"Smaller government" advocates

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nature equates sex with marriage.

Blithering nonsense.

LOL! FAIL!

But IF a vehement and otherwise baseless denial were valid argument... MAN! Would that have been POWERFUL!

As Marriage is the consequence of sex... wherein the female conceives, is largely debilitated by gestation, requiring the assistance of her mate, to feed and protect her; the male whose DNA is running up HALF of the child growing inside the female... and who is biologically tethered to the child, who trains the child against and along side, the nurturing of female. Imparting his character into his progeny.. as the mother imparts hers.

Obviously not.

ROFL! FAIL!

But in fairness to you... the points you failed to contest, are not even remotely debatable. So it's understandable that you would like to imply a contest, without actually coming close to presenting one, against an actual standing point.

(Reader, if you find anything in my judgment to be faulty or if you believe that Skylar has made a valid point that I missed... please, be sure to chime in. I'll happily consider your contribution.)

 

[bripat9643]

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?

What they mean by smaller government is that they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want regulation on business.

They love big government as long as it's big conservative government.

Some do. They are referred to as the Establishment Republicans, and we are trying to get rid of them as well.

What is big government? Big government is spending money on anything outside of what is listed in the US Constitution. And no......... general welfare does not mean health insurance, food stamps or HUD homes in the suburbs.

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.

Where does the 14the Amendment mention homosexuals or marriage?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here's the thing, once we allowed government to get involved in marriage, we pretty much have to bow to government's definitions of it (for their purposes)....that whole "You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters." comes back to bite us in the ass. Moral of the story...government has no business in the religious rite of marriage.

Nor does it have a thing to do with the 'religious rite'. But the socially recognized legal contract of marriage? That's a different story. That's not religious. That's civil. Any church can still deny the validity of any marriage they don't agree with. Catholics can refuse to accept that same sex marriages are marriages under Catholic law for example.

But under civil law they're as valid as a marriage of a man and a woman. And civil law is not subordinate to religion. But autonomous of it.

And you don't seem to understand the difference between rights and powers. Rights are freedoms from government action. Powers are actions the government can take. You're insisting that rights can never override powers. And that's obviously horseshit. They can and in most cases, should.

If they want a civilian equivalent for legal purposes, fine, we could avoid this entire debate if they'd call it something else. Come to think of it...they did dooded that..they're called "civil unions", so rather than futzing around with marriage, why not just give civil unions the same legal rights as those who are married?

There is the civil equivalent: marriage.

No marriage existed as a religious right long before secular governments even existed.

So? What's your point? Religious law was civil law long before secular governments even existed too. Priests could summarily have you executed for heresy answerable to no one but the church. Churches used to keep birth, tax and death records too.

We've moved on.

Government has no business in it, never did, never will.

Nonsense. You're simply stating your opinion. You're not giving us a why. Why shouldn't the government recognize marriage? Why shouldn't it protect it? Why shouldn't secular law define it under the law?

Again, religious laws are completely intact. Catholics don't have to recognize a couple married under secular law as married under Catholic law. Neither do Muslims, Mormons, Jedi, or Pastafarians.

If they want a non-secular equivalent, then use what we already have...civil unions...and make them legally identical. Not rocket surgery...if you want to provide true equality rather than division and strife.

We have a non-secular equivalent: marriage. And if civil unions are genuinely identical....why the need for them?

Simple: they aren't equal. Which is the point. Separate but equal has a lousy track record. If marriage and civil unions were genuinely identical there would be no need for the distinction.

Your solution is complicated, pointless, duplicitous, and completely unnecessary. Which is why weren't not using it.

Yeah, it only honors that 1st Amendment thingy....you know " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"....which is exactly what they did when they got their butts involved in the religious rite of marriage. (I have been getting a giggle over your obvious confusion over a "rite" and a "right"). According to your own words, the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment binding on the States...so there ya go.

Huh? If I get a civil marriage....how does that deprive you of any 1st amendment right? It doesn't. You have no 'why' in insisting that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. You simply insist it should be so.

That's not good enough. Not by half.

This entire debate....and all the division, ugliness and bullshit it has caused and still is causing...is what is pointless and could have been easily avoided by simply giving civil unions the same legal rights as marriage.

So your solution is to invalid ALL marriage certificates, elmiinatre all marriage law and all legal recognition of marriage......just to keep the gays from getting married?

That's ridiculous. Its wildly complicated, utterly pointless and completely unnecessary. Especially since you've admitted that civil unions and marriage would be identical. If they are genuinely identical, we don't need civil unions.

Here's a much simpler solution: legally recognize same sex marriages. And done.

It deprives you of no right. It doesn't effect you. And it leaves your religious right to not recognize their marriage under religious law perfectly intact. As your religious law is gloriously irrelevant to the recognition of civil marriage under civil law.

Well.....if two cousins marry, how does that effect you? How about brother and sister? How about father and daughter? None of these kinds of marriages bother you, so because it doesn't have anything to do with your life, should our government sanction such marriages?

 

[Skylar]

So your solution is to invalid ALL marriage certificates, elmiinatre all marriage law and all legal recognition of marriage......just to keep the gays from getting married?

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And one man and one man. And one woman and one woman. Depending on the culture, it could also be multiple women and one man. In rare instances, multiple men and one woman. Sometimes is life long. Sometimes its not.

Marriage is what we say it is as we invented it. Its a social construct.....like grammar. Or table manners. Which vary between cultures, peoples and languages.

There are NO laws anywhere which seek to prevent sexual deviants from marriage... as long as they seek to marry another person of the distinct gender.

There are no laws in effect that prevent anyone from marrying, regardless of gender. Making your distinction irrelevant.

Remember, the laws aren't bound to your subjective opinion. This is why your record predicting legal outcomes is one of essentially perfect failure: you can't differentiate between subjective and objective.

(Reader, I just eviscerated "THE BIG QUEER LIE!"... No homosexual was ever prevented from marrying anyone... within the natural defining standards of Marriage... thus there was no discrimination against the sexual deviant. There was only the standard of the cultural nucleus, which they've simply sought to destroy.)

Keyes.....your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. Just say it out loud in your room. Better yet, just think it really hard. As you're both the author and the audience anyway.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is the potential for the right to privacy as a function of individual liberty.

True...

But Individual Liberty can only be sustained where the Individual bears the responsibilities intrinsic to the right to be free.

The intrinsic right to be free....according to who? Bearing responsibility....according to who?

This is where your argument breaks. As in both instances you insist that YOU get to define both the intrinsic right to be free and its responsibilities.

So ... you open, citing the 'Right to Privacy' being "a function of Individual liberty".

Then you question the idea that 'Right to Privacy' being "a function of Individual liberty" has any correlation to a right to be free?

Look Skylar, that's irrational...

If you're going to participate in a public forum, at least have the courtesy to do so when you're lucid.

I have little to no respect for you as it is... but to debate drunk... is unforgivable.

Go sober up... You're back in ignore.

 

[bripat9643]

So your solution is to invalid ALL marriage certificates, elmiinatre all marriage law and all legal recognition of marriage......just to keep the gays from getting married?

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And one man and one man. And one woman and one woman. Depending on the culture, it could also be multiple women and one man. In rare instances, multiple men and one woman. Sometimes is life long. Sometimes its not.

Marriage is what we say it is as we invented it. Its a social construct.....like grammar. Or table manners. Which vary between cultures, peoples and languages.

There are NO laws anywhere which seek to prevent sexual deviants from marriage... as long as they seek to marry another person of the distinct gender.

There are no laws in effect that prevent anyone from marrying, regardless of gender. Making your distinction irrelevant.

Remember, the laws aren't bound to your subjective opinion. This is why your record predicting legal outcomes is one of essentially perfect failure: you can't differentiate between subjective and objective.

(Reader, I just eviscerated "THE BIG QUEER LIE!"... No homosexual was ever prevented from marrying anyone... within the natural defining standards of Marriage... thus there was no discrimination against the sexual deviant. There was only the standard of the cultural nucleus, which they've simply sought to destroy.)

Keyes.....your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. Just say it out loud in your room. Better yet, just think it really hard. As you're both the author and the audience anyway.

So-called "homosexual marriage" will always be a joke. It's an oxymoron.

 

[Skylar]

Nature equates sex with marriage.

Blithering nonsense.

LOL! FAIL!

But IF a vehement and otherwise baseless denial were valid argument... MAN! Would that have been POWERFUL!

If my denial were 'baseless', you'd be able to argue against it. You couldn't. All you could do was omit any mention of it in your reply and run. Alas, the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. Nor does my argument.

Nature obviously doesn't. If such were the case, then any act of sex in nature would be the same thing as marriage.

You can't even make such a horseshit equivalency work within our species. Let alone across all of nature. People fucking and people being married aren't the same thing. Nor does one require the other. Nor does the former define the latter by any imaginary 'law of nature'. Or any application of logic or reason.

Marriage is a human construct. We define it. It means whatever is decide it means. Not what YOU decide it means. Even when you pretend you are the 'laws of nature'. And it has often varied significantly from your assumptions.

Your assumptions, opinions and imagination do not define objective reality. They define your subjective beliefs. Subjective is not objective.


You've got two tells, Keyes. The first is that bizarro 'concessions from you to you' shtick. The second....is your omission of virtually all of what you're replying to. They are your white flags. Your signal that you're just about to abandon the discussion.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need to run.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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?

What they mean by smaller government is that they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want regulation on business.

They love big government as long as it's big conservative government.

Some do. They are referred to as the Establishment Republicans, and we are trying to get rid of them as well.

What is big government? Big government is spending money on anything outside of what is listed in the US Constitution. And no......... general welfare does not mean health insurance, food stamps or HUD homes in the suburbs.

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.

Where does the 14the Amendment mention homosexuals or marriage?

Of course, it doesn't ... .

The 14th amendment was written to protect the rights of former slaves from those determined to injure their means to exercise their right to be free ... not sexual degenerates to project that they possess the right to strip the cultural nucleus of the standards that defend it and in so doing defending the culture itself.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What do I want to dish out? I don't want to dish out anything. I just happen to believe that marriage is the institution of one man and one woman. That's not dishing anything out. It's just like calling my chair a chair. Sure, I could call my chair a fire hydrant, but that doesn't make it a fire hydrant. It's still a chair.

You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters. Marriage is not a right, it's a religious rite that was adopted by the government in order to provide benefits to the normal family. And no, Don, Sam and their adopted son is not a normal family.

Here's the thing, once we allowed government to get involved in marriage, we pretty much have to bow to government's definitions of it (for their purposes)....that whole "You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters." comes back to bite us in the ass. Moral of the story...government has no business in the religious rite of marriage.

Nor does it have a thing to do with the 'religious rite'. But the socially recognized legal contract of marriage? That's a different story. That's not religious. That's civil. Any church can still deny the validity of any marriage they don't agree with. Catholics can refuse to accept that same sex marriages are marriages under Catholic law for example.

But under civil law they're as valid as a marriage of a man and a woman. And civil law is not subordinate to religion. But autonomous of it.

And you don't seem to understand the difference between rights and powers. Rights are freedoms from government action. Powers are actions the government can take. You're insisting that rights can never override powers. And that's obviously horseshit. They can and in most cases, should.

If they want a civilian equivalent for legal purposes, fine, we could avoid this entire debate if they'd call it something else. Come to think of it...they did dooded that..they're called "civil unions", so rather than futzing around with marriage, why not just give civil unions the same legal rights as those who are married?

There is the civil equivalent: marriage.

No marriage existed as a religious right long before secular governments even existed.

So? What's your point? Religious law was civil law long before secular governments even existed too. Priests could summarily have you executed for heresy answerable to no one but the church. Churches used to keep birth, tax and death records too.

We've moved on.

Government has no business in it, never did, never will.

Nonsense. You're simply stating your opinion. You're not giving us a why. Why shouldn't the government recognize marriage? Why shouldn't it protect it? Why shouldn't secular law define it under the law?

Again, religious laws are completely intact. Catholics don't have to recognize a couple married under secular law as married under Catholic law. Neither do Muslims, Mormons, Jedi, or Pastafarians.

If they want a non-secular equivalent, then use what we already have...civil unions...and make them legally identical. Not rocket surgery...if you want to provide true equality rather than division and strife.

We have a non-secular equivalent: marriage. And if civil unions are genuinely identical....why the need for them?

Simple: they aren't equal. Which is the point. Separate but equal has a lousy track record. If marriage and civil unions were genuinely identical there would be no need for the distinction.

Your solution is complicated, pointless, duplicitous, and completely unnecessary. Which is why weren't not using it.

Yeah, it only honors that 1st Amendment thingy....you know " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"....which is exactly what they did when they got their butts involved in the religious rite of marriage. (I have been getting a giggle over your obvious confusion over a "rite" and a "right"). According to your own words, the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment binding on the States...so there ya go.

This entire debate....and all the division, ugliness and bullshit it has caused and still is causing...is what is pointless and could have been easily avoided by simply giving civil unions the same legal rights as marriage. But that's what big government does to protect us...they over-complicate things to the point where we are at each other's throats.

Well Civil Unions didn't work. After all, who complained the most about not being able to get married? The people in California who had civil unions.

This has less to do with happiness, equal rights, or even government benefits. What this really has to do with is rejection. Some gays have always felt rejection of society no matter what we changed for them in the past. In their minds, if they can force marriage upon society, then it makes them feel like society accepts them better. There is no truth to that of course, but that's how they think.

Let me put it this way: if there were no such thing as marriage in our country, would the gays be any less happier today not being married? Of course not. The only real reason they wanted to be married in the first place is because normal people were able to.

I call this the cookie jar syndrome. If you tell a child not to go into the cookie jar, it bothers the child much more than if you never told him to go there in the first place. If you never said anything, he probably wouldn't have even thought about it. Some people just have that instinct when you tell them "you can't have it!"

 

[Skylar]

There is the potential for the right to privacy as a function of individual liberty.

True...

But Individual Liberty can only be sustained where the Individual bears the responsibilities intrinsic to the right to be free.

The intrinsic right to be free....according to who? Bearing responsibility....according to who?

This is where your argument breaks. As in both instances you insist that YOU get to define both the intrinsic right to be free and its responsibilities.

So ... you open, citing the 'Right to Privacy' being "a function of Individual liberty".

Then you question the idea that 'Right to Privacy' being "a function of Individual liberty" has any correlation to a right to be free?

Nope. I didn't even mention 'correlations'. You did. So that strawman fails.

I said that your personal opinion doesn't define any 'intrinsic right to be free'. Or any 'intrinsic responsibility'. Your opinion defines your subjective beliefs. Which have nothing to do with 'intrinsic' anything. Thus, when I ask you ''the intrinsic right to be free" according to who?......you have no answer.

Your argument again depends wholly on our acceptance that YOU define whatever terms you wish to discuss. And you don't define any of them.

Individual liberty is rooted in the individual. Not in you claiming to speak for all individuals. This is another magnificent failure of your argument.

ok Skylar, that's irrational...

If you're going to participate in a public forum, at least have the courtesy to do so when you're lucid.

I have little to no respect for you as it is... but to debate drunk... is unforgivable.

Oh, rejecting your personal opinion as defining 'intrinsic right to be free' is utterly rational. As you don't define anything intrinsic. Your subjective opinion does not define objective reality.

Get used to the idea.

Go sober up... You're back in ignore.

And exactly as I predicted, you're done.....with nothing but excuses for why you're running. Your tells are rather reliable indicators of your rout, are they not?

 

[Skylar]

Here's the thing, once we allowed government to get involved in marriage, we pretty much have to bow to government's definitions of it (for their purposes)....that whole "You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters." comes back to bite us in the ass. Moral of the story...government has no business in the religious rite of marriage.

Nor does it have a thing to do with the 'religious rite'. But the socially recognized legal contract of marriage? That's a different story. That's not religious. That's civil. Any church can still deny the validity of any marriage they don't agree with. Catholics can refuse to accept that same sex marriages are marriages under Catholic law for example.

But under civil law they're as valid as a marriage of a man and a woman. And civil law is not subordinate to religion. But autonomous of it.

And you don't seem to understand the difference between rights and powers. Rights are freedoms from government action. Powers are actions the government can take. You're insisting that rights can never override powers. And that's obviously horseshit. They can and in most cases, should.

If they want a civilian equivalent for legal purposes, fine, we could avoid this entire debate if they'd call it something else. Come to think of it...they did dooded that..they're called "civil unions", so rather than futzing around with marriage, why not just give civil unions the same legal rights as those who are married?

There is the civil equivalent: marriage.

No marriage existed as a religious right long before secular governments even existed.

So? What's your point? Religious law was civil law long before secular governments even existed too. Priests could summarily have you executed for heresy answerable to no one but the church. Churches used to keep birth, tax and death records too.

We've moved on.

Government has no business in it, never did, never will.

Nonsense. You're simply stating your opinion. You're not giving us a why. Why shouldn't the government recognize marriage? Why shouldn't it protect it? Why shouldn't secular law define it under the law?

Again, religious laws are completely intact. Catholics don't have to recognize a couple married under secular law as married under Catholic law. Neither do Muslims, Mormons, Jedi, or Pastafarians.

If they want a non-secular equivalent, then use what we already have...civil unions...and make them legally identical. Not rocket surgery...if you want to provide true equality rather than division and strife.

We have a non-secular equivalent: marriage. And if civil unions are genuinely identical....why the need for them?

Simple: they aren't equal. Which is the point. Separate but equal has a lousy track record. If marriage and civil unions were genuinely identical there would be no need for the distinction.

Your solution is complicated, pointless, duplicitous, and completely unnecessary. Which is why weren't not using it.

Yeah, it only honors that 1st Amendment thingy....you know " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"....which is exactly what they did when they got their butts involved in the religious rite of marriage. (I have been getting a giggle over your obvious confusion over a "rite" and a "right"). According to your own words, the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment binding on the States...so there ya go.

This entire debate....and all the division, ugliness and bullshit it has caused and still is causing...is what is pointless and could have been easily avoided by simply giving civil unions the same legal rights as marriage. But that's what big government does to protect us...they over-complicate things to the point where we are at each other's throats.

Well Civil Unions didn't work. After all, who complained the most about not being able to get married? The people in California who had civil unions.

The Civil Unions didn't work because they weren't identical. Again, your argument is inherently self defeating. As if Civil Unions were genuinely identical to marriage....then there's need for Civil Unions. As marriage is identical to it. Thus, the secular equivalent of marriage....is marriage.

Its only when Civil Unions are NOT equal that your argument works. And of course, that inequality dooms Civil Unions just as thoroughly.

This has less to do with happiness, equal rights, or even government benefits. What this really has to do with is rejection. Some gays have always felt rejection of society no matter what we changed for them in the past. In their minds, if they can force marriage upon society, then it makes them feel like society accepts them better. There is no truth to that of course, but that's how they think.

It has to do with equal rights and equal benefits. With same sex couples demanding (and realizing) their marriages be treated equally under the law to opposite sex marriages.

Let me put it this way: if there were no such thing as marriage in our country, would the gays be any less happier today not being married? Of course not. The only real reason they wanted to be married in the first place is because normal people were able to.

If there were no marriage in this country then there would be no benefits associated with marriage. Legally, people could never become family to one another outside of adoption or direct relation. Marriage provides a legal way to do this. Allowing a couple (same sex or opposite sex) to become family to one another. And to enjoy all the rights and priveledges associated with that legal connection.

Given that this legal capacity does exist, of course same sex couples would want access to it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Let me put it this way: if there were no such thing as marriage in our country, would the gays be any less happier today not being married? Of course not. The only real reason they wanted to be married in the first place is because normal people were able to.

Ya NAILED IT!

What the entire scam is about is the eternal grope by the Degenerates to acquire what they can never have... LEGITIMACY.

The problem is, that by including themselves in Marriage... they did not drape themselves in Legitimacy... they delegitimized marriage.

Now there is a line of reasoning, and there are many threads of public discussion and academic papers wherein the Degenerate cult's intention was to do just that.

That is not to say that Harvey and Harry Asslelock in Maryland aren't a true believin' lovin' couple... of degenerates.

But that they're the innocent dupes of an evil cult... whose depth of debauchery is without limit.

They are in the truest sense of the word: E V I L . . .

 

[Skylar]

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?

What they mean by smaller government is that they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want regulation on business.

They love big government as long as it's big conservative government.

Some do. They are referred to as the Establishment Republicans, and we are trying to get rid of them as well.

What is big government? Big government is spending money on anything outside of what is listed in the US Constitution. And no......... general welfare does not mean health insurance, food stamps or HUD homes in the suburbs.

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.

Where does the 14the Amendment mention homosexuals or marriage?

Of course, it doesn't ... .

The 14th amendment was written to protect the rights of former slaves from those determined to injure their means to exercise their right to be free ... not sexual degenerates to project that they possess the right to strip the cultural nucleus of the standards that defend it and in so doing defending the culture itself.

The 14th amendment isn't limited to former slaves. It includes 'all persons' and 'citizens of the United States'. In fact the only mention of slaves in the 14th amendment is to reject any claim of financial loss by their former owners due to their emancipation.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nor does it have a thing to do with the 'religious rite'. But the socially recognized legal contract of marriage? That's a different story. That's not religious. That's civil. Any church can still deny the validity of any marriage they don't agree with. Catholics can refuse to accept that same sex marriages are marriages under Catholic law for example.

But under civil law they're as valid as a marriage of a man and a woman. And civil law is not subordinate to religion. But autonomous of it.

And you don't seem to understand the difference between rights and powers. Rights are freedoms from government action. Powers are actions the government can take. You're insisting that rights can never override powers. And that's obviously horseshit. They can and in most cases, should.

There is the civil equivalent: marriage.

No marriage existed as a religious right long before secular governments even existed.

So? What's your point? Religious law was civil law long before secular governments even existed too. Priests could summarily have you executed for heresy answerable to no one but the church. Churches used to keep birth, tax and death records too.

We've moved on.

Government has no business in it, never did, never will.

Nonsense. You're simply stating your opinion. You're not giving us a why. Why shouldn't the government recognize marriage? Why shouldn't it protect it? Why shouldn't secular law define it under the law?

Again, religious laws are completely intact. Catholics don't have to recognize a couple married under secular law as married under Catholic law. Neither do Muslims, Mormons, Jedi, or Pastafarians.

If they want a non-secular equivalent, then use what we already have...civil unions...and make them legally identical. Not rocket surgery...if you want to provide true equality rather than division and strife.

We have a non-secular equivalent: marriage. And if civil unions are genuinely identical....why the need for them?

Simple: they aren't equal. Which is the point. Separate but equal has a lousy track record. If marriage and civil unions were genuinely identical there would be no need for the distinction.

Your solution is complicated, pointless, duplicitous, and completely unnecessary. Which is why weren't not using it.

Yeah, it only honors that 1st Amendment thingy....you know " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"....which is exactly what they did when they got their butts involved in the religious rite of marriage. (I have been getting a giggle over your obvious confusion over a "rite" and a "right"). According to your own words, the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment binding on the States...so there ya go.

Huh? If I get a civil marriage....how does that deprive you of any 1st amendment right? It doesn't. You have no 'why' in insisting that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. You simply insist it should be so.

That's not good enough. Not by half.

This entire debate....and all the division, ugliness and bullshit it has caused and still is causing...is what is pointless and could have been easily avoided by simply giving civil unions the same legal rights as marriage.

So your solution is to invalid ALL marriage certificates, elmiinatre all marriage law and all legal recognition of marriage......just to keep the gays from getting married?

That's ridiculous. Its wildly complicated, utterly pointless and completely unnecessary. Especially since you've admitted that civil unions and marriage would be identical. If they are genuinely identical, we don't need civil unions.

Here's a much simpler solution: legally recognize same sex marriages. And done.

It deprives you of no right. It doesn't effect you. And it leaves your religious right to not recognize their marriage under religious law perfectly intact. As your religious law is gloriously irrelevant to the recognition of civil marriage under civil law.

Well.....if two cousins marry, how does that effect you? How about brother and sister? How about father and daughter? None of these kinds of marriages bother you, so because it doesn't have anything to do with your life, should our government sanction such marriages?

ROFL!

Reader, it looks like Ray's locked in on the Relativism... .

It's all over but the cryin' now.

 

[Skylar]

Let me put it this way: if there were no such thing as marriage in our country, would the gays be any less happier today not being married? Of course not. The only real reason they wanted to be married in the first place is because normal people were able to.

Ya NAILED IT!

What the entire scam is about is the eternal grope by the Degenerates to acquire what they can never have... LEGITIMACY.


The problem is, that by including themselves in Marriage... they did not drape themselves in Legitimacy... they delegitimized marriage.

Nonsense. Your marriage isn't any more or less 'legitimate' based someone else getting married. If the legitimacy of your marriage was based on your ability to deny marriage to someone else, your marriage was already beyond salvaging.

Same sex marriage does nothing to your marriage nor effect you in any way. It deprives you of no right, strips you of no freedom, involves you in no way.

And it confers an entire basket of rights and privileges that cannot be acquired any other way save adoption or direct decent. Of course same sex couples are going to want in.

 

[Skylar]

Nor does it have a thing to do with the 'religious rite'. But the socially recognized legal contract of marriage? That's a different story. That's not religious. That's civil. Any church can still deny the validity of any marriage they don't agree with. Catholics can refuse to accept that same sex marriages are marriages under Catholic law for example.

But under civil law they're as valid as a marriage of a man and a woman. And civil law is not subordinate to religion. But autonomous of it.

And you don't seem to understand the difference between rights and powers. Rights are freedoms from government action. Powers are actions the government can take. You're insisting that rights can never override powers. And that's obviously horseshit. They can and in most cases, should.

There is the civil equivalent: marriage.

No marriage existed as a religious right long before secular governments even existed.

So? What's your point? Religious law was civil law long before secular governments even existed too. Priests could summarily have you executed for heresy answerable to no one but the church. Churches used to keep birth, tax and death records too.

We've moved on.

Government has no business in it, never did, never will.

Nonsense. You're simply stating your opinion. You're not giving us a why. Why shouldn't the government recognize marriage? Why shouldn't it protect it? Why shouldn't secular law define it under the law?

Again, religious laws are completely intact. Catholics don't have to recognize a couple married under secular law as married under Catholic law. Neither do Muslims, Mormons, Jedi, or Pastafarians.

If they want a non-secular equivalent, then use what we already have...civil unions...and make them legally identical. Not rocket surgery...if you want to provide true equality rather than division and strife.

We have a non-secular equivalent: marriage. And if civil unions are genuinely identical....why the need for them?

Simple: they aren't equal. Which is the point. Separate but equal has a lousy track record. If marriage and civil unions were genuinely identical there would be no need for the distinction.

Your solution is complicated, pointless, duplicitous, and completely unnecessary. Which is why weren't not using it.

Yeah, it only honors that 1st Amendment thingy....you know " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"....which is exactly what they did when they got their butts involved in the religious rite of marriage. (I have been getting a giggle over your obvious confusion over a "rite" and a "right"). According to your own words, the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment binding on the States...so there ya go.

Huh? If I get a civil marriage....how does that deprive you of any 1st amendment right? It doesn't. You have no 'why' in insisting that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. You simply insist it should be so.

That's not good enough. Not by half.

This entire debate....and all the division, ugliness and bullshit it has caused and still is causing...is what is pointless and could have been easily avoided by simply giving civil unions the same legal rights as marriage.

So your solution is to invalid ALL marriage certificates, elmiinatre all marriage law and all legal recognition of marriage......just to keep the gays from getting married?

That's ridiculous. Its wildly complicated, utterly pointless and completely unnecessary. Especially since you've admitted that civil unions and marriage would be identical. If they are genuinely identical, we don't need civil unions.

Here's a much simpler solution: legally recognize same sex marriages. And done.

It deprives you of no right. It doesn't effect you. And it leaves your religious right to not recognize their marriage under religious law perfectly intact. As your religious law is gloriously irrelevant to the recognition of civil marriage under civil law.

Well.....if two cousins marry, how does that effect you? How about brother and sister? How about father and daughter? None of these kinds of marriages bother you, so because it doesn't have anything to do with your life, should our government sanction such marriages?

If you want to make an argument for incest marriage, feel free.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader... as just an FYI: it should be noted that when you see a would-be 'Contributor' demand that your opinion is disqualified because it's your opinion, what they have done there is to advance an opinion, which they established is axiomatically DISQUALIFIED.

This is a common thesis from Drug and Alcohol addled Lesbians... particularly those of the Mouthy British Socialist variety.

 

[Skylar]

No marriage existed as a religious right long before secular governments even existed.

So? What's your point? Religious law was civil law long before secular governments even existed too. Priests could summarily have you executed for heresy answerable to no one but the church. Churches used to keep birth, tax and death records too.

We've moved on.

Government has no business in it, never did, never will.

Nonsense. You're simply stating your opinion. You're not giving us a why. Why shouldn't the government recognize marriage? Why shouldn't it protect it? Why shouldn't secular law define it under the law?

Again, religious laws are completely intact. Catholics don't have to recognize a couple married under secular law as married under Catholic law. Neither do Muslims, Mormons, Jedi, or Pastafarians.

If they want a non-secular equivalent, then use what we already have...civil unions...and make them legally identical. Not rocket surgery...if you want to provide true equality rather than division and strife.

We have a non-secular equivalent: marriage. And if civil unions are genuinely identical....why the need for them?

Simple: they aren't equal. Which is the point. Separate but equal has a lousy track record. If marriage and civil unions were genuinely identical there would be no need for the distinction.

Your solution is complicated, pointless, duplicitous, and completely unnecessary. Which is why weren't not using it.

Yeah, it only honors that 1st Amendment thingy....you know " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"....which is exactly what they did when they got their butts involved in the religious rite of marriage. (I have been getting a giggle over your obvious confusion over a "rite" and a "right"). According to your own words, the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment binding on the States...so there ya go.

Huh? If I get a civil marriage....how does that deprive you of any 1st amendment right? It doesn't. You have no 'why' in insisting that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. You simply insist it should be so.

That's not good enough. Not by half.

This entire debate....and all the division, ugliness and bullshit it has caused and still is causing...is what is pointless and could have been easily avoided by simply giving civil unions the same legal rights as marriage.

So your solution is to invalid ALL marriage certificates, elmiinatre all marriage law and all legal recognition of marriage......just to keep the gays from getting married?

That's ridiculous. Its wildly complicated, utterly pointless and completely unnecessary. Especially since you've admitted that civil unions and marriage would be identical. If they are genuinely identical, we don't need civil unions.

Here's a much simpler solution: legally recognize same sex marriages. And done.

It deprives you of no right. It doesn't effect you. And it leaves your religious right to not recognize their marriage under religious law perfectly intact. As your religious law is gloriously irrelevant to the recognition of civil marriage under civil law.

Well.....if two cousins marry, how does that effect you? How about brother and sister? How about father and daughter? None of these kinds of marriages bother you, so because it doesn't have anything to do with your life, should our government sanction such marriages?

ROFL!

Reader, it looks like Ray's locked in on the Relativism... .

It's all over but the cryin' now.

You've been offering your subjective opinion as defining everything from morality to the laws of nature.....and you want to talk about 'relativism'?

You're the poster child of it.

 

[Skylar]

Reader... as just an FYI: it should be noted that when you see a would-be 'Contributor' demand that your opinion is disqualified because it's your opinion, what they have done there is to advance an opinion, which they established is axiomatically DISQUALIFIED.

This is a common thesis from Drug and Alcohol addled Lesbians... particularly those of the Mouthy British Socialist variety.

With your 'reader' being you talking to yourself.

And your opinion is certainly valid as your opinion. Its INVALID as defining objective truth. As subjective is not objective.

You're desperate to convince us that your subjective opinion defines objective reality.....because that's the entirety of your argument. You assuming you define marriage, the law, the constitution, morality, good, evil, god, nature....even the English language.

And you don't define any of these things. Your opinion....defines your opinion. Nothing else.

You can't get around that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No marriage existed as a religious right long before secular governments even existed.

So? What's your point? Religious law was civil law long before secular governments even existed too. Priests could summarily have you executed for heresy answerable to no one but the church. Churches used to keep birth, tax and death records too.

We've moved on.

Government has no business in it, never did, never will.

Nonsense. You're simply stating your opinion. You're not giving us a why. Why shouldn't the government recognize marriage? Why shouldn't it protect it? Why shouldn't secular law define it under the law?

Again, religious laws are completely intact. Catholics don't have to recognize a couple married under secular law as married under Catholic law. Neither do Muslims, Mormons, Jedi, or Pastafarians.

If they want a non-secular equivalent, then use what we already have...civil unions...and make them legally identical. Not rocket surgery...if you want to provide true equality rather than division and strife.

We have a non-secular equivalent: marriage. And if civil unions are genuinely identical....why the need for them?

Simple: they aren't equal. Which is the point. Separate but equal has a lousy track record. If marriage and civil unions were genuinely identical there would be no need for the distinction.

Your solution is complicated, pointless, duplicitous, and completely unnecessary. Which is why weren't not using it.

Yeah, it only honors that 1st Amendment thingy....you know " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"....which is exactly what they did when they got their butts involved in the religious rite of marriage. (I have been getting a giggle over your obvious confusion over a "rite" and a "right"). According to your own words, the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment binding on the States...so there ya go.

Huh? If I get a civil marriage....how does that deprive you of any 1st amendment right? It doesn't. You have no 'why' in insisting that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. You simply insist it should be so.

That's not good enough. Not by half.

This entire debate....and all the division, ugliness and bullshit it has caused and still is causing...is what is pointless and could have been easily avoided by simply giving civil unions the same legal rights as marriage.

So your solution is to invalid ALL marriage certificates, elmiinatre all marriage law and all legal recognition of marriage......just to keep the gays from getting married?

That's ridiculous. Its wildly complicated, utterly pointless and completely unnecessary. Especially since you've admitted that civil unions and marriage would be identical. If they are genuinely identical, we don't need civil unions.

Here's a much simpler solution: legally recognize same sex marriages. And done.

It deprives you of no right. It doesn't effect you. And it leaves your religious right to not recognize their marriage under religious law perfectly intact. As your religious law is gloriously irrelevant to the recognition of civil marriage under civil law.

Well.....if two cousins marry, how does that effect you? How about brother and sister? How about father and daughter? None of these kinds of marriages bother you, so because it doesn't have anything to do with your life, should our government sanction such marriages?

If you want to make an argument for incest marriage, feel free.

Just asking a question; seems like one you are trying to avoid an answer to.