriage.

Ya see scamp... Nature defined and continues to define marriage. And it does so through the standard of human physiology. This is not debatable... it's not subject to interpretation and, contrary to the little current of the quickly failing populism, how one 'identifies', has no relevance on it.

Humanity is comprised of two distinct, but complementing genders, each SPECIFICALLY designed to join with the other and it is THAT which DEFINES: MARRIAGE, with pretenses advanced by a malevolent cult... notwithstanding.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So tell us, what do they actually have to say on the subject?? Right wingers are great at stating generalizations, but they absolutely suck at actually explaining what they mean. The reason for that is obvious - they see Fox news doing it all the time - and it's why right wingers can't debate worth a shit.

Yes... because it's not been explained, in detail... ad nauseum... .

Smaller government as in the government authorized in terms of scope and power in the US Constitution, resting in the principles set forth in the Charter of American Principles.

That you're ignorant of the limitations on the scope and power of US Federal Governance, enumerated in 'The Rules for a Sustainable United States', does not mean that everyone is. You should avoid projecting such on others.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

Well said...

I'd only add, that 'Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman'.

And cheese means mold, well it did in the olden days, but the word changed.

Things change. The English speaking world has the UK, Australia, South Africa, the US and parts of Canada with marriage meaning two consenting adults. I'm sorry you can't cope with change.

Yet Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman.

This being defined through the physiological standard of the human species... Wherein such is designed with two distinct, but complementing genders; each specifically designed to join with the other.

See how that works?

But it's not, you see? You only need to look at the English speaking world to see that it's changed.

I see how it USED TO WORK. If only you'd see how it NOW WORKS.

LOL!

You idiots are dense as a stone.

When you changed the word that describes sexual deviancy to "Gay". You did not transfer the legitimacy inherent in the word Gay, to sexual deviancy... you merely stripped "Gay" of legitimacy.

When you decided that you couldn't be communist anymore and decided to use socialist, then socialist to progressive and progressive to liberal, your cult did not gain the legitimacy of the new words you hijacked. You simply transferred the illegitimacy of your ideas to those words.

But in none of those instances, was there a central legitimacy that was trying to be hijacked, as there is in Marriage.

Ya see scamp... Nature defined and continues to define marriage. And it does so through the standard of human physiology. This is not debatable... it's not subject to interpretation and, contrary to the little current of the quickly failing populism, how one 'identifies', has no relevance on it.

Humanity is comprised of two distinct, but complementing genders, each SPECIFICALLY designed to join with the other and it is THAT which DEFINES: MARRIAGE, with pretenses advanced by a malevolent cult... notwithstanding.

Wow, you started a reply with an insult. Not the smartest thing in the world. Bye.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

Well said...

I'd only add, that 'Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman'.

And cheese means mold, well it did in the olden days, but the word changed.

Things change. The English speaking world has the UK, Australia, South Africa, the US and parts of Canada with marriage meaning two consenting adults. I'm sorry you can't cope with change.

Yet Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman.

This being defined through the physiological standard of the human species... Wherein such is designed with two distinct, but complementing genders; each specifically designed to join with the other.

See how that works?

Not throughout most of human history, especially as cited in the Bible.

Throughout human history... Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. There are no exceptions in the Bible. You're conflating the taking of more than one wife, with the physical joining.

No where in the Bible has God sanctioned the joining of two people of the same gender; but that follows given that God designed humanity; designing such with two distinct genders, each specifically designed to join with, the other.

All of those being tasked by God with populating the kingdom God provided them... are of course entitled to take as many wives as is necessary to get the job done.

The rest of you men... ya got lucky, God has blessed you with only one wife.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Wow, you started a reply with an insult. Not the smartest thing in the world. Bye.

You're insulted only by your own failure to sustain your own reasoning.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... reactionaries.

Leave it to the Ideological Left to continue to use a term 250 years after it was thoroughly discredited.

The Reader should note that the term was used as a rhetorical bludgeon, by the Communists of the French Revolution... the first non-muslims to use 'Terrorism' in Western Civilization.