SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. by Geezer

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Also, a gay "marriage" devalues my marriage by putting it on par with dog-lovers, child rapists, and incestous folks. (See explanation in posts above)

Wow, your marriage is fairly vulnerable to outside forces, eh?

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:52 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Wow, your marriage is fairly vulnerable to outside forces, eh?"

Nope. Not at all. I just don't want it being brought down to that level.

Anyways....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:00 AM

OPPYH

Obama is smart. 80%of America frowns upon gay marriages. Why would he risk losing all those votes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Wow, your marriage is fairly vulnerable to outside forces, eh?"

Nope. Not at all. I just don't want it being brought down to that level.

Funny, nothing anyone else does could bring my marriage to any other 'level'...maybe I'm not getting your full meaning.

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:19 AM

Six, I realize that a lot of people feel that way,

but this is America, and people that feel that way need to ask themselves whether they are Americans or Christians first -

probably the latter in many cases,

the problem here is that some main-stream christian theology is directly contradictory to what this country was founded on(principles, not practice)

and frankly, that is a problem, if they let it dictate the direction that they want to take America, if they allow their beliefs to usurp the First Amerndment...etc.

I think an honorable approach, for the Christian American, is to hold whatever beliefs he has, and then to protect the first amendment, to protect the Constitution, because he believes strongly that the government should remain secular so that everybody, themselves included, can remain free to practice the religion of their choice as they choose.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:21 AM

WASHNWEAR

No fair, Wulf - I thought we'd agreed (or at least I'd agreed) that you wren't gonna make me exert my brain, even a ittle bit (and it don't take much...)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
*sigh

Wash,

Would you support N.A.M.B.L.A. if they wanted to recognize themselves as being "married'?

Not trying to be coy here, but I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. If you're asking if I would be comfortable with the prospect of a "boy" (defined as being somewhere under 18 years of age) marrying a "man" (defined as 18 or older), the answer is...wait for it...NO. 'Cause I have a lot of weird, out-moded tapes playing in the back of my head, and they get me confused sometimes as to the difference between what I think is outright JACKED-UP and what just makes me feel squeamish (and what, if any of it, is any of my business). Having admitted that, lemme ask you this: Why should I be any more or less comfortable - personal prejudice, which I got some of, aside - with a 30-year-old man marrying a 16-year-old boy than I am with a 30-year-old man marrying a 16-year-old girl? (The latter is legal with parental consent in the state of Texas - not sure about elsewhere.) That big an age gap would make me uneasy regardless of the genders involved, but there's a difference between something making me "uneasy" and that same thing being "immoral".

Quote:
Im sure they could come up with a church that would marry them... Calling it the "Church of man-boy love, Dogs and Family Union".

Again, as far as your statement goes, I don't disagree with any particular...

Quote:
Or would that offend your morals?

If I'm making (or trying to make) any point here - and thank you for helping me get it crystalized in my mind - it is that my offended morals are often, if not always, beside the point. What offends me today may be my latest hobby a year from now (or not). If I thought something non-consentual or hurtful (to either party) was going on in either of the marriages described above, you can bet that, at the very least, my well-developed sense of righteous indignation would rise loudly and pointlessly to the occasion. That (abuse) would offend my morals. It would also presumably be covered by the same laws that apply to hetero marriages, and would therefor have the same chance of being effectively dealt with (or not) by those laws. The fact that a union is same-sex would not materially change the equation for me.

Wulf, as a past (and occasionally current) victim of the mesmerising power of the Slippery Slope argument, all I can say is that the "danger" often appears more "real" or "imminent" than it actually is.

EDIT to own up to flagrant abuse of "quotation marks".

It was like two people at least ATTEMPTING to reason together when we got here!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:26 AM

Wulfie, Wulfie, Wulfie,

Here's a question, and while it's going to seem harsh, it goes straight to the point...

who gives a fuck what 'devalues' your sense of marriage?

How is your sense of what marriage is any more valid than Tom and Tim's?

Why the fuck should they care? Why should I?

What if I were to say that your sense of marriage devalues mine? Cuz, frankly, it does.

I think marriage is between two consenting people who love each other, who want to commit the rest of their lives to each other in an intimate and caring way. Your version is soulless literal piece of shit in my mind.

And what I want you to say, and expect you to say, is you don't give a shit what I think of your idea of marriage, that's its your own personal belief, your own personal connection to the word, and that I have no business defining it for you...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:33 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Righteous said:

"I think marriage is between two consenting people who love each other, who want to commit the rest of their lives to each other in an intimate and caring way."

So...you would be FOR the folks in NAMBLA being married? Im sure a 13 year old boy could be coerced into claiming consent to being abused. (Btw, just so you know, NAMBLA folks are right up there at the top of my list of people who should be culled right out of the population..preferably in the most horrible manner possible. GitMo would not have shit on what I would do to them.)

But then...what about the ones who want to marry their pet iguanas? You said 2 consenting "people"! Shame on you for your bigotry towards the animal loving community!

Civil Union don't need to have definitions.. Marriage, being a religious one, has and does.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

I think marriage is between two consenting people who love each other, who want to commit the rest of their lives to each other in an intimate and caring way.

Plus: more marriages = more divorces = more happy lawyers & a better economy.

Half-fullisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:43 AM

WASHNWEAR

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Obama is smart. 80%of America frowns upon gay marriages. Why would he risk losing all those votes.

This just off the top of my head (and as a consideration I often fail to...consider), I wonder what percentage of that 80% ever get anywhere near a ballot box? What percentage of the remaining 20% is actually anti-same-sex-union (as distinguished from "undecided" and a position which I think is more accurately labelled as "anti-fag"), and how driven are they gonna be to show up at their local voting site?

It was like that when we got here!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:46 AM

fucking A dude,

In America, we have decided regardless of religion, that there is an age of consent. We have decided that there is an age when people become adults,

activities involving children, by our definition in this country, do not constitute a consenting relationship.

We also do not consider animals consenting beings in such relationships. We don't consider that they are developed enough that we can trust they aren't being abused.

..........

and please quit skirting the issue..."Who's religion gets to define marriage?"

marriage is defined differently by every religion out there. Duties of man and wife are defined differently. Who is right? You would say you are. I would say you are fucking flat out wrong.

We are at an impasse. Should we make the government decide, or should we let bygones be bygones and let people do what they please?( and don't bring up nambla again in response to this post - I dealt with it above, and for the second time I might add)

Edited to Ask - Wulfenstar, you are by far not religious, you said in an early post, which makes it sound to me like you aren't a believer, which would mean that you yourself, by your own definitiion of marriage, are not and cannot be married. So I take it that when you said you were by far not religious, you meant you are by far not a fanatic? Or are you cutting yourself out of your own definition?
.....................

hehe...exactly Crhisisall - like Christmas, it is a truly American, Capitalistic institution

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:55 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Im not skirting the issue, YOU are. If we allow for gays to be married (marriage again, not Civil Union)... then why not for anyone or anything.

Age of consent? You are bigoted towards pre-sexual beings! Shame! We have moved BEYOOND such things! Even the term "kids" is derogatory! SHAME! Shame on you for trying to take away the rights of the pre-sexual to be in a consenting adult relationship (i.e. abused)

Again, the different religions themselves decide who and how and what and where you should be MARRIED.

Government can allow for Civil Unions.... maybe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:01 AM

WASHNWEAR

Link to Wicki's piece on NAMBLA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

I took about 180 seconds to scan the article (slow day at work but I still gotta look like I'm working), which is the most "research" I've ever done on NAMBLA. I'm not real sure how above - or below - board they are, but, as several other gay and lesbian groups apparently decided, I'd think long and hard about throwing my ideological lot in with theirs, out of PR considerations if nothing else...

It was a strange old world out there when we got here!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
If we allow for gays

JustwantedtofreakWulfoutisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:09 AM

Hehe, wow...

Dude, I don't even get you. YOu're only argument, continually, I might add, is that gay marriage is like pedophilia.

I have demonstrated effectively, I think, that there is an obvious and legal difference.

You act like gay marriage is a gateway to allowing unions between men and boys. To that, I ask, what hte fuck are you talking about?

I've stated from the beginning that consenting individuals were required to meet my definition of marriage. I've stated since that children cannot be considered to be consenting, and this is because we need some sort of rigid guid-line for the protection of our children.

You know your argument is falacious, so why do you keep using it? My assumption, and plese correct me if I'm wrong, is that all you have without that is that you are homophobic, you don't like the idea of homosexuals, and you like less their life-style being condoned or accepted by the state.

This is America. You get to think like that. Then, please step away from your core bigotry, and when it comes time to be an American Citizen vote your faith in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Remember that you can hate gays all you want, but that as an American who believes in equality and Civil Liberty, you won't stomp on their rights, to call themselves married, if that's what htey choose to do, to be recognized as married, if we also recognize heterosexual couples to be married.

If on the other hand, you wish for the state to ONLY recognize civil unions, and to change its terminology for everyone(a point which you have yet to state so I'm not convinced this is where you are going), then I'm fine with it. It's equal, it's even, while maybe more extreme than necceary(assuming 'marriage' is a religious term and not a legal one), a step in the right direction in upholding the Constitution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:45 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"I've stated from the beginning that consenting individuals were required to meet my definition of marriage."

How is that ANY different from what I am saying? Except that, in a Constitutional sense, the government DOES NOT have the right to define what or what is not a marriage. The states barely even have that right.

My belief, my core not-so- bigoted-as-you-would-like-to-think belief, is that marriage is still, and always will be, a religious institution.

Look, gays want to be able to visit their S.O.'s in the hospital and to file taxes and play house together. Fine. Got no quarrel with that as such. They can have a Civil Union which grants them those rights.

What they can't have, is a marriage by a church that does not condone such a thing.

You are arguing that any consenting adult can enter into a marriage (not a Civil Union) I say neine.

My whole point is NOT that gays are sub-human, or second-class citizens. But rather that, when we start allowing for the government to push itself more into our domestic lives, we are opening a pandoras box.

No, I am not religious, but I feel it necessary to defend their beliefs. Most religions do not want to marry gays. That too is also fine. Again, gays can have civil unions, just do not call or think of them as marriages.

As to NAMBLA. Yes, it applys. By NOT drawing a line as to who and what can shack up, you open the door to all sorts of nastiness.

10 years or 100 down the line, after so-called domestic partnerships are allowed, whats to stop folks like NAMBLA from pushing for the same thing? Sure, we find it morally disgusting NOW, but will our childrens children?

We say we will draw the line at age of consent, but really....the lines we have drawn in the past are constantly being pushed back inch by inch.

30 years ago, would we have put up with whats played on most Rap stations? 20 years ago, would we have put up with what is put on T.V. today? 10 years ago, would we have allowed for our rights to be curtailed in the interest of "safety"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:16 AM

Soooooo.....

we were opening a can of worms when we let blacks into our schools. When we let them sit at the front of our busses, drink from our fountains. What could have been next? Pigs, and goats drinking from our fountains? Sure, blacks were okay, but I mean, shit, when we start fucking with the line, that means the line can move...ANYWHERE. What about midgets? People with down syndrome? What about gremlins? What about green men from outer space? Sure, they aren't here today, but when they come down to drink from our children's childrens fountains, and spray us with their foul disintigration rays,will our children just let them run amok? They won't know what to do because we stopped discriminating against blacks...that will be pretty darned confusing!!

Where is our sense of decorum? Again, blacks, sure, aliens, not in my fucking country. So, sorry blacks, we let you into the club, we let everybody and everyhing into the club. Can't do it, you understand

Oh and by the way, I"m really close to using caps on this point, because I keep saying it and you keep pretending it isn't being said...

No church that doesn't condone gay marriage is going to have to marry gay people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Church's that condone gay marriage are going to be allowed to marry gay people. Got it? No?

To be continued in five minutes then....

ugh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:20 AM

That was ruttin' hi-larious, Righteous.

Chrisisalllol

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:24 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ummm, wow....

You are comparing what could be a lifestyle-CHOICE (the jury is still out on that one Nature v.s. Nurture) to something you are born with?

Wow...

Besides, most black churchs do not support gay "marriage" either.

Why does it have to be "marriage"? Why not "Civil Union"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:24 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Idiot.

Here's the rub, you live in a country where a modicum of personal freedom still exists, at least for the moment in time.

What care YOU if the State recognizes it.

YOU do not have to, no one will make you, and no one really cares if you do or don't.

So just pack up your thinly veiled petty personal hatreds and emotional baggage, and do the smart thing, just sniff in derision, state that YOU, personally, do not recognize it as such, and be on your merry, ehe ?

Damn folks are boneheaded sometimes.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:33 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Fred,

Usually I am in agreement with you...however.

I care, and so should you. Im surprised that you are not with me on this one.

I am against there being laws stating that I MUST recognize it as a "marriage".

Personal, petty, hatreds? Such as? Please enlighten me.

Other than that, frak off. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their homes, to or with each other. Not my business.

I do care, however, when you try and push your shit on me. I don't have to believe or parrot what is "socially acceptable" or P.C.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

I am against there being laws stating that I MUST recognize it as a "marriage".

If you wanna get started on railin' against all the useless, irritating, redundant, or dopey laws there are, Highlander, all I can say is be glad you're immortal.

You just about have enough timeisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:42 AM

Wulf,

do you at all see a double standard here?

While I appreciate your liberetarian sense of state not being allowed to dictate to you what marriage is, wouldn't you agree that if the gay population at large didn't like having to accept heterosexual marriage in the face of their own being rejected, that the state would be forcing them to accept its definition of marriage? and wouldn't that fly in the face of your belief that the state should stay out of it?

You still have yet to state that all state sanctioned marriages should be known only as 'civil unions', at which point we could debate semantics,

sadly we're still debating equality

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:47 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Righteous,

I could make a crack about seperate-but-equal, however I don't think you would understand that I was joking.

If gays get married at a church that allows it, then I guess you can call it marriage. Fair enough?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:04 AM

yeah, definitely,

and I promise you that if the ever issue arises where people are demanding that the pope marry gay people in the vatican, or that or some similarly bizarre entitlement, I'll be with you on the separation of church and state issue. They have no business telling churches how to run their affairs, and that is mutual.

By the way....you said gay and crack in the same post...heheh
heh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:07 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

lol

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Clinton, Obama, McCain and a host of other liberals...

Liberals????

Surely you jest!

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:58 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Also, a gay "marriage" devalues my marriage by putting it on par with dog-lovers, child rapists, and incestous folks. (See explanation in posts above)

Okay. So you are a bigot then. Or at least use all the codewords.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Okay. So you are a bigot then.

Wow Geeze, over-reactin', aren't ya? The dude compares gays to child rapists, and suddenly he's a bigot?

(That was sarcasm, I know it don't always travel too well

)

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:28 AM

not personally looking to clean wulfenstar's clock for being a bigot. We're all suspicious of something, we all have our biases and our judgements about others,

and generally speaking, that comes from a lack of empathy which comes from a lack of connection, and I'm not really intersted in brow-beating anybody into believing what I do...trying to get them to look at things differently might be more effective,

but you can have your prejudices in this nation, and still believe enough in its principles to overlook those prejudices in favor of a greater good.

I got nothing good to say about the reverand phelps and company for example, but I was hard-pressed to find a legitimate reason why he should have been silenced, or as he was succesfully, sued. Maybe htere was a grey area there, but ultimately, freedom of speech is somethng I hold dear enough that just because I hate what hte man stands for, and his message, I'm not in favor of using the government to silence him.

I think Wulf came around on this issue, at least in the only area where I expect an American should have to, as it relates to the constitution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Except that finn, I'd argue that you're playing games with the definition. Yes, the majority of Americans must have a problem with men and men getting married. People in both parties do. The parties aren't very different, either, when it comes to policy, in the end.

whereas conservative thinking versus liberal thinking is vastly different, in terms of philosophy.

Not on this issue. But like I said, I know that many liberals try to hide it - it happens every time this topic comes up; but no matter how you play with the definition of liberal, Clinton, McCain and Obama are widely considered Liberals - and for that matter those presidents that you identified as liberals (“FDR, Johnson, Carter”), would have agreed with conservatives on this issue as well. This is not as much a Liberal/Conservative issue as it is a Mainstream America issue.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
not sure how, assuming you both did, you were willing to vote for an administration that used phobias about gay people as a wedge issue then. I appreciate that single issue politics is a little one-dimensional, and you were probably voting on alot of things, but they USED the issue...they intentionally targetted American Citizens in a discriminatory way for the sake of an election, and they were on the side of discrimination, of truncating civil rights.

Well to begin with, I reject the idea that gay marriage is a civil right. Laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman are not discriminatory - they are applied equally to everyone. Secondly, you don’t get away from this issue no matter who you vote for. Every president and every candidate with any real hope for the office of president has been firmly against the issue of same-sex marriage. The tide may be moving towards more open interpretation of marriage, but that’s a broad sweep across the mainstream, everyone is moving that direction, not just Liberals.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:19 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

*Sigh

Im not getting riled back up. Whether I agree or disagree with a particular lifestyle choice is really, in the grand scheme of things, very small potatoes.

However, when did it become ok to call someone a bigot just becuase they disagree with a liberal viewpoint? Thats like saying someone who doesn't agree with Israel is anti-semetic, or one who thinks black folk should be held accountable for their actions is racist, or someone who believes that illegals are ILLEGAl is likewise racist.

Its the worst kind of hypocrisy to scream, pule and whine about 'freedom of speech" and then when you meet someone with an opposing viewpoint, try and shut them up with political correctness. PC is just another form of tyranny.

You scream bigot until that word has lost all meaning. You scream racist ONLY at white people. Noone listens any longer.

I know Libs and Neo-cons can't usually see beyond the end of their noses, much less what the consequences of their actions could be, but C'Mon! You throw these things around and it becomes a joke.

What I am saying or have said does not earn the moniker of "bigot". Save that word and the others for those who really deserve it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:19 PM

Good points both,finn

still for gays regarding marriage, there is no reason aside of a 'moral' one not to change it, and keeping hte law as is adversely affects a portion of our population, and does deny that portion a certain enfranchisement that the rest of us are entitled to.

Plus it becomes a civil rights issue when the very reason for opposing it so vehemently seems to be on prejudice, discriminatory, grounds..

Wulf,

agreed to some extent...like I said in my last post, I'm not sure how productive it is to yell 'bigot' at someone inspite of the fact that I myself am a little guilty of using the very word in one of my earlier posts. I don't think it should be off the table suggesting it, or trying to get "you"(whoever that is in a certain circumstance) to see how you might sound to people, but to chose the rant over a dialogue gets none of us anywhere....

so I'll try to refrain in the future

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
but C'Mon! You throw these things around and it becomes a joke.

What I am saying or have said does not earn the moniker of "bigot". Save that word and the others for those who really deserve it.

Sorry Wulf, I was goin' for the easy joke above.
(To be fair, your wording did make it not-hard)
I'm wet noodle-lashing myself as I type.

The all-too-eager Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:07 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
I care, and so should you.

Why should I, it means nothing to me what other consenting adults do with their private time, lives and relationships, since none of it has any significant impact on mine.

Quote:
Im surprised that you are not with me on this one.

Imma Polyamorous Anarchist, and thus find the States involvement of any kind in peoples relationships invasive and offensive.

Fremgirl is not Poly, and didn't wanna share, so ya don't have to hide yer womenfolk - but I do flirt, mercilessly, with either sex despite being straight.

I just... don't have those kinds of hangups about this thing, hell, I barely even *comprehend* most folks viewpoints on it, so why would I share them ?

Quote:
I am against there being laws stating that I MUST recognize it as a "marriage".

That's because Government doesn't belong in this one whatever - would you accept it then if there were no laws stating that anyone must recognize your conventional marriage either ?

Call it what you will, a bonding of two (or more) individuals is quite properly none of the Governments damn business, were you to ask me.

Consider thus the definition of "Family" as practiced by me, which includes folk unrelated to me, and several non-humans (Feline in nature) but does NOT include some folk of blood relation - and yet the State's definition of such is a wholly different thing ?

Does it really make sense to have the Gov defining your life and relations that intimately for you ?

But thing is, Wulf - you can't have that both ways, you accept it for everyone, or you remove it for everyone, to do otherwise is to introduce an artificial "class" system and cause needless strife over a distinction that in my eyes is petty to begin with.

YOUR relationship is YOUR business - not mine, not the Governments, don't you want that basic level of respect to be given to everyone ?

Quote:
Personal, petty, hatreds? Such as? Please enlighten me.

You seem to not like gay people - it shows.
That's your option of course, and I will not gainsay your right to feel that way, but I just think it's silly, myself.

Quote:
Other than that, frak off. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their homes, to or with each other. Not my business.

Exactly, nor is it the Governments.

Quote:
I do care, however, when you try and push your shit on me. I don't have to believe or parrot what is "socially acceptable" or P.C.

And likewise, other people care when YOU try and "push your shit" on them, by handing the Government the power to define what a "Marriage" is, but only so long as it meets YOUR standards ?

Sorry dude, that's hypocrisy, and you know it - using the Government as a weapon to enforce your beliefs on others is the very essence of your bitch, but yet you don't seem to have any problem doing it yourself ?

Umm, no - that don't fly with me.

I say we cut the Government out of it completely, ain't their business or place to get that involved in our lives.

-Frem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:48 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I will chime in agreement with Frem. There is no reason for the government to care about marriage at all, since it is a philosophical and religious practice. I would be in favor of removing any legal reference to 'marriage' entirely from the books. We might keep Domestic Partnership in place for its significance to finances. It would become a business arrangement between two (or more) people, allowing them to share responsibility for, and entitlement to, property.

People can get married, or marry their dogs or their houseplants, or get divorced on odd numbered Tuesdays. The government shouldn't care about this in any way. Only property disputes should become the government's domain.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I will chime in agreement with Frem. There is no reason for the government to care about marriage at all, since it is a philosophical and religious practice. I would be in favor of removing any legal reference to 'marriage' entirely from the books. We might keep Domestic Partnership in place for its significance to finances. It would become a business arrangement between two (or more) people, allowing them to share responsibility for, and entitlement to, property.

People can get married, or marry their dogs or their houseplants, or get divorced on odd numbered Tuesdays. The government shouldn't care about this in any way. Only property disputes should become the government's domain.

I wouldn’t be against this, except that I don’t want the government legitimizing stupid shit. I don’t care at all whether someone wants to “marry” their dog, but people like that are not rational, and there will be all kinds of stupid stuff that will emerge if the state start legitimizing stuff like that. Everything from animal cruelty to frivolous law suits. There’s just no reason to open that door. The desire to marry one’s dog at the very least is a pointless display, which does not require any kind of state protection or at worse it’s behavior that requires real psychological treatment. I have no problem at all with replacing the legal interpretation of marriage with ‘Domestic Partnerships’, but it’s something that has to be defined rationally to limit it use to those who will not abuse the concept.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:38 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Finn, I think you missed the point. The government wouldn't be legitimizing anything. The government would have nothing more to do with marraige than with your errant fart.

Domestic Partnerships, or any other *business* contract, would of course have to be between people legally recognized as people. (Which is currently just human beings, until the chimps and dolphins step it up a notch.)

But marraige? Marry your belly lint in a Setanic ritual, if you want. Who cares?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Domestic Partnerships, or any other *business* contract, would of course have to be between people legally recognized as people. (Which is currently just human beings, until the chimps and dolphins step it up a notch.)

Well that is my point. I don’t want domestic partnerships to include plants and dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:23 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Well,

A lot of things would have to change before I can sign a contract with my dog.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:10 PM

He'd have to stop crapping in the house?

bring the paper in in the morning,

stop nuzzling yor balls in public,

Quit fucking everything that moves,

Dogs are such dogs some times

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:22 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

Six, I realize that a lot of people feel that way,

but this is America, and people that feel that way need to ask themselves whether they are Americans or Christians first -

probably the latter in many cases,

the problem here is that some main-stream christian theology is directly contradictory to what this country was founded on(principles, not practice)

and frankly, that is a problem, if they let it dictate the direction that they want to take America, if they allow their beliefs to usurp the First Amerndment...etc.

I think an honorable approach, for the Christian American, is to hold whatever beliefs he has, and then to protect the first amendment, to protect the Constitution, because he believes strongly that the government should remain secular so that everybody, themselves included, can remain free to practice the religion of their choice as they choose.

Not sure what point of mine you're trying to argue here.... I can't say I disagree with what you're saying here.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:33 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I will chime in agreement with Frem. There is no reason for the government to care about marriage at all, since it is a philosophical and religious practice. I would be in favor of removing any legal reference to 'marriage' entirely from the books. We might keep Domestic Partnership in place for its significance to finances. It would become a business arrangement between two (or more) people, allowing them to share responsibility for, and entitlement to, property.

People can get married, or marry their dogs or their houseplants, or get divorced on odd numbered Tuesdays. The government shouldn't care about this in any way. Only property disputes should become the government's domain.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

It seems that this is a necessary evil today. Personally I hate any financial relations to marriage. Maybe that's just because I'm a guy and I've seen my father and a few friends lives nearly destroyed because of "child support". I couldn't imagine what it's like to have a career and only have minimum wage funds available to you after the bitch and Uncle Sam get their share.

Personally, I believe those laws need to be reformed to make sure that women can't do things like buy an new Camry every two years or smoke 4 packs a day like my mom did. The women should not be allowed to touch a single cent of that money, and the father should have an equal say in how that money is spent on the children (529 IRA college funds, trust funds, clothing, diet, etc....)

You want equality girls? I'm totally up for it. But there are some serious flaws in just how far the other way the pendulum has swung.

I ate at Dennys 5 nights a week for years growing up....

I'll cut her a break, because I know it must have been murder being a single mom with a career, but damn.... My old man wanted to be just as much a part of our lives as she was and it just wasn't allowed because the courts automatically favor the mom. It was nothing more than her using that power to get back at him. There is a thin line between love and hate and when the Fury of a Woman Scorned is legally sanctioned and allowed to continue for 18 years, well.... that my friends, is nothing short of legal extortion.

Take the woman's ability to use that money on herself out of the equation and make the father every much a part of the financial decisions, if he so chooses, and the incentive for greed will evaporate and be replaced with two parents who are truly thinking of what is really important instead of themselves.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There is no reason for the government to care about marriage at all, since it is a philosophical and religious practice.

Marriage is an economic practice, designed to allow women to stay at home and perform unpaid labor. If you don't believe me, look at how Social Security is constructed: the woman gets a share of the retirement provided she's been married to a participant for 40 quarters. It also allows the domestic partner to get health insurance and other benefits w/o needing to work.

IF we opt for full equality between partners... disallowing SS and other benefits to non-workers... we will be giving up a fair portion of our birthrate and a big chunk of family-based child-raising... because the costs to the mom (in terms of lost benefits and options, and therefore lost power w/in the family) will be too great. Personally, I think that reducing our birthrate is fine. But other nations have solved this conundrum by recognizing the benefits (to the State) of birthrate and family-based child-rearing and have therefore granted state benefits to those who bear children and take care of them.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:59 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Controlling the birthrate in this country has only ensured that by 2020 whites will be a minority. Don't believe me? Why not? Affluent blacks and mexicans on TV like to bring up that point all the time.... I can't remember the guys name, but the author of a new bestseller mentioned that on the Colbert Report in the last week or two.

Why would somebody who didn't have anything to lose stop having kids when they'll be provided for on our dime? Even if they're not citizens and do not pay taxes...... Sure, their lives aren't peachy, but for the most part nobody is starving in this country.

Look at me.... I'm going to be 29 soon. I'm good looking, I have a well paying job, health insurance, 401k, IRA, bigscreen TV, etc.. but I don't have any kids. I could step outside my front door right now and within a 5 mile radius I could show you 100's of people who had kids when they weren't responsible enough to have them, and a vast majority of them had kids MUCH younger than I am now.

You're right about one thing signy. Money does have a way of controlling us, and I'm not all that confident that the more you have the better off you are, at least in a spiritual sense.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:18 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Controlling the birthrate in this country has only ensured that by 2020 whites will be a minority."

Yeah, and wont that be fun.

Look at how nice the places are where there is a minority of whites.

I'm just saying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:36 AM

Six,

living in California, one of the most liberal states out there,

my boss pays a little child support, but is a big part of the child's life, and he pays just a little, because of that, which, by the way, is a lot more expensive than if he weren't. If it were up to this particular woman she'd be getting every last dime.

Thing is, there's no hard and fast rule how the courts are going to behave on issues like this. Judges are the closest things to kings in this country for their direct power over other people's lives. They do some fucked up things sometimes.

You are right that child support should be regulated, but that costs money too, and nobody ever wants to pay money for these sorts of things..."not on my dime." and the reality is children are expensive as shit. Not all mothers who use the money are irresponsible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:39 AM

Wulf,

is THIS when we get to call you a bigot?

wow dude

you just don't take alot of historical factors into account when you go off on your tangents do you.

do you think people of other races are less capable of behaving well in a democracy than whites? Is that what you're saying? That its a genetic disposition?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:52 AM