For my Libertarian friends

So Rob, marriage should not be left up to the states. It is between a man and woman, period.
I was just wondering which would win, your personal or libertarian belief.

Epignosis wrote: As you say, it's an ideological thing.  You think tax freedom is based on need, and I do not. I hope you change your mind, but if you don't, I respect your right to vote your conscience.

And of course same to you, and everyone here. I'm just sick in the head, I like the debating.
Especially here, most people actually know what they are talking about and can challenge me.
Opposed to most I know who just absorb and spit out everything they hear from FOX news or Rush Limbaugh. I get so sick of hearing "AHHH! THE GOVERNMENT! Too big government yadda yadda" when I know they have no actual idea what they are saying. If you are of that opinion it's fine, just use your brain and decide it for you.


And the Supreme Court thing is still a weird one to me. There's talk of activist judges and all this, but I do think most people don't really care as long it helps what they want. I am kind of afraid of the supreme court to be honest, at least how much power it can wield. I personally am in favor of moderate "tradtional" judges that you know, just do their job. It can be good, like in cases where it is truly for the common good, but politics should be kept out. If what you say is true Finnforest then f*ck.

And I do find it funny how the Supreme really just one person. So many times the vote is always 4-4 and that one moderate judge is the decider...


Edited by JJLehto - June 29 2010 at 22:49

thellama73 wrote: JJLehto wrote:  I am kind of afraid of the supreme court to be honest, at least how much power it can wield. Bravo! You're starting to get it.

Well that's something I've always felt. I can be maverick-ish
But really, besides the fact that it's overstepping their boundary (ya know...the legislative makes laws I believe) it's a scary thought.

And if you want to be a cold realist about it...can't support too much activism in the court because it may good when they pass liberal laws, but they then have the right to pass conservative laws, then liberals get pissed.
Or vice versa.


Edited by JJLehto - June 29 2010 at 22:50

I'm so totally not with you that allowing gays to marry constitutes special rights any more than allowing heteros to marry.  I fail to see the logic that allowing homosexuals to have governmental protection of their unions and the benefits of married status constitutes more rights.  The government should get completely out of the marriage business or allow gays the same privileges that the rest of us get if they want to get hitched.  The catch is that they will also be subject to divorces and all those other messy things that heterosexual couples are subject to.  I don't believe churches should be required to marry gay people if it doesn't suit their belief system, either.  But I'd even go so far as to say the government has no business outlawing polygamy as long as it's between adults, and everyone consents to the relationship, and the women are allowed to take on extra husbands if they choose to do so.

And when it comes to homophobic, two names come to mind: Fred Phelps and Matthew Sheppard...


Edited by Slartibartfast - June 30 2010 at 11:39

Epignosis wrote:   From what I've read and seen, most gay activists are fighting for more rights (not equal rights mind you- I can't marry a man anymore than a gay man could),

thellama73 wrote: Holy smokes, Batman! Slarti and I actually agree on something.

That's what I was about to say.

The only aspect I disagree with is that I think the government should get out of the institution of marriage altogether. But otherwise, I agree that gay couples should get the same legal and economic benefits that married couples do.


Edited by horsewithteeth11 - June 30 2010 at 11:36

Padraic wrote: Epignosis wrote:   From what I've read and seen, most gay activists are fighting for more rights (not equal rights mind you- I can't marry a man anymore than a gay man could),  But by that logic, they are simply arguing for more rights for everyone.  They want to be free to marry a man, and you could too if you want.   I understand what you're trying to say, but say we're in a dessert shop.  You love cake and detest ice cream, I am the exact opposite.  The store owner says, "sorry boys, I'm all out of ice cream today - but I've got plenty of delicious cake"  So while I sit there frustrated and dejected, you munch away on your slice of cake and tell me, "Hey Pat, look, I can't get any ice cream either!" While technically true it just sort of sucks, doesn't it?

Yes, but you could (presumably) get ice cream the next day.  Or somewhere else.  What you won't do is start a political campaign (I would hope).

A polygamist cannot marry two women.
A monogamist cannot marry two women (almost wrote misogynist there ).
They have equal rights.

A homosexual man cannot marry a man.
A heterosexual man cannot marry a man.
They have equal rights.

I would think this is very simple.

Now, I'm not saying gays shouldn't work towards getting what they want (because there isn't anything wrong with pleading for more rights), but I find it naive and distasteful to liken their cause to the those of the civil rights era- blacks did not have the same rights as whites.

That's all I meant by that comment.

Epignosis wrote:   A homosexual man cannot marry a man. A heterosexual man cannot marry a man. They have equal rights. I would think this is very simple.

Brian, edit your quote box.  That's Pat's analogy.  

Epignosis wrote: Padraic wrote: Epignosis wrote:   From what I've read and seen, most gay activists are fighting for more rights (not equal rights mind you- I can't marry a man anymore than a gay man could),  But by that logic, they are simply arguing for more rights for everyone.  They want to be free to marry a man, and you could too if you want.   I understand what you're trying to say, but say we're in a dessert shop.  You love cake and detest ice cream, I am the exact opposite.  The store owner says, "sorry boys, I'm all out of ice cream today - but I've got plenty of delicious cake"  So while I sit there frustrated and dejected, you munch away on your slice of cake and tell me, "Hey Pat, look, I can't get any ice cream either!" While technically true it just sort of sucks, doesn't it? Yes, but you could (presumably) get ice cream the next day.  Or somewhere else.  What you won't do is start a political campaign (I would hope).

Breaking the analogy only proves the analogy only worked for the boundary conditions it was set for. It does not prove anything else.

Epignosis wrote: A polygamist cannot marry two women. A monogamist cannot marry two women (almost wrote misogynist there ). They have equal rights. A homosexual man cannot marry a man. A heterosexual man cannot marry a man. They have equal rights. I would think this is very simple.

 classic

Edited by Dean - June 30 2010 at 12:47

I'm fine with the government declaring all such relationships "civil unions" and letting churches/places of worship declare marriages.