NY Times: US, In Shift, Sees Marriage Act as Violation of Gay Rights

[Elephant]

What I’m making is a limited government argument. You can’t claim to be for a limited government but want an overreaching government when it morally suits you.

Yes you can! I want limited government but I feel rape is immoral and should be outlawed! And I want an over reaching government to safeguard the citizens against rape to the degree they are capable, i.e. police and strict sentencing!

And Ax is wrong on Polygamy. If the law said that one man and many woman polygamy was legal but one woman and many men was not, that would be discrimination and would violate the 14th amendment. But if it was outlawed for everyone, there is no discrimination. Plus you can make a compelling argument that society has a compelling interest in outlawing polygamy because polygamy results in large numbers of males without mates (speaking of one man and women polygamy) and such a situation is not good for society.

You do realize there is a federal law on the books that allows the States to deny marriages?

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Yes you can! I want limited government but I feel rape is immoral and should be outlawed! And I want an over reaching government to safeguard the citizens against rape to the degree they are capable, i.e. police and strict sentencing!

Oh come on, now you're just being nonsensical. Clearly he meant outside of criminal behavior.

 

[Alaskan]

Mariage = man and woman and has for thousands of years. Alaskan did nothing to suggest marriage was not between a man and woman. Even if he is correct to suggest marriage was developed to maintain power structures, which I am not convinced is so, the churches who were working together with the governments did not arrange marriages between two men to link these structures!

As for the Democracy argument, what was his point? That because a Democracy is in place it is now all of a sudden ok for marriage to be redefined?

Inherent to maintaining those power structures was producing heirs which (as Ax has pointed out, as if we didn’t know) requires a man and a woman. But the bottom line is that for most of recorded history, the purpose of marriage was to propagate wealth both in breath and across generations. You don’t need marriage to propagate the species. And although me didn’t marry they did combine their wealth and power through alliances. They didn’t do that with women (except at the very highest levels) because of the powerlessness of women.

The point about Democracy is that things have changed. Serfs are no longer owned by the lord of the manner (now we are owned by the public employee unions ) women are no longer chattel. Blacks are no longer considered genetically inferior incapable of doing anything but being beasts of the field. And marriage has changed so that it is no longer arranged by vested interests but is an individual choice based upon love and commitment. Since it has changed, there is no reason to deny it to those that genetically are attracted to those of the same sex.

 

[Alaskan]

Yes you can! I want limited government but I feel rape is immoral and should be outlawed! And I want an over reaching government to safeguard the citizens against rape to the degree they are capable, i.e. police and strict sentencing!

I have never seen an Elephant jump the shark before. Makes for a big splash.

There's this little item called consent.

 

[Elephant]

I have never seen an Elephant jump the shark before. Makes for a big splash.

There's this little item called consent.

Your statement was, You can’t claim to be for a limited government but want an overreaching government when it morally suits you.

I gave a case where you can have a need for the government to support your morality even if you want limited government.

 

[Alaskan]

And the difference is consent.

The person being raped is being hurt. Physically and/or emotionally.

How are you hurt by a couple of gays whom you don't know (and apparently wouldn't want anything to do with) getting married?

 

[Sarge]

So, when does the impeachmnet start?

 

[Elephant]

And the difference is consent.

The person being raped is being hurt. Physically and/or emotionally.

How are you hurt by a couple of gays whom you don't know (and apparently wouldn't want anything to do with) getting married?

Look, I agree the scenarios are different. I simply showed a case that countered your statement. Your statement was "A" could not happen if you believe "B". That is not true!


You guys can have the last word, I'm done. You believe what you believe, I disagree. I still have not seen where marriage is a right given to all citizens. I have however seen a law that states the States have the right to deny marriages. If they have the authority to deny a marriage, then it is obviously not a right given to us by the Constitution! If you go to apply for a marriage license, the State has the authority to say no!

What the State or a business cannot do is deny insurance benefits or the like to a gay couple any longer. That is the discrimination Lanky so vehemently believes is denied by marriage. Denying marriage to it's citizens is fully within the authority of the States! Denying couples the same benefits that married couples receive is not!

 

[Alaskan]

You guys can have the last word, I'm done.

Your officers can keep their sidearms and your men can keep their horses for the spring plowing.

 

[Sarge]

Better yet, just don't enforce it. Oh wait, I guess that's only good if you're gay or a Black Panther

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Man, El gave up before addressing my comments on marital history. Funny how people sometimes ignore the holes in their boat and keep on fishing, so as not to ruin their good time!

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Antagonizing? "I do not think that word means what you think it means." -Inigo Montoya

 

[Elephant]

aaah...antagonizing a man who doesnt want to argue at its finest. bravo my man, bravo.

Every time I try to get out....they pull me back in!

Jaimie, to address your antagonism I will refere you to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

If you go to the History section, you will notice very vague references to marriage. They give a Chinese reference in the Fujian region that do not define the relationships as actual marriage. They give another from the Zhou Dynasty, but state there is no ceremony that binds them. They suggest Nero married one of his slaves in Ancient Rome, but if you read further there was no legitimate "marriage" between same sex partners in Rome even though same sex relationships did exist.

There are four vary vague references to "marriage" in the history of mankind. The true history of same sex marriage starts in 1989 when the Dutch legalized. Until then, throughout recorded history there are 4 possible references to possible "marriage", but even the writers admit there is no true definition of marriage among these references.

I was going to refrain, but alas...my ego is probably as big as your's!

Edit: I probably should not moon in this thread!

 

[Elephant]

You know, the real outrage in all of this is not necessarily our disagreements on what consititutes marriage or the history thereof, the real outrage is another Obama swing in philosophy.

During his campaign he emphatically stated he is against Gay Marriage! He went so far as to agree with my assertion that Civil Unions would solve the discrimination issue.

Now, he chooses to not follow the Law contradicting himself...again!

 

[Lanky Livingston]

was going to refrain, but alas...my ego is probably as big as your's!

Edit: I probably should not moon in this thread!

LOL. Now that's funny.

You know, the real outrage in all of this is not necessarily our disagreements on what consititutes marriage or the history thereof, the real outrage is another Obama swing in philosophy.

During his campaign he emphatically stated he is against Gay Marriage! He went so far as to agree with my assertion that Civil Unions would solve the discrimination issue.

Now, he chooses to not follow the Law contradicting himself...again!

Eh...presidents (politicians in general) go back on campaign promises all the time. Its the status quo - at this point I only vote on a politician's potential, not what he says. Its a wild goose chase! At the time of the election, I truly believed Obama had the potential to be one of the great leaders of our time. Has he lived up to that? No...but he still has time. Not looking good for him though.

an·tag·o·nize (n-tg-nz)
tr.v. an·tag·o·nized, an·tag·o·niz·ing, an·tag·o·niz·es
1. To incur the dislike of; provoke hostility or enmity in: antagonized her officemates with her rude behavior.
2. To counteract.


lets see:

1. you were provoking him to get back in to a heated debate he didnt want anything to do with.

2. you were TRYING to counteract what he really wanted which was to get out of the conversation.

Your quote was a lame ripoff of something clever I did as well..but I will give you an A for effort.

I love that Mike is accusing someone else of antagonizing people.

I was not provoking hostility nor emnity, sorry. I was not counteracting anything either...can't counteract the written word.

 

[Alaskan]

At the time of the election, I truly believed Obama had the potential to be one of the great leaders of our time. Has he lived up to that? No...but he still has time. Not looking good for him though.

Nope. He's an empty suit.

 

[Sarge]

At the time of the election, I truly believed Obama had the potential to be one of the great leaders of our time. Has he lived up to that? No...but he still has time. Not looking good for him though.

If someone takes some of our folks hostages and holds them for a year and a half, Jimmy Carter will have finally gotten his second term

maybe next time people will spend more time researching a candidate and less time drinking the cool aid

 

[Ax]

Ummmm, or maybe their purpose is to be able to share a life with the person they choose to love?

Ummmm, they can already share a life with the person they chose to love.
So can a brother and sister.
So can a woman and her dog.
But such behavior is illegal.
So is same sex marriage. But now they want to change that law. When they do, then there is no good reason not to allow brothers and sisters to marry, either. Or a person and their pet. Or 4 men all marrying the same 10 women.
Why isn't it discrimination against them?

Then again, if I'm dealing with someone who looks down on gays as flawed, then there's no reasoning with you to begin with.

Not looking down on anyone. Another creation you concocted. I don't look down on people born with other disabilities either. But as a man, if you like Ray Berry's ass more than Halle Berry's ass, then yeah, your brain is seriously out of whack.

Can't reason with a bigot.

Or a girly man.

 

[Alaskan]

So Ax, why don't you answer the question I asked Elephant. How does allowing gays to marry hurt you?

 

[fansince62]

So Ax, why don't you answer the question I asked Elephant. How does allowing gays to marry hurt you?

What does hurting Ax have to do with anything? that's your standard?

at least be honest and don't perpetuate the crap some are peddling. this is a political move with multiple dimensions: placate a natural constituency for Obama as he bumbles through his criminal Presidency; normalize homosexuality as just another lifestyle - with all the income transfer perks (as we will learn in the military soon enough).

And Ax is 100% correct - there is absolutley no basis for ruling out many of the relationships he listed given the "standard" in play. Afterall, how is Ax hurt by some character in CA sleeping with his beloved sheep? It's just luuuuuvvvvvvv.