"Smaller government" advocates

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

Besides the fact that Civil Unions didn't entail the invasion of normal people's marriage, what is the difference? What could married people do that others in civil unions couldn't do that a good lawyer could straighten out?

And here we go.....right back down to government benefits. It seems that was the courts main issue--not the problem of being right or wrong. And speaking of rights, it's those government goodies that made marriage a right as well; not that I agree with it of course because single people don't have those government benefits, therefore single people are being denied rights.

But even if we got rid of government benefits in marriage--all benefits, how much would you bet that gays would still be complaining that they couldn't get married?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Absolutely. If the authors of the amendment could look into the future and see how much trouble it caused and the decay of a normal society, I'm sure it would have been written much differently.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Correct, but it's like cancer. Soon it will make all marriages a joke.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Besides the fact that Civil Unions didn't entail the invasion of normal people's marriage, what is the difference? What could married people do that others in civil unions couldn't do that a good lawyer could straighten out?

And here we go.....right back down to government benefits. It seems that was the courts main issue--not the problem of being right or wrong. And speaking of rights, it's those government goodies that made marriage a right as well; not that I agree with it of course because single people don't have those government benefits, therefore single people are being denied rights.

But even if we got rid of government benefits in marriage--all benefits, how much would you bet that gays would still be complaining that they couldn't get married?

'Separate but equal' is just as repugnant to the Constitution today as it was in 1954.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in accordance with marriage laws as currently written – there's no need to contrive 'civil unions.'

Marriage law can accommodate two equal, adult, consenting partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

To attempt to relegate same-sex couples to some sort of 'alternative marriage' predicated solely on who gay Americas are is as much a violation of the 14th Amendment as seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

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.

Besides the fact that Civil Unions didn't entail the invasion of normal people's marriage, what is the difference? What could married people do that others in civil unions couldn't do that a good lawyer could straighten out?

And here we go.....right back down to government benefits. It seems that was the courts main issue--not the problem of being right or wrong. And speaking of rights, it's those government goodies that made marriage a right as well; not that I agree with it of course because single people don't have those government benefits, therefore single people are being denied rights.

But even if we got rid of government benefits in marriage--all benefits, how much would you bet that gays would still be complaining that they couldn't get married?

'Separate but equal' is just as repugnant to the Constitution today as it was in 1954.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in accordance with marriage laws as currently written – there's no need to contrive 'civil unions.'

Marriage law can accommodate two equal, adult, consenting partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

To attempt to relegate same-sex couples to some sort of 'alternative marriage' predicated solely on who gay Americas are is as much a violation of the 14th Amendment as seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

However, if "marriage law" were the same with civil unions, then what's the problem?

Marriage since the founding of this country was defined as two people of the opposite sex forming a union. Government poked it's nose into marriage to support normal families. It wasn't until recently that marriage was forced to include two people of the same sex.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

The "founding fathers" did not want a bill of Rights at all. It was pressure by the Constitutions opponents that led to the Bill of Rights..

And it definitely wasn't to protect from so-called "mob rule" but to protect from elitists ensconced in government.

The seven key Founding Fathers (as the term is quite loose) were Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jay, Jefferson, Madison and Washington.

Well, James Madison wrote the first drafts of the Bill of Rights, he was a Founding Father. He clearly wanted a BoRs, otherwise why write the damn thing?

Massachusetts Historical Society: the Beehive

"On this day in 1789, President George Washington wrote a short letter to each state’s governor, enclosing a copy of twelve proposed amendments to the new United States Constitution for consideration, which Congress had passed on September 25 with the signatures of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, Vice President John Adams. Of the twelve, ten received the necessary ratification and collectively became known as the Bill of Rights."

"These amendments corresponded with many of the changes for which John Adams had expressed a desire when he first read the proposed Constitution. “A Declaration of Rights I wish to see with all my Heart,”

So, Washington and Adams supported the Bill of Rights.

What was Benjamin Franklin's perspective on The Bill of Rights?

"Ben Franklin was pleased with the Congress and the Bill of Rights, stating, Congress had done its work "with a greater degree of temper, prudence and unanimity than could well have been expected, and our future prospects seem very favorable." Franklin believed in the freedom of the press which is guaranteed in the First Amendment."

So Franklin was for the Bill of Rights.

Hamilton was against the Bill of Rights.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: The Bill of Rights

""I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387"

""A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers 12:440"

Jefferson was for the Bill of Rights.

So, ONE of the seven important guys was against, I couldn't find out anything (at a quick search) about Jay, he was a Supreme Court justice at the time and didn't have an input in the process, and the rest were clearly in favor.

So how you can say the Founding Fathers were against is beyond me. SOME were against, but clearly not enough as it passed through Congress and the States.

 

[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.

Uh, no. I want smaller government, I want a smaller military, I want less intervention in foreign crapholes, I could give a crap who marries who, I am for legalizing marijuana. But hey, thanks for the stereotyping...what are you going to tell us next...that all blacks are thugs, or that all muzzies are terrorists...or that all mexicans are illegal aliens?

Notice I said "Most of the people", this doesn't mean ALL OF THE PEOPLE, as you seem to be trying to say.

 

[koshergrl]

Wow this thread which is a taunt is being propped up nicely I see.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage...

Marriage IS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So how you can say the Founding Fathers were against is beyond me. SOME were against, but clearly not enough as it passed through Congress and the States.

It's the distinction between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists dumbass.

The Anti-Federalists did not trust the notion of a central government. And it turns out that their distrust was well founded... as the Federal Government has become precisely what they said it would become.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Wow this thread which is a taunt is being propped up nicely I see.

LOL! You spotted it too? Pathetic ain't it?

My guess is that frigid is a sock of (Uknowwho).

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

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.

Fine, you believe something. Is that belief enough to stop people from marrying when it is contrary to your belief? No it isn't.

Why is marriage not a right? Who decides whether it is a right or not?

It's a religious rite? Well that changed a long time ago, didn't it? Non-Religious people get married and the govt has been handing out benefits to married people for a long time too.

Things change, you can go with the times or you can be left behind.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Correct, but it's like cancer. Soon it will make all marriages a joke.

Like with a 50% divorce rate.

Oh, wait, that happened BEFORE gay marriage was legalized in the whole country.

Straight people made it a joke.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why is marriage not a right?

Because Marriage represents more than YOU! Marriage is an essential element of the culture.

Now... for an action to be a Right, it requires one bear the responsibility intrinsic to the right.

So, you demand that Marriage is a Right. Tell the Reader what responsibility the individual must bear to sustain the "Right to Marriage"?

(Reader, this will be the end of this line of discussion... because in truth, a "Right to Marriage" would at the MINIMUM require the individual to marry within the scope of standards that DEFEND THE INTEGRITY OF THE INSTITUTION. Thus, where Marriage is defined through natural human physiology... requiring the joining of One Man and One Woman, a RIGHT to marry AT THE MINIMUM... requires the individual RESPECT THE STANDARD THAT SUSTAINS THE INTEGRITY OF MARRIAGE.

But, the Ideological Left has been at war with Marriage since the 1960s... and that is because Marriage is... as noted above an essential element of a viable culture. Thus where the goal is to undermine the viability of the United States, it follows that among the requirements to get there... one would disrupt or destroy the Culture's Nucleus.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct, but it's like cancer. Soon it will make all marriages a joke.

Like with a 50% divorce rate.

Oh, wait, that happened BEFORE gay marriage was legalized in the whole country.

Straight people made it a joke.

Divorces make it a joke? Not like a joke it will be when man is legal to marry his cow, or woman is legal to marry her dog. After all, that's the path we are currently on.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Correct, but it's like cancer. Soon it will make all marriages a joke.

Like with a 50% divorce rate.

(First... the state is BS... but let's set that aside...) So your point is what? That your cult has already undermined the value of marriage in the minds of many people who get married, that's its no big deal to mind fuck another generation? For what purpose?

Oh, wait, that happened BEFORE gay marriage was legalized in the whole country.

Yes... it did happen before the Democrats (Leftists... ) licensed degeneracy. And it happened because of the same set of addled ideas, were advanced by the same subversive jokes that licensed degeneracy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

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.

Fine, you believe something. Is that belief enough to stop people from marrying when it is contrary to your belief? No it isn't.

Why is marriage not a right? Who decides whether it is a right or not?

It's a religious rite? Well that changed a long time ago, didn't it? Non-Religious people get married and the govt has been handing out benefits to married people for a long time too.

Things change, you can go with the times or you can be left behind.

If that's changing with the times, I would rather be left behind. I would rather stand my ground than be complicit in the decay of morality just because it happens to be popular. So what happens if we end up with a Democrat President the next few decades that loads up our Supreme Court with liberals that decide it's not our Constitutional right to own firearms? Will you change with the times willingly? Or the other way with conservative Presidents who load up the Supreme Court with other conservatives that rules abortion is murder and therefore illegal? Still want to change with the times?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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?

There is already a 5 year time limit on TANF.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

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.

Fine, you believe something. Is that belief enough to stop people from marrying when it is contrary to your belief? No it isn't.

Why is marriage not a right? Who decides whether it is a right or not?

It's a religious rite? Well that changed a long time ago, didn't it? Non-Religious people get married and the govt has been handing out benefits to married people for a long time too.

Things change, you can go with the times or you can be left behind.

If that's changing with the times, I would rather be left behind. I would rather stand my ground than be complicit in the decay of morality just because it happens to be popular. So what happens if we end up with a Democrat President the next few decades that loads up our Supreme Court with liberals that decide it's not our Constitutional right to own firearms? Will you change with the times willingly? Or the other way with conservative Presidents who load up the Supreme Court with other conservatives that rules abortion is murder and therefore illegal? Still want to change with the times?

I always laugh when the cult starts braying about populism being the "Will of the People".

LOL! These are the same idiots that just accepted a vote of a 9 member panel, which carried a 5 vote majority to OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

Which tells you everything ya need to know about the BIG LIE... .

Take their steadfast view on the murder of Pre-born children: "ITS LEGAL GET USED IT IT!"

Now... imagine a world wherein Homosexuals fell out of favor... and this was a during a period when the Left was in total control... it had finally found the supreme power and the opposition of the Americans was indiscernible... No Fox News... No Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck or Levins out there clearing things up, correcting the litany of lies.

Now historically... that is where the Left cuts its losses. And there's no loss that has been more routinely cut loose than the homosexuals.

And why is that do ya figure?

Well... it turns out that sexual deviancy is a destabilizing factor, undermining the viability of a culture.

And Leftists... LOVE stable cultures and without an opposing force, that's what they build. Passive cultures who do what they're told and don't ask questions.

Now... when those people turn on your ass and open season on homosexuals... effectively making it legal to kill homosexuals, do ya think the same people who declare legality to be the pinnacle of concern where defenseless babies are concerned, will be standing on that would-be point when it's their necks on the chopping block?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

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.

Fine, you believe something. Is that belief enough to stop people from marrying when it is contrary to your belief? No it isn't.

Why is marriage not a right? Who decides whether it is a right or not?

It's a religious rite? Well that changed a long time ago, didn't it? Non-Religious people get married and the govt has been handing out benefits to married people for a long time too.

Things change, you can go with the times or you can be left behind.

If that's changing with the times, I would rather be left behind. I would rather stand my ground than be complicit in the decay of morality just because it happens to be popular. So what happens if we end up with a Democrat President the next few decades that loads up our Supreme Court with liberals that decide it's not our Constitutional right to own firearms? Will you change with the times willingly? Or the other way with conservative Presidents who load up the Supreme Court with other conservatives that rules abortion is murder and therefore illegal? Still want to change with the times?

I have no doubt many people, throughout history, would like to be left behind.

If you ever read an author like Borges, then perhaps you see why death and growing old is an important part of life. It allows for change that those who are older just don't want.

Decay in morality huh? The first 90 years of the USA had slavery, the next 90 years had segregation, throughout history black people, gay people etc have been treated with disdain, and you're talking to me about MORALITY?

The constitution protects the right to own guns. It also protects people from the mob rule of govt that often wants to treat people differently.

If something is right, I will be in favor of it. If it is wrong, I am against it. I didn't say everyone supported the changing of the times, but the changing of the times is what it is. In the US the changing of the times goes both good and bad. Good in that people's freedoms are being recognized, even when many are against other people having freedom, in the name of morality, but at the same time politics is becoming an absolute partisan joke.