Jon Stewart in High Form-

[RBS51]

First he shreds the banking industry and the treasury dept. Then he goes to new Jersey to show how people whose ancestors had to fight for their rights now believe it is God's blessing that they can demonstrate against gay people advocating their own rights.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/120222/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-tue-jan-12-2010

[BenIsForRon]

Yep, it was a great episode. People are starting to get the picture that we need to hit the streets.

[BlackTerrel]

I liked the first section - about the banking industry.

Stewart is definitely a liberal though. Gay people can be gay all they want - but I don't see why they should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. That is not equal rights that is more rights.

[RBS51]

I liked the first section - about the banking industry.

Stewart is definitely a liberal though. Gay people can be gay all they want - but I don't see why they should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. That is not equal rights that is more rights.

When you think about "gay marriage" you can't be superficial.

Marriage is traditionally a religious rite that encourages propagation of the species.

But economically and politically, marriage is different. The biggest issues are the right to confer contractual obligations - health care and rights of spousal medical control are the most important. There is no reason why a legal bond could not be created that would confer the economic and political advantages of "marriage" to a committed couple without touching the "moral" issues (which, by the way, are none of the government's damn business).

[__27__]

I liked the first section - about the banking industry.

Stewart is definitely a liberal though. Gay people can be gay all they want - but I don't see why they should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. That is not equal rights that is more rights.

Um. So saying they can't marry is equal rights? Marriage is a contract between two individuals, nothing more. Forbidding any two individuals from entering into a contract while permitting others to do so is discriminatory, and is in NO WAY equal protection under the law. Do not confuse marriage as a religious doctrine, which is the purview of you and your church alone, with marriage as a contract between two individuals. So long as the state has any involvement in marriage, i.e. tax benefits, etc. the contract must be open to all. This does not mean your church (or my church) has to marry gays, but they should not be forbid from entering the contract.

[RBS51]

I liked the first section - about the banking industry.

Stewart is definitely a liberal though. Gay people can be gay all they want - but I don't see why they should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. That is not equal rights that is more rights.

WRONG - if you love someone they have the right to be your economic and political beneficiary on a non-discriminatory basis.

[speciallyblend]

I liked the first section - about the banking industry.

Stewart is definitely a liberal though. Gay people can be gay all they want - but I don't see why they should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. That is not equal rights that is more rights.

what?? any person haS THE RIGHT TO MARRY ,STRAIGHT PEOPLE DO NOT OWN OR COPYRIGHT THE WORD MARRIAGE IF SO PLEASE SHOW ME THE PATENT OR COPYRIGHT? oops caps, gays have every right to use the word marriage to stand for their union.

why are you so concerned about gays marrying unless someone is forcing you to marry the same sex?? which would be a crime and kidnapping..

really confused on why you think gays don't have the right to marry like straight folks, let me guess cause the bible says so?? well the bible didn't copy right marriage and marriage existed far before bible thumpers...

if a church doesn't want to marry gays that is fine upto that church, but not up to you or me...

dude that is flat out equal rights.. has nothing to do with special rights........ really none of yours or mines business who folks marry..

i am sorry gay marriage has nothing to do with special rights if states wouldn't violate their rights to marry..and by the way gay is not a choice ,if so your bi and choose to be straight..think about it really do;) actually christians hi-jacked the word marriage(but they never patented or copyrighted it),kinda like the gop trying to hi-jack the tea party!

[BlackTerrel]

When you think about "gay marriage" you can't be superficial.

Marriage is traditionally a religious rite that encourages propagation of the species.

But economically and politically, marriage is different. The biggest issues are the right to confer contractual obligations - health care and rights of spousal medical control are the most important. There is no reason why a legal bond could not be created that would confer the economic and political advantages of "marriage" to a committed couple without touching the "moral" issues (which, by the way, are none of the government's damn business).

So what if two buddies want to marry?


why are you so concerned about gays marrying unless someone is forcing you to marry the same sex?? which would be a crime and kidnapping.


I'm not so concerned with it and honestly it is very low on my list of priorities. But I do believe that marriage means a man and a woman.

[speciallyblend]

WRONG - if you love someone they have the right to be your economic and political beneficiary on a non-discriminatory basis.

exactly

[speciallyblend]

So what if two buddies want to marry?




I'm not so concerned with it and honestly it is very low on my list of priorities. But I do believe that marriage means a man and a woman.

i hear you, and that is fine you believe that but that doesn't mean you get to dictate your beliefs on to others. now if gays were trying to take your rights away to marry a woman. then i would be fighting for your rights..

[RBS51]

exactly

exactly, and precisely..... it's not the business of government ( or your buisiness) if they go to bed with each other or not. If they want to confer certain legal and contractual rights to each other they should have the right.

[RBS51]

So what if two buddies want to marry?




I'm not so concerned with it and honestly it is very low on my list of priorities. But I do believe that marriage means a man and a woman.


Tryin to make it real, ain't ya? Compared to what?

[GunnyFreedom]

Government has no business being involved in marriage whatsoever, whether to allow or to disallow. Likewise, the idea that married people should be taxed at a different rate than single people is repugnant, and likely creates more divorces than it creates successful marriages. Government should not even recognize that marriage exists whatsoever. Government only first got involved in licensing marriage during reconstruction after the Civil War in an attempt to prevent interracial marriages. The practice of government licensing marriages is a holdover from the original form of segregation, and it needs to be done away with.

[__27__]

Government has no business being involved in marriage whatsoever, whether to allow or to disallow. Likewise, the idea that married people should be taxed at a different rate than single people is repugnant, and likely creates more divorces than it creates successful marriages. Government should not even recognize that marriage exists whatsoever. Government only first got involved in licensing marriage during reconstruction after the Civil War in an attempt to prevent interracial marriages. The practice of government licensing marriages is a holdover from the original form of segregation, and it needs to be done away with.

Spot on Gunny. :)

[Met Income]

So what if two buddies want to marry?




I'm not so concerned with it and honestly it is very low on my list of priorities. But I do believe that marriage means a man and a woman.

You can believe what you want to believe. You don't have a right to enforce those beliefs on others.

[Stary Hickory]

When you think about "gay marriage" you can't be superficial.

Marriage is traditionally a religious rite that encourages propagation of the species.

But economically and politically, marriage is different. The biggest issues are the right to confer contractual obligations - health care and rights of spousal medical control are the most important. There is no reason why a legal bond could not be created that would confer the economic and political advantages of "marriage" to a committed couple without touching the "moral" issues (which, by the way, are none of the government's damn business).

Part of it is this but part of it is the very aggressive gay movement who is always trying to be in your face about it. This is what is giving the gay movement a lot of trouble. Legislated respect simply is not possible.

However obviously I don't care if a gay couple want to enter into a legally binding relationship. Though I do think that demanding the title married is what is driving most of the opposition. Marriage is a very spiritual thing for many folks. It's a traditional union of man and woman. When they gay movement demand that this title they are trampling on people's religious beliefs in many cases.

This is a big source of their pain. If the gay movement would simply title it differently half of the issue would go away. But they press the issue because they want legislated respect....and this is not going anywhere positive.

[Met Income]

Part of it is this but part of it is the very aggressive gay movement who is always trying to be in your face about it. This is what is giving the gay movement a lot of trouble. Legislated respect simply is not possible.

However obviously I don't care if a gay couple want to enter into a legally binding relationship. Though I do think that demanding the title married is what is driving most of the opposition. Marriage is a very spiritual thing for many folks. It's a traditional union of man and woman. When they gay movement demand that this title they are trampling on people's religious beliefs in many cases.

This is a big source of their pain. If the gay movement would simply title it differently half of the issue would go away. But they press the issue because they want legislated respect....and this is not going anywhere positive.

Two gays getting married has nothing to do with your marriage. If it does, then something is wrong.

[speciallyblend]

Government has no business being involved in marriage whatsoever, whether to allow or to disallow. Likewise, the idea that married people should be taxed at a different rate than single people is repugnant, and likely creates more divorces than it creates successful marriages. Government should not even recognize that marriage exists whatsoever. Government only first got involved in licensing marriage during reconstruction after the Civil War in an attempt to prevent interracial marriages. The practice of government licensing marriages is a holdover from the original form of segregation, and it needs to be done away with.

spot on but not reality ,so for now gays should have the right to marry like straight people until we change the laws. we have to deal with this issue.

gays should have the same rights as straight people to marry no matter if gov is involved or not....

[speciallyblend]

Part of it is this but part of it is the very aggressive gay movement who is always trying to be in your face about it. This is what is giving the gay movement a lot of trouble. Legislated respect simply is not possible.

However obviously I don't care if a gay couple want to enter into a legally binding relationship. Though I do think that demanding the title married is what is driving most of the opposition. Marriage is a very spiritual thing for many folks. It's a traditional union of man and woman. When they gay movement demand that this title they are trampling on people's religious beliefs in many cases.

This is a big source of their pain. If the gay movement would simply title it differently half of the issue would go away. But they press the issue because they want legislated respect....and this is not going anywhere positive.

well when states take your right to marry away because you gay and any legal rights . you have every right to be aggressive toward laws that violate equal rights. Liberty for some but not them is not liberty at all. marriage you do not own the word the church doesnt own the word marriage,please show me who patented and copyrighted the word marriage, you know get over it.


if you have no problem with gays? then why are you concerned if they get married you dso not choose what the term marriage means. you can define how you like but that does not give you the right to define marriage for others..
are you forced to marry same sex? no then this issue is mute. they are not going for special rights just equal rights under marriage!!

[silverhandorder]

I think marriage should not be politically recognized. So two gay people can say they are married and there is nothing you can do about it.

edit: and a church, hospital or any other private establishment can choose if they want to recognize that or not.

[speciallyblend]

if everyone believes the government has no right to be involved in marriage. then how does that give you the right to be involved in someone elses marriage,sounds like common sense to me.. if folks don;t want government involved then why should you be involved in another marriage, you guys want your cake and to eat it to. 1+1=2 if government isn't involved nor should you be in others decisions toget married seems very logical.

if your gonna imply it is not the governments business how is it your business!!

[speciallyblend]

I think marriage should not be politically recognized. So two gay people can say they are married and there is nothing you can do about it.

so explain how that gives them legal rights as a couple if kids or money or assets??? the same could be said for straight folks then,once again if you want government out of it. then apply it to yourself to, meaning stay out of others affairs and marriages. if you want government out it, then you must want yourself out of it.

so you want the gov out of it,but then you want to interfer in others lives by suggesting you can classify marriage and not the government. this is exaclty what your saying basically no??

a tyrannt is a tyrannt government or you.

[Stary Hickory]

Two gays getting married has nothing to do with your marriage. If it does, then something is wrong.

Oh common can we afford to be this ignorant. It does to a lot of people. It's viewed as an attack on the institution of marriage itself. The idea and institution of marriage is what many people turn to, to build families and build a future with love in it.

We can just pretend that people who oppose gay marriage are just "evil" but this is just as silly as saying terrorists are evil creatures without reasoning. The whole cause of this clash between gay rights activists and anti-gay rights activists is fear. For the gay community to not even acknowledge this and to proceed in a combative manner in resolving respect issues in society, is undermining their own cause.

Frankly I am sick of seeing it. It's stupid. Yes gay couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. But if gays really want acceptance and respect then they ought to also realize that disrespecting those they seek to get respect from is not the way to do it.

However I withdraw my support when they simply go in "attack" mode and get all in your face about it. I do support the legal side of it, but the respect side is something they must deal with on their own. People have the right to dislike you based on sexual orientation. It may be an ignorant position, but still they have that right. But it's also ignorant to not be considerate of established customs and religious beliefs when interacting with other people....many in the gay community simply spit on all of this....which of course is going to create conflict, because it is viewed as an attack on religious beliefs and traditions very close to the hearts of many Americans.

A little common sense and respect for others would help both sides of this issue.

[silverhandorder]

so explain how that gives them legal rights as a couple if kids or money or assets??? the same could be said for straight folks then,once again if you want government out of it. then apply it to yourself to, meaning stay out of others affairs and marriages. if you want government out it, then you must want yourself out of it.

so you want the gov out of it,but then you want to interfer in others lives by suggesting you can classify marriage and not the government. this is exaclty what your saying basically no??

I am saying that government should not be classifying people as married or not.

[speciallyblend]

I am saying that government should not be classifying people as married or not.

well we are not there yet so for now gays should have the same equal rights and law protections as straight folks until you get government out it you cant have equal rights for straights and not gays

[silverhandorder]

well we are not there yet so for now gays should have the same equal rights and law protections as straight folks until you get government out it you cant have equal rights for straights and not gays

Ofcourse.

[speciallyblend]

Oh common can we afford to be this ignorant. It does to a lot of people. It's viewed as an attack on the institution of marriage itself. The idea and institution of marriage is what many people turn to, to build families and build a future with love in it.

We can just pretend that people who oppose gay marriage are just "evil" but this is just as silly as saying terrorists are evil creatures without reasoning. The whole cause of this clash between gay rights activists and anti-gay rights activists is fear. For the gay community to not even acknowledge this and to proceed in a combative manner in resolving respect issues in society, is undermining their own cause.

Frankly I am sick of seeing it. It's stupid. Yes gay couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. But if gays really want acceptance and respect then they ought to also realize that disrespecting those they seek to get respect from is not the way to do it.

However I withdraw my support when they simply go in "attack" mode and get all in your face about it. I do support the legal side of it, but the respect side is something they must deal with on their own. People have the right to dislike you based on sexual orientation. It may be an ignorant position, but still they have that right. But it's also ignorant to not be considerate of established customs and religious beliefs when interacting with other people....many in the gay community simply spit on all of this....which of course is going to create a conflict, because it is viewed as an attack on religious beliefs and traditions very close to the hearts of many Americans.

A little common sense and respect for others would help both sides of this issue.

the only ignorance is you failing to see they can use the word marriage. please show me a patent or copyright please, why does it concern you unless your being forced to marry a guy.. marriage was around before religion so what are you trying to say, religion has nothing to do with marriage actually religion hi-jacked marriage from pagans deal with your church if you have your church marrying gays then deal with your church.

you have this idea that religion invented marriage, WRONG, they co-opted it into their beliefs

[Met Income]

Oh common can we afford to be this ignorant. It does to a lot of people. It's viewed as an attack on the institution of marriage itself. The idea and institution of marriage is what many people turn to, to build families and build a future with love in it.

We can just pretend that people who oppose gay marriage are just "evil" but this is just as silly as saying terrorists are evil creatures without reasoning. The whole cause of this clash between gay rights activists and anti-gay rights activists is fear. For the gay community to not even acknowledge this and to proceed in a combative manner in resolving respect issues in society, is undermining their own cause.

Frankly I am sick of seeing it. It's stupid. Yes gay couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. But if gays really want acceptance and respect then they ought to also realize that disrespecting those they seek to get respect from is not the way to do it.

However I withdraw my support when they simply go in "attack" mode and get all in your face about it. I do support the legal side of it, but the respect side is something they must deal with on their own. People have the right to dislike you based on sexual orientation. It may be an ignorant position, but still they have that right. But it's also ignorant to not be considerate of established customs and religious beliefs when interacting with other people....many in the gay community simply spit on all of this....which of course is going to create conflict, because it is viewed as an attack on religious beliefs and traditions very close to the hearts of many Americans.

A little common sense and respect for others would help both sides of this issue.

An institution? Marriage is between two people. Don't let other people affect your marriage, it's not fair to your partner. Do what you gotta do, and let other people do their thing. It's not that hard. When you're happy with your life, you could care less what other people do with theirs.

The attack doesn't matter, the principle does. It doesn't matter if abolitionists are passive or aggressive -- slavery is still wrong.

[speciallyblend]

the only way gays could effect your marriage is if you and your wife are peeping toms and watching 2 guys or 2 girls get it on in their own house. which then means your breaking laws;)

gays getting married has nothing to do with the sanctity of me and my wifes marriage.

this is 1+1=2 why are you guys trying to complicate something that isn't!! unless your homophobic or scared you will turn gay but you can't since being gay is not a choice.

what you folks are doing is letting your personal feeling and thoughts dictate others lives which is not sane or anything close to Liberty or common sense!!

[Stary Hickory]

the only ignorance is you failing to see they can use the word marriage. please show me a patent or copyright please, why does it concern you unless your being forced to marry a guy.. marriage was around before religion so what are you trying to say, religion has nothing to do with marriage actually religion hi-jacked marriage from pagans deal with your church if you have your church marrying gays then deal with your church.

you have this idea that religion invented marriage, WRONG, they co-opted it into their beliefs


First toss the ignorant bit somewhere else please...preferably back at yourself. Show me where I said they cannot call it marriage?...And don't put words in my mouth next time please...if you want to argue with your own statements there is no need for me to be involved.

Ok what are you saying? You are simply ignoring the reality....regardless of what you personally believe, many in America associate marriage with families and the people they love. Gay marriage is seen as an assault on this. And hence the reaction. To deny this is to remain in the dark about the whole situation...and ineveitably we will have nothing but name yelling and conflict as people flail at each other not understanding each others motives...or even trying to.

I don't give a pass to gay activists or those who oppose them. I do think it's silly to say that people's customs and traditions don't matter. How many of us here when going into another country or a household with their own traditions and customs would brazenly act in an unacceptable manner? I do understand that gays want respect and this is the cause of their frustration...and this is what I am saying....what they want is respect.

I think the legal part of it is an easy fix....but it runs deeper than that. It's about respect and if they think that this can be fixed via legislation they are delusional. This is why I support legally giving gays the same status...anyways I think it's BS that the government has any say in what is what anyways. But if the government is going to do this, then gays deserve equal rights for legal status.

[STAND-or-fall]

Hate to be the one to 'stir the puddin' here but gays DO have the same rights as the rest of us. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just like me. If I tried to marry a dude it would be just as illegal as if a gay did it. Now hold on. I personally think they should be able to avail themselves of the same legal benefits as the rest of us. Maybe they should start by framing the arguement in a way that dos not defy legal logic?

[Met Income]

Hate to be the one to 'stir the puddin' here but gays DO have the same rights as the rest of us. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just like me. If I tried to marry a dude it would be just as illegal as if a gay did it. Now hold on. I personally think they should be able to avail themselves of the same legal benefits as the rest of us. Maybe they should start by framing the arguement in a way that dos not defy legal logic?

The State does not have the moral right to use violence to deny voluntary transactions between others (if they do not violate property rights, of course). What you're advocating is immoral.

[Stary Hickory]

An institution? Marriage is between two people. Don't let other people affect your marriage, it's not fair to your partner. Do what you gotta do, and let other people do their thing. It's not that hard. When you're happy with your life, you could care less what other people do with theirs.

The attack doesn't matter, the principle does. It doesn't matter if abolitionists are passive or aggressive -- slavery is still wrong.

Where you are going with the slavery bit is beyond me. Marriage is and always has been man and woman....lets not say this is not so. You offer a new definition that is in deep conflict with the established one. This is something you cannot simply glaze over(it's the very source of the conflict).

And here is the question: If this is truly about gay rights why the insistence it be called "marriage". It's just a word, legal status can be granted without it. I will repeat it's about respect. I don't really get involved in the gay rights movement much myself...but I don't oppose it. I'd like to see them have legal status, but that is where I draw the line(for my support). Personally I think the government should be completely out of the marriage business. Many Americans simply want to see the institution of traditional marriage in tact....unaffected. And this is natural and fine(That is its normal and understandable - they consider it a foundation for family and morality).

But by all means lets keep the feuding alive. And be totally ignorant of the other's side so we can look forward to years more of people yelling past each other. Like I said I get it that gays are upset because many in America look upon them with disdain...but forcing the government to come in and make people change their estimation of the gay community is immoral and stupid...it can't work.

[jmdrake]

I liked the first section - about the banking industry.

Stewart is definitely a liberal though. Gay people can be gay all they want - but I don't see why they should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. That is not equal rights that is more rights.

http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/members/vertigo+paris/albums/misc+pics-36/thread-derail-1953.jpg

[Met Income]

Where you are going with the slavery bit is beyond me. Marriage is and always has been man and woman...

You can make as many abstract rules as you want. It still does not give you the right to interfere with a voluntary transaction.




.lets not say this is not so. You offer a new definition that is in deep conflict with the established one. This is something you cannot simply glaze over.

And here is the question: If this is truly about gay rights why the insistence it be called "marriage". It's just a word, legal status can be granted without it. I will repeat it's about respect. I don't really get involved in the gay rights movement much myself...but I don't oppose it. I'd like to see them have legal status, but that is where I draw the line. Personally I think the government should be completely out of the marriage business. Many Americans simply want to see the institution of traditional marriage in tact....unaffected. And this is natural and fine.

The gay communities intent is irrelevant. I don't care if their only reason is simply to piss heterosexuals people off. It still doesn't give you the right to interfere. It doesn't matter.



But by all means lets keep the feuding alive. And be totally ignorant of the other's side so we can look forward to years more of people yelling past each other. Like I said I get it that gays are upset because many in America look upon them with disdain...but forcing the government to come in and make people change their estimation of the gay community is immoral and stupid...it can't work.

Or, you could get out of someone's way and let them live your life and you live yours.

[speciallyblend]

First toss the ignorant bit somewhere else please...preferably back at yourself. Show me where I said they cannot call it marriage?...And don't put words in my mouth next time please...if you want to argue with your own statements there is no need for me to be involved.

Ok what are you saying? You are simply ignoring the reality....regardless of what you personally believe, many in America associate marriage with families and the people they love. Gay marriage is seen as an assault on this. And hence the reaction. To deny this is to remain in the dark about the whole situation...and ineveitably we will have nothing but name yelling and conflict as people flail at each other not understanding each others motives...or even trying to.

I don't give a pass to gay activists or those who oppose them. I do think it's silly to say that people's customs and traditions don't matter. How many of us here when going into another country or a household with their own traditions and customs would brazenly act in an unacceptable manner? I do understand that gays want respect and this is the cause of their frustration...and this is what I am saying....what they want is respect.

I think the legal part of it is an easy fix....but it runs deeper than that. It's about respect and if they think that this can be fixed via legislation they are delusional. This is why I support legally giving gays the same status...anyways I think it's BS that the government has any say in what is what anyways. But if the government is going to do this, then gays deserve equal rights for legal status.

bottom line if it isn't the governments business, it isn't your business
you only want liberty for yourself and the folks you do not agree with deserve none. enjoy your marriage and stay out of me and my wifes and everyone elses'. that is the best way for you to deal with gay marriage. your customs and traditions do not matter unless you marry a gay person. what others do does not concern your traditions or customs. gays can marry so we agree;)

bottom line if it isn't the governments business, it isn't your business unless someone is forcing you to marry same sex what is the problem again??

reading the post i read your saying it is ok for gays to get married! sorry to put words in your mouth i am speaking in general,

[Stary Hickory]

bottom line if it isn't the governments business, it isn't your business
you only want liberty for yourself and the folks you do not agree with deserve none. enjoy your marriage and stay out of me and my wifes and everyone elses'. that is the best way for you to deal with gay marriage. your customs and traditions do not matter unless you marry a gay person. what others do does not concern your traditions or customs. gays can marry so we agree;)

bottom line if it isn't the governments business, it isn't your business unless someone is forcing you to marry same sex what is the problem again??

Well get the government out of the marriage business then....this is your only moral route. The gay community is not asking for this. They want the government to define gay marriage and heterosexual marriage as being the same thing.....this is where the problem resides.

It is not the government's job to decide these things.

[speciallyblend]

Well get the government out of the marriage business then....this is your only moral route. The gay community is not asking for this. They want the government to define gay marriage and heterosexual marriage as being the same thing.....this is where the problem resides.

It is not the government's job to decide these things.

well then we should be organizing with the gay community to remove marriage in general, and base this movement on less taxes and let them know many of us agree with what they are doing and many of us do not,but we agree the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. if we approach the bottom line and be honest even if some disagree.
i think that would be a huge step forward no? not that the gop would do that

we would have to make sure they are protected with legal rights on certain issues for courts no??
sorry about the ignorance comment, not a good choice of words.

[speciallyblend]

http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/members/vertigo+paris/albums/misc+pics-36/thread-derail-1953.jpg

you know what then don't open the thread jmdrake, just a passionate discussion and gay is in the op

i also feel the anti-folks are making this more an issue then the gays. typical gop tactics divide attack,sometimes it rubs off:P

[speciallyblend]

would be interesting uniting the gay movement and anti-gay movement under tax reform;) and removing marriage from the government all together.

but something tells me that will not make the anti-gay marriage folks happy.. or would it?

[Stary Hickory]

You can make as many abstract rules as you want. It still does not give you the right to interfere with a voluntary transaction.


What abstract rules? The gay community is in fact asking for a positive (IE backed by force) decree by the government. Government should not be defining the term or determining who is considered "married". Filing a return jointly fine. Joint return.



The gay communities intent is irrelevant. I don't care if their only reason is simply to piss heterosexuals people off. It still doesn't give you the right to interfere. It doesn't matter.

It does indeed matter, we are asking for an official defining of a term by government. This is what is sought. And you want it backed by force. It does indeed matter what their intentions are...especially when they are asking for government force to realize these intentions.




Or, you could get out of someone's way and let them live your life and you live yours.

Oh please stuff this, I am out of people's way, I actually support getting the government out of marriage altogether. The gay community needs to do the EXACT same thing. Quit pushing for a legal(backed by force) redefinition of marriage.

There are two issues and you see only one, I can support everyone being equal under the law, but I will not support the government using it's force to redefine marriage in an attempt to attach gay unions to an established institution with it's own values. It's futile, what is desired is that gay marriages would have the same status in the eyes of Americans as Heterosexual marriages...because of the title. As if a name change can do this?

It's frankly absurd. This will not even begin to address the problems between gays and non gays.....it will agitate it further. And it designed to do such. It is not the way to get respect and is akin to a childlike tit for tat game. Many people like myself DON"T want to be involved. I don't dislike gays in general I dislike individuals based on their own merits.


If gays really want freedom then demand government get out of the marriage business altogether. But using government as a club to attack institutions held dear to other folks is immoral. This is what SOME of the gay community is doing. It's motivated by revenge and anger because of the lack of respect they have been getting.....and I will not argue this sucks. But what is often overlooked is that a lot of people don't care(they are bystanders) but just want to keep their beliefs and institutions in tact. Why attack these people using government?

There are TWO issues one is legal status(moral for gays to want this) and the other is legislated respect(immoral for gays to want this).

[RM918]

Get the state out of marriage, civil unions for everyone no matter if they want to marry a man or a woman or a desk chair. Never, however, force a church to perform a service they don't want to or stop them from performing one they do want.

[orafi]

So what if two buddies want to marry?




I'm not so concerned with it and honestly it is very low on my list of priorities. But I do believe that marriage means a man and a woman.

Then marry a women, man! No one will judge you!

[speciallyblend]

Get the state out of marriage, civil unions for everyone no matter if they want to marry a man or a woman or a desk chair. Never, however, force a church to perform a service they don't want to or stop them from performing one they do want.

are churches forced to marry gays? just wondered

[speciallyblend]

What abstract rules? The gay community is in fact asking for a positive (IE backed by force) decree by the government. Government should not be defining the term or determining who is considered "married". Filing a return jointly fine. Joint return.



It does indeed matter, we are asking for an official defining of a term by government. This is what is sought. And you want it backed by force. It does indeed matter what their intentions are...especially when they are asking for government force to realize these intentions.




Oh please stuff this, I am out of people's way, I actually support getting the government out of marriage altogether. The gay community needs to do the EXACT same thing. Quit pushing for a legal(backed by force) redefinition of marriage.

There are two issues and you see only one, I can support everyone being equal under the law, but I will not support the government using it's force to redefine marriage in an attempt to attach gay unions to an established institution with it's own values. It's futile, what is desired is that gay marriages would have the same status in the eyes of Americans as Heterosexual marriages...because of the title. As if a name change can do this?

It's frankly absurd. This will not even begin to address the problems between gays and non gays.....it will agitate it further. And it designed to do such. It is not the way to get respect and is akin to a childlike tit for tat game. Many people like myself DON"T want to be involved. I don't dislike gays in general I dislike individuals based on their own merits.


If gays really want freedom then demand government get out of the marriage business altogether. But using government as a club to attack institutions held dear to other folks is immoral. This is what SOME of the gay community is doing. It's motivated by revenge and anger because of the lack of respect they have been getting.....and I will not argue this sucks. But what is often overlooked is that a lot of people don't care(they are bystanders) but just want to keep their beliefs and institutions in tact. Why attack these people using government?

There are TWO issues one is legal status(moral for gays to want this) and the other is legislated respect(immoral for gays to want this).

i agree,right now both sides are using our government to attack based on their beliefs. if common ground can be found but the gop and dncs job is to keep both sides divided. they use gay marriage as a dividing issue. so we need to focus it on a uniting issue.

[trey4sports]

So what if two buddies want to marry?




I'm not so concerned with it and honestly it is very low on my list of priorities. But I do believe that marriage means a man and a woman.


exactly MARRIAGE is between a man and woman. But marriage is a christian function and it should be administered by churches. Government should issue civil unions to any two people wanting to enter into a "life contract"
Government has no right to discriminate, the churches (being a private institution) DO have the right to discriminate which i fully support.

[speciallyblend]

exactly MARRIAGE is between a man and woman. But marriage is a christian function and it should be administered by churches. Government should issue civil unions to any two people wanting to enter into a "life contract"
Government has no right to discriminate, the churches (being a private institution) DO have the right to discriminate which i fully support.

i believe marriage was adoped by christians from pagans,so they do not own exclusive rights to the word marriage or the ceremony... they kinda of co-opted it,but that doesn't mean they get to tell others what marriage is about . unless its their own church.but i still am not aware of a single church that is forced to marry gays??

[BlackTerrel]

i hear you, and that is fine you believe that but that doesn't mean you get to dictate your beliefs on to others. now if gays were trying to take your rights away to marry a woman. then i would be fighting for your rights..

It's not their right. Gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex just like someone else can. I don't have the right to marry a man either.

[Brian4Liberty]

Traditional marriage is between a man and one or more women. Why does our goverment ban traditional marriage?

[BlackTerrel]

Part of it is this but part of it is the very aggressive gay movement who is always trying to be in your face about it. This is what is giving the gay movement a lot of trouble. Legislated respect simply is not possible.

That I agree with. We were designed to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex - that is how a species survive. I wouldn't want to vote for one, or be friends with one (just like I wouldn't want to vote for someone with a shoe fetish or a furry fetish). They have a right to do what they want - but don't try to convince me that it is normal - because it isn't.

[MichelleHeart]

I say leave it up to the states and let them privatize marriage if they wish. Privatization of marriage is more likely to happen on a state level than on a federal level. There should be no federal jurisdiction of marriage whatsoever.

(As for my personal opinions regarding Jon Stewart, he is an overrated hack.)

[RBS51]

Part of it is this but part of it is the very aggressive gay movement who is always trying to be in your face about it. This is what is giving the gay movement a lot of trouble. Legislated respect simply is not possible.

However obviously I don't care if a gay couple want to enter into a legally binding relationship. Though I do think that demanding the title married is what is driving most of the opposition. Marriage is a very spiritual thing for many folks. It's a traditional union of man and woman. When they gay movement demand that this title they are trampling on people's religious beliefs in many cases.

This is a big source of their pain. If the gay movement would simply title it differently half of the issue would go away. But they press the issue because they want legislated respect....and this is not going anywhere positive.

Did you ever consider that this aggressiveness on the part of the "gay movement" was just blowback? You know, the same concept that Ron Paul uses to explain our failed diplomatic polices, especially those that have resulted in war or terrorism against us.

[MichelleHeart]

You could be right RBS51, but that doesn't make their behavior 100% inexcusable. I, as a member of the LGBT community, am irritated very much so by the gay Left. In fact, I'm writing an article about it for my blog. I had a big fight with them the other day.

[RBS51]

I say leave it up to the states and let them privatize marriage if they wish. Privatization of marriage is more likely to happen on a state level than on a federal level. There should be no federal jurisdiction of marriage whatsoever.

(As for my personal opinions regarding Jon Stewart, he is an overrated hack.)

Marriage can not be privatized unless it is contracted out out to each individual justice of the peace for prersonal profit.

Marriage must be defined as a moral concept with moral grounds (which is a consensus of opinion amongst those willing to hold forth as moral authorities) ; or a political concept with political and and legal rights. If there are those who want to have it both ways they must realize that morality is not enforcable in a court of law.

For decades there has been religious mariage with religious courts (notably Jewish and Catholic) that have granted religious marriage and divorce.

Civil requirements for marriage are different. This has also been true for decades.
What we need to do is clarify the rights, priveleges, and procedures for both legal and civil marriage and apply constitutional law to civil procedure and religious law to religious procedure.

Why on earth is this such a difficult subject for people to understand?

[RBS51]

I say leave it up to the states and let them privatize marriage if they wish. Privatization of marriage is more likely to happen on a state level than on a federal level. There should be no federal jurisdiction of marriage whatsoever.

(As for my personal opinions regarding Jon Stewart, he is an overrated hack.)

Marriage can not be privatized unless it is contracted out out to each individual justice of the peace or religious group for profit.

Marriage must be definded as a moral concept with moral grounds (which is a consensus of opinion amongst those willing to hold forth as moral authorities) ; or a political concept with political and and legal rights. If there are those who want to have it both ways they must realize that morality is not enforcable in a court of law.

For decades there has been religious mariage with religious courts (notably Jewish and Catholic) that have granted religious marriage and divorce.

Civil requirements for marriage are different. This has also been true for decades.
What we need to do is clarify the rights, priveleges, and procedures for both legal and civil marriage and apply constitutional law to civil procedure and religious law to religious procedure.

Why on earth is this such a difficult subject for people to understand?

[MichelleHeart]

Doesn't that mean that the Tenth Amendment would allow each state to decide on the issue of marriage? In my state, for example, I would prefer that government be reduced to its minimal function of enforcing contracts. Marriage would be recognized by each individual and his or her loved one through contract. The only thing government would do is recognize that a contract exists, not define that contract as marriage. The individual and his or her partner would do that. Others can then decide if they recognize that contract as marriage. For example, someone who is against gay marriage could refuse to recognize that contract as marriage, but the gay couple could recognize that contract as marriage for themselves. What is wrong with the separation of family and state? It is my guess that I am severely misunderstanding you, and that I am just being completely stupid. :D

[tremendoustie]

I liked the first section - about the banking industry.

Stewart is definitely a liberal though. Gay people can be gay all they want - but I don't see why they should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. That is not equal rights that is more rights.

Government shouldn't be in charge of marriage.

[MichelleHeart]

I tried explaining that to all the liberal *****s who say that government must own marriage. They shouted me down and called me self-loathing for saying that marriage is what you make of it. I, as a *****, am also supposed to completely disregard the Tenth Amendment and states' rights.

[teacherone]

I liked the first section - about the banking industry.

Stewart is definitely a liberal though. Gay people can be gay all they want - but I don't see why they should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. That is not equal rights that is more rights.

you are so right! and black people--they shouldn't be able to vote, own property, or be educated either.

black people can be black all they want. but i believe that citezanry is reserved for whites only. one drop is one too many!




:cool: before i get banned please note that the above was pure irony.

[SelfTaught]

I'm okay with two dudes marrying................as long as they both wear suits. None of this one dude wears a suit and one dude wears a dress type shit. :cool:

[Met Income]

Marriage can not be privatized unless it is contracted out out to each individual justice of the peace or religious group for profit.

Marriage must be definded as a moral concept with moral grounds (which is a consensus of opinion amongst those willing to hold forth as moral authorities) ; or a political concept with political and and legal rights. If there are those who want to have it both ways they must realize that morality is not enforcable in a court of law.

For decades there has been religious mariage with religious courts (notably Jewish and Catholic) that have granted religious marriage and divorce.

Civil requirements for marriage are different. This has also been true for decades.
What we need to do is clarify the rights, priveleges, and procedures for both legal and civil marriage and apply constitutional law to civil procedure and religious law to religious procedure.

Why on earth is this such a difficult subject for people to understand?

We just need to let people do their non-violent thing and for the State to get out of the way.

[Stary Hickory]

We just need to let people do their non-violent thing and for the State to get out of the way.

You did not even answer his response. Gay activists are agitating for government force against the concept of religous marriage. It's not the role of government, among many things, to get involved in this and resolve it via the use of force.

[kathy88]

government has no business being involved in marriage whatsoever, whether to allow or to disallow. Likewise, the idea that married people should be taxed at a different rate than single people is repugnant, and likely creates more divorces than it creates successful marriages. Government should not even recognize that marriage exists whatsoever. Government only first got involved in licensing marriage during reconstruction after the civil war in an attempt to prevent interracial marriages. The practice of government licensing marriages is a holdover from the original form of segregation, and it needs to be done away with.



exactly.

[teacherone]

You did not even answer his response. Gay activists are agitating for government force against the concept of religous marriage. It's not the role of government, among many things, to get involved in this and resolve it via the use of force.

my god you are daft....

the government is and always will be involved in certifying marriages for a variety of legal functions.

anyone in love and wanting to marry their partner and receive equal recognition under the law must go through the official legal system in order to do so.

ranting about the "proper role of government" won't get them anywhere.

[teacherone]

Hate to be the one to 'stir the puddin' here but gays DO have the same rights as the rest of us. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just like me. If I tried to marry a dude it would be just as illegal as if a gay did it. Now hold on. I personally think they should be able to avail themselves of the same legal benefits as the rest of us. Maybe they should start by framing the arguement in a way that dos not defy legal logic?

my god...did you get lost on the way to special ed?

you don't have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. you have the right to marry someone you love and are attracted to.

gay people are not attracted to members of the opposite sex, nor do they fall in love with them. so yeah...they DONT have the same rights you do.

just because you see plenty of straight people married to un-attractive spouses they no longer love doesn't mean that gay people should be forced into the same situation. besides...usually it takes at least a year till your spouse gets fat and you stop loving them.

[BlackTerrel]

Government shouldn't be in charge of marriage.

That I am totally fine with. But as long as they are involved I don't want them supporting a perversion.

[BlackTerrel]

you are so right! and black people--they shouldn't be able to vote, own property, or be educated either.

black people can be black all they want. but i believe that citezanry is reserved for whites only. one drop is one too many!




:cool: before i get banned please note that the above was pure irony.

Honestly I hate when people try to make this comparison. The two issues are not even close to the same thing.

[teacherone]

Honestly I hate when people try to make this comparison. The two issues are not even close to the same thing.

lol... they are exactly the same-- equal recognition of intrinsic rights. sad a minority carrying a heritage of oppression wants to oppress others.

typical human behavior really...

but I thought we were the "Liberty"movement.

[someperson]

No group has a "right to marriage." Groups have no rights. Only individuals have rights. Absent coercion, individuals have the right to voluntarily associate with anyone for any reason. These individuals can call their association a company, a family, a flock, a chess club, a herd, a married couple... it matters not. If a set of individuals wish to draft a contract for shared property ownership, end-of-life terms, etc., they can go right ahead; it's no business of the state or any other individual.

Reject collectivist false dichotomies.

[teacherone]

No group has a "right to marriage." Groups have no rights. Only individuals have rights. Absent coercion, individuals have the right to voluntarily associate with anyone for any reason. These individuals can call their association a company, a family, a flock, a chess club, a herd, a married couple... it matters not. If a set of individuals wish to draft a contract for shared property ownership, end-of-life terms, etc., they can go right ahead; it's no business of the state or any other individual.

Reject collectivist false dichotomies.

unfortunately we do not live in a libertarian utopia so the above rant while full of pretty words is completely meaningless.

as of now, individuals wishing to marry the partner of their choice are being denied this right/privilege. their only recourse is legal and political action in the reality they live in.

[someperson]

No group has a "right to marriage." Groups have no rights. Only individuals have rights. Absent coercion, individuals have the right to voluntarily associate with anyone for any reason. These individuals can call their association a company, a family, a flock, a chess club, a herd, a married couple... it matters not. If a set of individuals wish to draft a contract for shared property ownership, end-of-life terms, etc., they can go right ahead; it's no business of the state or any other individual.

Reject collectivist false dichotomies.

unfortunately we do not live in a libertarian utopia so the above rant while full of pretty words is completely meaningless.

as of now, individuals wishing to marry the partner of their choice are being denied this right/privilege. their only recourse is legal and political action in the reality they live in.
I hope it's not completely meaningless, but you're right. I believe that elimination of marriage as a state function should be the goal of any political activity, regarding this issue.

[RyanRSheets]

I do believe that marriage means a man and a woman.

That's perfectly fine. I agree that ultimately marriage should be between a man and a woman, but just like other situations where something should happen, I oppose the use of force to make it happen. Homosexuals can call themselves married all they want. It does me no harm. I'm not going to go out and promote it, nor will I protest it, because it's none of my business. It's none of my business what happens in anyone's bedroom but my own.

[BlackTerrel]

lol... they are exactly the same-- equal recognition of intrinsic rights. sad a minority carrying a heritage of oppression wants to oppress others.

typical human behavior really...

but I thought we were the "Liberty"movement.

How are gay people being oppressed? They have the exact same rights as everyone else. Is a guy who wants to marry his sister oppressed as well?

[Met Income]

How are gay people being oppressed? They have the exact same rights as everyone else. Is a guy who wants to marry his sister oppressed as well?

They are being denied the ability to legally marry another person. The government has no place in this business.

[Met Income]

Honestly I hate when people try to make this comparison. The two issues are not even close to the same thing.

How?

[Met Income]

You did not even answer his response. Gay activists are agitating for government force against the concept of religous marriage. It's not the role of government, among many things, to get involved in this and resolve it via the use of force.

I agree the best solution is to have the government out of the marriage business.

That being said, legalizing gay marriage is much better than the status quo.

[2young2vote]

I believe that marriage is not something the government should do. I believe it is a religious thing only so it should be left to the churches to marry people. If it were only the churches then there wouldn't be this debate.

[Met Income]

I believe that marriage is not something the government should do. I believe it is a religious thing only so it should be left to the churches to marry people. If it were only the churches then there wouldn't be this debate.

What does that mean, only in churches?

[BlackTerrel]

They are being denied the ability to legally marry another person. The government has no place in this business.

You said they were oppressed. Is a guy who can't legally marry his sister oppressed as well.

I would agree 100% with getting the government out of marriage - but that's a separate issue because as of now they are involved in marriage.

[Met Income]

You said they were oppressed. Is a guy who can't legally marry his sister oppressed as well.

I would agree 100% with getting the government out of marriage - but that's a separate issue because as of now they are involved in marriage.


They are oppressed because they are denied the ability to marry. Who are we to deny voluntary transactions? What other people do shouldn't matter to you.

[speciallyblend]

That's perfectly fine. I agree that ultimately marriage should be between a man and a woman, but just like other situations where something should happen, I oppose the use of force to make it happen. Homosexuals can call themselves married all they want. It does me no harm. I'm not going to go out and promote it, nor will I protest it, because it's none of my business. It's none of my business what happens in anyone's bedroom but my own.

5 STAR winner for answer!!! Ron Paul 2012!!!

[teacherone]

How are gay people being oppressed? They have the exact same rights as everyone else. Is a guy who wants to marry his sister oppressed as well?

you're not really that dumb are you? blacks had exactly the same rights as everybody else in the segregated south too right? they got to drink out of drinking fountains and go to the toilet!

what was all that bitching about anyway? :cool:

[MichelleHeart]

As a *****, I don't feel nearly as oppressed as blacks in the 50's. The homosexual Left exaggerates. Whiny bunch, I'm telling ya. They piss me off.

[teacherone]

As a *****, I don't feel nearly as oppressed as blacks in the 50's. The homosexual Left exaggerates. Whiny bunch, I'm telling ya. They piss me off.

thanks for your personal opinion. as a straight married male i can only imagine what it would be like to be denied the legal and societal rights and protections of marriage afforded to others.

i'm sure i would feel oppressed if the tables were turned and a gay majority decided i was not allowed to marry the woman i love.

maybe you're not in a committed enough relationship yet to relate? +

[teacherone]

Originally Posted by BlackTerrel
Honestly I hate when people try to make this comparison. The two issues are not even close to the same thing.


How?

Notice the word "hate" here. clearly BlackTerrel has made his decision based on his irrational disgust for gays and has absolutely no logical reason for his wish to deny them the right to marry the partner they love and are attracted to, the right that all straights have.

he "hates" the comparison because he suffers cognitive dissonance when faced with the irrational emotionalism in his argument. facing the fact that his uncles, aunts, parents and grandparents fought for equal rights under the law and he in turn wishes to deny others those same rights is too much to handle. his emotions are triggered and he tries to escape the question instead of examining his own prejudices.

sad really.

[BlackTerrel]

Notice the word "hate" here. clearly BlackTerrel has made his decision based on his irrational disgust for gays and has absolutely no logical reason for his wish to deny them the right to marry the partner they love and are attracted to, the right that all straights have.

he "hates" the comparison because he suffers cognitive dissonance when faced with the irrational emotionalism in his argument. facing the fact that his uncles, aunts, parents and grandparents fought for equal rights under the law and he in turn wishes to deny others those same rights is too much to handle. his emotions are triggered and he tries to escape the question instead of examining his own prejudices.

sad really.

You've avoided this question a couple times now: should a man be allowed to marry his sister? His father? His mother?

[BenIsForRon]

You've avoided this question a couple times now: should a man be allowed to marry his sister? His father? His mother?

That's a different issue. If a guy has a child with his own mother or sister, it will likely have genetic defects.

[teacherone]

You've avoided this question a couple times now: should a man be allowed to marry his sister? His father? His mother?

yes, yes, yes.

none of my business. if two, three, four, ten consenting adults love each other and want to marry, let them.

does not affect my life whatsoever.

of course you're throwing a skanky red herring out there, because cases of incest are so rare.

what's your real agenda BlackTerrel? you decry other Ron Paulers for racism but you're homophobic. as long as we have a government each and every citizen should enjoy equal rights, recognition, and equality under the law.

[BlackTerrel]

what's your real agenda BlackTerrel? you decry other Ron Paulers for racism but you're homophobic. as long as we have a government each and every citizen should enjoy equal rights, recognition, and equality under the law.

I don't like equating one with the other as I do not see them at all alike.

For one just look at the history of race in this country and the history of sexuality in this country and they are two separate things. For two there is nothing abnormal with being white or black or Asian or whatever. It is the same thing. It is a normal state of being.

Being homosexual is abnormal. I see it the same as having a shoe fetish or a furry fetish or having a split personality or manic depressive or a million other psychological problems that people can have. I do not hate these people and I wish them the best - but don't try to convince me that it is normal.

Whether you believe in God (like I do) or you believe in evolution I think it is clear that homosexuality is not normal for a species that wants to procreate

[Met Income]

I don't like equating one with the other as I do not see them at all alike.

For one just look at the history of race in this country and the history of sexuality in this country and they are two separate things. For two there is nothing abnormal with being white or black or Asian or whatever. It is the same thing. It is a normal state of being.

Being homosexual is abnormal. I see it the same as having a shoe fetish or a furry fetish or having a split personality or manic depressive or a million other psychological problems that people can have. I do not hate these people and I wish them the best - but don't try to convince me that it is normal.

Whether you believe in God (like I do) or you believe in evolution I think it is clear that homosexuality is not normal for a species that wants to procreate

Dwarfs are abnormal, so let's take their rights away! Normal people, F YEAH!

Human beings are human beings.

[Met Income]

You've avoided this question a couple times now: should a man be allowed to marry his sister? His father? His mother?

It's not your concern. There's no reason to even debate it. Worry about yourself.

[BlackTerrel]

Dwarfs are abnormal, so let's take their rights away! Normal people, F YEAH!

Human beings are human beings.

We're going in circles. I don't support taking anyone's rights away.

[Met Income]

We're going in circles. I don't support taking anyone's rights away.

Except you don't want gays to be allowed to marry. If you're not taking anything away, let people do what they want as long as it does not affect you or your property.

[Peace&Freedom]

Scraped from statements I have made in the past, my own Paulian take is to reject same-sex marriage, as follows:

I believe government should stay out of marriage, period. I oppose all government marriage licenses, and believe they should be replaced by traditional private contracts or common law arrangements. Let the church determine what marriage is, as they did for ages until a few decades ago. Marriage is a religious RITE, not a civil right, and while the state has improperly imposed itself with regard to heterosexual marriage, state power or intervention should not be further expanded to other alleged classes.

Neither should state power be used, as in the case of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, to impose a definition of marriage across the nation. The DOMA law should be repealed, as the state should just stay out of this matter. Benefit, insurance and other support issues involved with alternate relationships should be resolved through private contract. Gays should be free to identify such a contractual bond as 'marriage' but people should also not be forced by the state to recognize it as such. Gays can do whatever they want and can call it whatever they want, just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on someone else. They can't make me personally accept what they do, and gay couples can do whatever they want.

I regard much rhetoric about 'rights' in politics to be illegitimate, and often simply a pretext for demanding group privileges or subsidies that increase overall state aggression, in a manner that comes at the expense of the real liberty rights of others. I support individual personal liberty in sexual matters, but oppose efforts to further expand group rights by using government to codify legitimacy or approval for behavior that remains highly disputed. Initiating force through laws that de-facto coerces people to accept behavior they see as immoral, is not the way to solve this or other social issues.

[Met Income]

Scraped from statements I have made in the past, my own Paulian take is to reject same-sex marriage, as follows:

I believe government should stay out of marriage, period. I oppose all government marriage licenses, and believe they should be replaced by traditional private contracts or common law arrangements. Let the church determine what marriage is, as they did for ages until a few decades ago. Marriage is a religious RITE, not a civil right, and while the state has improperly imposed itself with regard to heterosexual marriage, state power or intervention should not be further expanded to other alleged classes.

Neither should state power be used, as in the case of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, to impose a definition of marriage across the nation. The DOMA law should be repealed, as the state should just stay out of this matter. Benefit, insurance and other support issues involved with alternate relationships should be resolved through private contract. Gays should be free to identify such a contractual bond as 'marriage' but people should also not be forced by the state to recognize it as such. Gays can do whatever they want and can call it whatever they want, just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on someone else. They can't make me personally accept what they do, and gay couples can do whatever they want.

I regard much rhetoric about 'rights' in politics to be illegitimate, and often simply a pretext for demanding group privileges or subsidies that increase overall state aggression, in a manner that comes at the expense of the real liberty rights of others. I support individual personal liberty in sexual matters, but oppose efforts to further expand group rights by using government to codify legitimacy or approval for behavior that remains highly disputed. Initiating force through laws that de-facto coerces people to accept behavior they see as immoral, is not the way to solve this or other social issues.

Gays aren't imposing anything on anyone else when they marry. If straights are recognized by the State, then gays should as well. Until it's equal, it's not logical or moral.

[Peace&Freedom]

Gays aren't imposing anything on anyone else when they marry. If straights are recognized by the State, then gays should as well. Until it's equal, it's not logical or moral.

Liberty is what is more logical/moral, not faux equality via state-mandated recognition. Group privileges and individual rights are very different things, and the appeals of same-sex marriage advocates fall in the former category. Whenever the (de-facto) social right 'imposes its views' on the social left, the right deny they are doing so. And whenever the social left 'imposes its views' on the social right, the left deny they are doing so. Code of the West.

This doesn't change the fact that the true movement towards INDIVIDUAL liberty should involve reducing state enforced recognition, not adding new categories of coerced recognition of GROUPS upon us. On this and other cultural matters, social conservatives should not reform the law to impose their values upon the left, nor social liberals use the law to impose their views upon the right.

[ChickenHawk]

I agree that the government should get of the marriage business now that it has become controversial. I am convinced that the majority of the people that advocate government sponsored gay marriage do not care much about the tax and health benefit issues or equal protection. What is going on here is a that people are looking for the government to put a stamp of approval on homosexuality that they can wave in the faces of those that believe it is immoral. Setting up a scenario where they can use the government as security blanket to make them feel better about themselves rather than deal with their psychological disorder.

[Met Income]

I agree that the government should get of the marriage business now that it has become controversial. I am convinced that the majority of the people that advocate government sponsored gay marriage do not care much about the tax and health benefit issues or equal protection. What is going on here is a that people are looking for the government to put a stamp of approval on homosexuality that they can wave in the faces of those that believe it is immoral. Setting up a scenario where they can use the government as security blanket to make them feel better about themselves rather than deal with their psychological disorder.

Well, straights are doing the same thing.

[ChickenHawk]

Well, straights are doing the same thing.

Except nobody (at least not that I've ever heard of) thinks heterosexuality is inherently immoral. Although I would agree that heterosexuals engaging in sexual immorality while conspicuously condemning gays are hypocrites

[Met Income]

Except nobody (at least not that I've ever heard of) thinks heterosexuality is inherently immoral. Although I would agree that heterosexuals engaging in sexual immorality while conspicuously condemning gays are hypocrites

Homosexuality is not immoral. You may not prefer it, but it's not immoral. Morality isn't determined by what other people think. People used to think the world was flat, that doesn't mean it was right.

[ChickenHawk]

Homosexuality is not immoral. You may not prefer it, but it's not immoral. Morality isn't determined by what other people think. People used to think the world was flat, that doesn't mean it was right.

Obviously if you don't thinks it's immoral then you would think that I am wrong in thinking that it is but that doesn't mean you are right.

[Met Income]

Obviously if you don't thinks it's immoral then you would think that I am wrong in thinking that it is but that doesn't mean you are right.

Logically, I can't see what's immoral about it. It's hurting no one. It's a preference. I can't help that I like rock music -- I just do.

[ChickenHawk]

Logically, I can't see what's immoral about it. It's hurting no one. It's a preference. I can't help that I like rock music -- I just do.

It sounds as if you do not believe in morality. I know a lot of people like that. Of course they say they believe in it but what they really believe is there own values not morality. There is a difference.

[Met Income]

It sounds as if you do not believe in morality. I know a lot of people like that. Of course they say they believe in it but what they really believe is there own values not morality. There is a difference.

I do belive in morality. You're not allowed to initiate violence against me or my property. Besides that, do what you want because it doesn't affect my being. I may not prefer to be a ****, but I could care less would ***** do.

[ChickenHawk]

I do belive in morality. You're not allowed to initiate violence against me or my property. Besides that, do what you want because it doesn't affect my being. I may not prefer to be a ****, but I could care less would ***** do.

Those are your pesonal values not morality. Some of your personal values may be moral but the sum of them does not equal morality.

[Met Income]

Those are your pesonal values not morality. Some of your personal values may be moral but the sum of them does not equal morality.

It's not personal. It has nothing to do with me or you. It is what it is.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I don't want my tax money subsidizing homosexuals getting 'married.' But it's too late in my state :P

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Except nobody (at least not that I've ever heard of) thinks heterosexuality is inherently immoral. Although I would agree that heterosexuals engaging in sexual immorality while conspicuously condemning gays are hypocrites

Don't bring the religion aspect into this. It leads no more creedence to any morality arguement, than say, what the Islamists believe (Sharia Law). All morality boils down to a point of this: NAP. It is immoral to initiate force on another, likewise, it is immoral to violate anothers liberty. That is the essence of morality. All voluntary interactions necessarily are moral.

[teacherone]

interracial marriage should be banned.

it is not "normal."

many believe it's immoral.

i know i do.

seeing a black man with a white woman or vice versa disgusts me.

why should i have to be offended thusly?

it says in my holy book that Canaan was black, and the lowest of the slaves. he suffered the curse of ham:

Genesis 9:25-27.

"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.

since my holy book says that blacks are lower than whites and should serve them, (and my holy book is the final arbiter of objective morality) it holds true that no black should marry a white.

since many others believe as i do, the government should dissolve all interracial marriages and ban any new ones from occurring.

it should also reinstate slavery. :cool:

thank you for joining the liberty movement. you are the weakest link. goodbye.

[haaaylee]

What makes homosexuality immoral?

The Bible.


What book is filled with fallacies, contradictions, made up fairy tales, rip offs of other stories about Gods that predated it, says that its moral to stone your children and advocates rape?

The Bible.

[BlackTerrel]

What makes homosexuality immoral?

The Bible.


What book is filled with fallacies, contradictions, made up fairy tales, rip offs of other stories about Gods that predated it, says that its moral to stone your children and advocates rape?

The Bible.

I've said it before. There are a lot of atheists on this board. Percentage wise in the general population there are a lot less. Associating Ron Paul with an anti-Christian message would be a death sentence.

You don't like the Bible that is your right. But it's not only offensive, it's dumb politics.

[haaaylee]

I've said it before. There are a lot of atheists on this board. Percentage wise in the general population there are a lot less. Associating Ron Paul with an anti-Christian message would be a death sentence.

You don't like the Bible that is your right. But it's not only offensive, it's dumb politics.



How did i associate Ron Paul with an anti-Christian message?

Numbers don't matter in regards to an Atheistic approach, that doesn't make us wrong because there are not as many of us as Christians. And all though i am one, i don't think that what i said was even promoting Atheism. There are Christians who don't believe the bible to be all that great either. The point was that the question of what morality is in regards to the subject of gays comes from a book that includes a lot of horrible things that someone opposing gays or gay marriage would not agree with. That is hypocrisy.

If anything i was associating the Bible with that. Not any one individual with Atheism.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I've said it before. There are a lot of atheists on this board. Percentage wise in the general population there are a lot less. Associating Ron Paul with an anti-Christian message would be a death sentence.

You don't like the Bible that is your right. But it's not only offensive, it's dumb politics.

It's offensive to me to tell me that a voluntary association between consenting persons is immoral. Get the hell off that high horse.

[BlackTerrel]

How did i associate Ron Paul with an anti-Christian message?

Numbers don't matter in regards to an Atheistic approach, that doesn't make us wrong because there are not as many of us as Christians. And all though i am one, i don't think that what i said was even promoting Atheism. There are Christians who don't believe the bible to be all that great either. The point was that the question of what morality is in regards to the subject of gays comes from a book that includes a lot of horrible things that someone opposing gays or gay marriage would not agree with. That is hypocrisy.

If anything i was associating the Bible with that. Not any one individual with Atheism.

You said the Bible advocates rape. Do you think that any candidate could say that and get elected?

[haaaylee]

You said the Bible advocates rape. Do you think that any candidate could say that and get elected?

Well, it does. I'm not asking Ron Paul or anyone to say that. That is their choice. My comment had nothing to do with a candidate mentioning what i said and therefore their chance of getting elected ... you turned it into that.

I was comparing one thing the bible says ,that i would hope no one here advocates (rape), with something else the bible apparently despises (homosexuals.) Simply pointing that out.

I never mentioned Ron Paul, Republicans, Candidates, Atheism, Elections, Etc.

[Brian4Liberty]

Should government be involved in personal relationships?

Will government getting involved in personal relationships shrink the size of government?

[Dieseler]

Hello, I'm from the Government and I am here to knock your teen daughter up.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Jon Stewart is a bolshevik socialist and no friend to liberty or our movement. Why are you allowing this socialist to use mind control on you? Tones

[BlackTerrel]

Jon Stewart is a bolshevik socialist and no friend to liberty or our movement. Why are you allowing this socialist to use mind control on you? Tones

Tooooo late. Mush watch Jon Stewart.

Must eliminate funnyman's enemies....

[MichelleHeart]

Jon Stewart is a bolshevik socialist and no friend to liberty or our movement. Why are you allowing this socialist to use mind control on you? Tones

Again, thank you so much for your brilliance! All the Jon Stewart worshipers on these forums piss me off. And he's not even funny. He plays clips and then makes faces. What's so great about that?