Boston Mayor to Outlaw Chick-Fil-A

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2012/07/22/boston_mayor_to_outlaw_chickfila


Boston Mayor Thomas Menino wants to restrict a single private business, Chick-Fil-A, from opening any franchises in Boston. His reported remarks were,

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.”

Chick-Fil-A has come under fire from progressive groups for donating millions of dollars to pro-family organizations over the past few years. This, according to Mayor Menino, counts as discrimination.

[asurfaholic]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2012/07/22/boston_mayor_to_outlaw_chickfila

W.o.w.

I really can't believe I just read that..

[Keith and stuff]

I don't even think there is a Chick-fli-A in Boston but there are in the near-by Burlington, MA, Peabody, MA and Nashua, NH malls.

Southern restaurants aren't too popular in Boston. I don't think there is a Cracker Barrel in Boston either but there are restaurants in near-by Hingham, MA, Wrentham, MA and Londonderry, NH.

I think there are a couple Popeye's Chicken places in Boston, though.

[Miss Annie]

I guess I will have to eat there 3 times a week now! :cool:

[John F Kennedy III]

I guess I will have to eat there 3 times a week now! :cool:

That's the spirit :)

[James Madison]

Criticizes a restaurant chain for intolerance

Doesn't tolerate their opinion

[PaulConventionWV]

Yet more evidence that there's an agenda behind this.

[PaulConventionWV]

Criticizes a restaurant chain for intolerance

Doesn't tolerate their opinion

And it's not like them donating to pro family groups is even anti-gay in any way. At least the mayor showed his true colors by showing the obvious bias they have by actively fighting the traditional family, as if the family were inherently an enemy to tolerance and inclusion. It boggles the mind to read stuff like this and see the logical disconnect laid out there in plain view, and yet they act like it's a perfectly logical thing to say when it is insanity.

[Nickels]

Civil rights act in full spirit.

[torchbearer]

I won't tolerate the intolerant... wait.

[Keith and stuff]

Here is the video
http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/19073459/2012/07/20/mayor-menino-no-chick-fil-a-in-boston?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7525351

[Revolution9]

This is an anti-Christian agenda. The man that owns the chain is what is understood to be a good Christian man. This is an attempt to break his faith through commerce. He won't succumb.

Rev9

[mport1]

Wow, banning specific restaurants. How ridiculous.

While I think the owner's beliefs are despicable, people should be allowed to eat there. Also, they aren't even discriminating in the store. Even if they were, they have the right to do so.

[TheGrinch]

I guess I will have to eat there 3 times a week now! :cool:
I wouldn't exactly call them wanting to dictate other people's personal contracts and relationships martyr-worthy, but it certainly wont stop me from eating there. Freedom means to acknowledge that others have different views than oneself.

[James Madison]

Wow, banning specific restaurants. How ridiculous.

While I think the owner's beliefs are despicable, people should be allowed to eat there. Also, they aren't even discriminating in the store. Even if they were, they have the right to do so.

How are his beliefs 'despicable'?:confused:

[Nickels]

Wow, banning specific restaurants. How ridiculous.

While I think the owner's beliefs are despicable, people should be allowed to eat there. Also, they aren't even discriminating in the store. Even if they were, they have the right to do so.

Under Civil Rights act, or local commerce chambers, it's pretty much illegal to openly discriminate against customers, even though there's always a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service", I'm not sure how much can be exercised. But that said, Chikfila never claimed they will not serve gays, so that's not discriminatory.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Does Boston have enough jobs? I think this is a stupid move on his part.

[Nickels]

Does Boston have enough jobs? I think this is a stupid move on his part.

Liberals are stupid, what's news? You think liberals care about jobs when a job is created by a bigot? Well, actually they do. They'd prefer to force the employer to be inclusive, but if they can't, or find it more fun to punish him with fines or force him to move away, they might do it too.

[mport1]

How are his beliefs 'despicable'?:confused:

His opposition to same sex marriage is despicable. Using the force of government to outlaw peaceful, consensual actions between individuals is wrong.

[AGRP]

This coming from a town that idolizes a drunk who treated women like animals and was responsible for killing at least one. Who knows what else he did.

[r3volution]

they must not have donated to his campaign .

[matt0611]

Yeah, he stopped wal-mart from moving in too because their prices are too low and they don't pay their employees "enough".

[torchbearer]

Yeah, he stopped wal-mart from moving in too because their prices are too low and they don't pay their employees "enough".

all hail the king and his serfs!

[PaulConventionWV]

Yeah, he stopped wal-mart from moving in too because their prices are too low and they don't pay their employees "enough".

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[Danke]

His opposition to same sex marriage is despicable. Using the force of government to outlaw peaceful, consensual actions between individuals is wrong.

How can government "outlaw" that religious ceremony? Doesn't the 1st A prevent that? Or are you talking about the government privilege of licensure?

[mport1]

How can government "outlaw" that religious ceremony? Doesn't the 1st A prevent that? Or are you talking about the government privilege of licensure?

Yes, I'm talking about the government not treating people equality in terms of licensure. I'm obviously against any government involvement in marriage whatsoever, but as long as they are at the moment, people should be treated equally.

[Indy Vidual]

First I heard of this...

http://i.imgur.com/AZrB7.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7dnpswVq61qas8z9o1_500.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/T6eSG.jpg

[Danke]

Yes, I'm talking about the government not treating people equality in terms of licensure. I'm obviously against any government involvement in marriage whatsoever, but as long as they are at the moment, people should be treated equally.

Then do you have a line to be drawn?

Can I marry my dog and be equally recognized by the state as a heterosexual couple?

[James Madison]

Yes, I'm talking about the government not treating people equality in terms of licensure. I'm obviously against any government involvement in marriage whatsoever, but as long as they are at the moment, people should be treated equally.

Based on my life-experience gays aren't missing out on anything. Bringing the state into your private life is the worst thing you can do; at least gay couples are allowed to stay together. Any signs of polygamy and you're goin' to the slammer.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, I'm talking about the government not treating people equality in terms of licensure. I'm obviously against any government involvement in marriage whatsoever, but as long as they are at the moment, people should be treated equally.

That doesn't make any sense. You're either for government involvement, or you're against it. There's no "at this moment" policy. Get rid of state licensure of hetero marriage, don't support state licensure of same-sex marriage. There's nothing despicable about wanting traditional marriage to remain traditional marriage. Has he said he would support state licensure at all? If no, then don't judge.

[Nickels]

Then do you have a line to be drawn?

Can I marry my dog and be equally recognized by the state as a heterosexual couple?

I would draw the line at any 2 consenting adults. That means no children and no animals. The law doesn't and shouldn't protect animals.

[Nickels]

Based on my life-experience gays aren't missing out on anything. Bringing the state into your private life is the worst thing you can do; at least gay couples are allowed to stay together. Any signs of polygamy and you're goin' to the slammer.

tell that to every couple getting married by the year. Just because it's bad for them doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to make a choice. This is like a stoner telling kids who want marijuana legalized "you're not missing out, the worst thing you can do is let the government know what you're smoking".

[Danke]

I would draw the line at any 2 consenting adults. That means no children and no animals. The law doesn't and shouldn't protect animals.

Why not one or three, or four?

[BlackTerrel]

This is all bluster right? He can't actually do this can he?

By the way Chick-Fil-A is awesome. Politics or otherwise.

[Anti Federalist]

This is all bluster right? He can't actually do this can he?

By the way Chick-Fil-A is awesome. Politics or otherwise.

Sure he can.

Or at least lean on the city council to ban them or restrict them or ordinance them out.

[James Madison]

tell that to every couple getting married by the year. Just because it's bad for them doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to make a choice. This is like a stoner telling kids who want marijuana legalized "you're not missing out, the worst thing you can do is let the government know what you're smoking".

What are you talking about?

My point is that state-sanctioned marriage sucks. It shouldn't be a choice to begin with.

[Nickels]

Why not one or three, or four?

I don't see why not. But I'd probably still limit 1 on 1 per registration for simplicity. If you want 3 people together, you can register them separately, one at a time.

[oyarde]

I say this , why would Chick Fila want in Boston ? And , what is more popular in America , East Coast Mayors or chicken sandwiches ? If there is a winner here , I can pick it ...

[Nickels]

What are you talking about?

My point is that state-sanctioned marriage sucks. It shouldn't be a choice to begin with.

People shouldn't have choice because you said the choice sucks, got it.

[James Madison]

People shouldn't have choice because you said the choice sucks, got it.

Are you saying the state should sanction marriage?

[James Madison]

Random double post

[Danke]

I don't see why not. But I'd probably still limit 1 on 1 per registration for simplicity. If you want 3 people together, you can register them separately, one at a time.


So their benefits from the state increase every time then?

[Nickels]

Are you saying the state should sanction marriage?

I am saying the state should give people the equal opportunity to ruin their lives and get any state sanctioned benefits.

[Nickels]

So their benefits from the state increase every time then?

not sure.

[Danke]

I am saying the state should give people the equal opportunity to ruin their lives and get any state sanctioned benefits.

My dog should get benefits then, right?

[Danke]

not sure.

Of course you aren't sure, you have not thought this through to its logical conclusion.

Eliminate any type of benefit to being married by the state. Then anyone can marry.

[James Madison]

I am saying the state should give people the equal opportunity to ruin their lives and get any state sanctioned benefits.

I can't speak for you, but the state doesn't give me anything. If a consenting individual wants to get married, we can get married. I don't need the government's blessings, nor do I need their approval.

[Nickels]

My dog should get benefits then, right?

If your dog is a person, yes.

[Nickels]

Of course you aren't sure, you have not thought this through to its logical conclusion.

Eliminate any type of benefit to being married by the state. Then anyone can marry.

So you agree anybody can marry?

[Nickels]

I can't speak for you, but the state doesn't give me anything. If a consenting individual wants to get married, we can get married. I don't need the government's blessings, nor do I need their approval.

So why do people register their marriage and divorce? To secure their divorce benefits? Child support? Or why did you?

[Danke]

So you agree anybody can marry?

Yes. But not state sanctioned.

Eliminate that.

[Danke]

If your dog is a person, yes.Why discriminate?

[Danke]

So why do people register their marriage and divorce? To secure their divorce benefits? Child support? Or why did you?

'cause they have been conditioned, you really don't understand that?

[Sola_Fide]

I don't eat processed food much anymore, but if I did, I would eat at Chick-Fil-A.

[James Madison]

So why do people register their marriage and divorce? To secure their divorce benefits? Child support? Or why did you?

Never been married. Don't plan on getting married either.

I have no idea why people register their marriage. Why do people still subscribe to the War on Drugs? Why do they think it's acceptable for TSA to molest travelers at the airport? I don't know.

[Nickels]

Why discriminate?

When I see you advocating dogs have equal protection, rights, privileges, as humans under the law, I'll answer you.

[Nickels]

Never been married. Don't plan on getting married either.


Ahhh, so what was all that "government never gave me shit" talk about? What do you know about marriage without having done it?



I have no idea why people register their marriage. Why do people still subscribe to the War on Drugs? Why do they think it's acceptable for TSA to molest travelers at the airport? I don't know.

Maybe you should ask them rather than take away their choice.

[Nickels]

'cause they have been conditioned, you really don't understand that?

been conditioned to believe that it's necessary for what benefit? that it's illegal to live together without it?

Why do your posts say "edited by sailingaway"?

[James Madison]

Ahhh, so what was all that "government never gave me shit" talk about? What do you know about marriage without having done it?

Government doesn't give me rights. I don't need their permission to get married. Consenting individuals have the right to marry whomever they want because they are able to consent to the contract. I've studied enough history, read enough books, and seen enough divorces to know that state-sanctioned marriage blows. Take the government out of the equation. Then gays can get married (doesn't hurt me), straights can get married (doesn't hurt me), cousins can get married (doesn't hurt me), siblings can get married (doesn't hurt me), people can have multiple spouses (doesn't hurt me), etc...


Maybe you should ask them rather than take away their choice.

It's not taking away a choice when the government is claiming power it doesn't have!

[idiom]

If your dog is a person, yes.

Dogs got the right to vote in New Zealand along with women in 1893.

Don't Mess with gender roles!

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/files/images/womens-suffrage-cartoon.jpg


The world turned upside down? A typical anti-suffrage cartoon warns that tampering with men’s and women’s ‘natural’ gender roles could cause the breakdown of society – or at least screaming babies, burnt dinners and cats in the milk jug.

The reactionary voices haven't changed in 120 years.

[smhbbag]

The reactionary voices haven't changed in 120 years.

Because they were right for the past 120 years.

[PaulConventionWV]

tell that to every couple getting married by the year. Just because it's bad for them doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to make a choice. This is like a stoner telling kids who want marijuana legalized "you're not missing out, the worst thing you can do is let the government know what you're smoking".

That is the biggest piece of bullshit I've ever seen. First of all, you're comparing legalizing something with giving government benefits. Secondly, legalizing a drug does not mean you're letting the government know what you're smoking. It just means the government doesn't care. That is probably the most idiotic analogy I've ever seen in my life. I'm not kidding.

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't see why not. But I'd probably still limit 1 on 1 per registration for simplicity. If you want 3 people together, you can register them separately, one at a time.

Everybody get registered. Who cares about getting the government out of marriage, as long as we are equally enslaved by our own government.

[PaulConventionWV]

I am saying the state should give people the equal opportunity to ruin their lives and get any state sanctioned benefits.

Why not focus on getting rid of state sanctioned marriage for hetero couples instead of trying to add state sanctioned benefits for homosexual couples? What's wrong with being anti-government involvement all the way?

[PaulConventionWV]

So you agree anybody can marry?

Yes, but why would they want to if it weren't for the government sanctioned benefits?

[Sola_Fide]

Why not focus on getting rid of state sanctioned marriage for hetero couples instead of trying to add state sanctioned benefits for homosexual couples? What's wrong with being anti-government involvement all the way?

Because that would require "secular libertarians" to be consistent, which they aren't.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ahhh, so what was all that "government never gave me shit" talk about? What do you know about marriage without having done it?



Maybe you should ask them rather than take away their choice.

It's not the government's place to fund anyone's marriage. People can get married without having a government license. In fact, gays can get married, right now, without a government license. The only reason they want to is because of the government benefits that come with said license. Eliminate the government licensure of marriage and we're all on equal ground again. Do you disagree?

[PaulConventionWV]

Because that would require "secular libertarians" to be consistent, which they aren't.

I think I know what you mean, but could you define secular libertarian for me?

[tbone717]

I don't eat processed food much anymore, but if I did, I would eat at Chick-Fil-A.

Not sure how you define processed, but from what I recall, all their product is brought in fresh and made on site. For example, their lemonade is fresh squeezed, the chicken is breaded on site and the waffle fries are fresh cut.

[Sola_Fide]

I think I know what you mean, but could you define secular libertarian for me?

It's hard to define, but its the pro-abortion, salvation-comes-through-science, every-lifestyle-is-equal, reddit types.

[jkr]

seems like i wanted to say this all my life:

FUCK
BOSTON

[robmpreston]

I love how as soon as we start talking about homosexuals joining in a union, hateful bigots all of a sudden start talking about humans and dogs marrying, fucking, etc. Such a stupid and pathetic argument. Humans are not equivalent to dogs, even if you think homosexuals are subhumans you scumbag.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Then do you have a line to be drawn?

Can I marry my dog and be equally recognized by the state as a heterosexual couple?

The Rick Santorum argument? You are comparing two humans marrying each other to a human marrying a different species (in this case a dog). Are you implying that homosexuals are subhuman? Can a dog consent to marrying someone? I didn't think so


Because that would require "secular libertarians" to be consistent, which they aren't.

I think you've got that backwards buddy. It's the "Christian libertarians" who refuse to be consistent and denounce all marriage licensed by the government. Sure, they say they do, but where are the millions of threads and discussions about that? All I see is talk about "abnormal lifestyles" and "abominations" which has nothing to do with the actual argument. I thought we were against restricting freedom? Doesn't that include the freedom to make bad decisions? If a homosexual couple wants to make the mistake of getting married and face all the consequences people have listed...why should you care? Everyone on this board who is married should have a common law marriage but I doubt that's true.


“The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”

[Tankbot85]

I love how as soon as we start talking about homosexuals joining in a union, hateful bigots all of a sudden start talking about humans and dogs marrying, fucking, etc. Such a stupid and pathetic argument. Humans are not equivalent to dogs, even if you think homosexuals are subhumans you scumbag.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

So tired of people being bigots and calling what is happening a "war on christianity".

I cant wait until the word is free of religion someday.

[RickyJ]

seems like i wanted to say this all my life:

FUCK
BOSTON

Just fuck the mayor of Boston, leave Boston out of it. There are many good people there and Ron Paul supporters.

[TonySutton]

I dont eat at chick fil a because my one day to get out and roam around is generally sunday and they are closed. no big loss there anyway, I prefer naturally raised foods

Since the discussion has devolved into the never ending gay marriage debate I would like to take the opportunity to interject a recent article I read where it talks about advantages gay couples have because the federal government does not recognize their unions.

http://www.taxtv.com/hidden-tax-advantages-for-same-sex-couples/#.UA1Yj6MVodU

[DerailingDaTrain]

//

[Tudo]

Lots of people think that way about a lot of people.

They deserve whatever happens to them

[Tudo]

Just fuck the mayor of Boston, leave Boston out of it. There are many good people there and Ron Paul supporters.

The people who elected the mayor

[GunnyFreedom]

The Rick Santorum argument? You are comparing two humans marrying each other to a human marrying a different species (in this case a dog). Are you implying that homosexuals are subhuman? Can a dog consent to marrying someone? I didn't think so



I think you've got that backwards buddy. It's the "Christian libertarians" who refuse to be consistent and denounce all marriage licensed by the government. Sure, they say they do, but where are the millions of threads and discussions about that? All I see is talk about "abnormal lifestyles" and "abominations" which has nothing to do with the actual argument. I thought we were against restricting freedom? Doesn't that include the freedom to make bad decisions? If a homosexual couple wants to make the mistake of getting married and face all the consequences people have listed...why should you care? Everyone on this board who is married should have a common law marriage but I doubt that's true.

But you are wrong. The stand I took that ended my stay in the General Assembly was for an amendment to prohibit the state licensure of mariage altogether. This amendment (http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocument.aspx?SessionCode=2011&DocNum=1481&SeqNum=0) to the mariage amendment was voted down 43 to 71, and the only weapon my opponents had to use against me in the 2012 election was my opposition to the Constitutional amendment to define marriage.

I still think I would have won if I had had as much money to spend as they did, but that's neither here nor there. The point being that I stood to denounce 'all marriage licensed by government' when it really, really counted, in what is generally considered a 'career-ending series of votes,' picked up 43 votes in the effort, and when I did so I gave such a heavy 'Christian' argument against state control that I (uncomfortably) felt more like I was delivering a sermon than a House Floor argument.

So what are you using to determine that "Christian libertarians" refuse to be consistent? The tenor of conversations on an internet based discussion board, where you have likely missed half or more of the conversations on the subject, or what actually happens in the State General Assemblies when the laws surrounding this topic come up for debate?

Because it's not the discussion boards that matter, but the legislative bodies, and I'd say that whenever we land in a legislative body that brings this matter up, we do a pretty good job staying consistent.

[Hyperion]

seems like i wanted to say this all my life:

FUCK
BOSTON

Same here. Fuck Boston.

Who the fuck does the mayor think he is? What an intolerant prick. No dissenting opinions in Boston. No customer freedom in Boston.

What a tragedy that some in government believe there's a right to restrict commerce based on someone's political opinion.

I'm pretty far right but it would never enter my mind to restrict someone else's business simply over politics.

[DerailingDaTrain]

But you are wrong. The stand I took that ended my stay in the General Assembly was for an amendment to prohibit the state licensure of mariage altogether. This amendment (http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocument.aspx?SessionCode=2011&DocNum=1481&SeqNum=0) to the mariage amendment was voted down 43 to 71, and the only weapon my opponents had to use against me in the 2012 election was my opposition to the Constitutional amendment to define marriage.

I still think I would have won if I had had as much money to spend as they did, but that's neither here nor there. The point being that I stood to denounce 'all marriage licensed by government' when it really, really counted, in what is generally considered a 'career-ending series of votes,' picked up 43 votes in the effort, and when I did so I gave such a heavy 'Christian' argument against state control that I (uncomfortably) felt more like I was delivering a sermon than a House Floor argument.

So what are you using to determine that "Christian libertarians" refuse to be consistent? The tenor of conversations on an internet based discussion board, where you have likely missed half or more of the conversations on the subject, or what actually happens in the State General Assemblies when the laws surrounding this topic come up for debate?

Because it's not the discussion boards that matter, but the legislative bodies, and I'd say that whenever we land in a legislative body that brings this matter up, we do a pretty good job staying consistent.

I wasn't referring to you. I was talking about people in this thread specifically comparing homosexual marriage to marrying their dog and others on the board who say they are against the government being involved in all marriage and yet the opposite seems to be true. It's come up in other threads on the topic but it's calmed down a bit since eduardo got banned.


Then do you have a line to be drawn?

Can I marry my dog and be equally recognized by the state as a heterosexual couple?


My dog should get benefits then, right?

[jbauer]

Oh come on, being here on RPF is nearly a form of religion. I'm a religious man and contrary to my pastors beliefs could care less if a dude wants to marry a dude. Go for it, just don't throw it in my face (same if it was a hetero couple)


Couldn't have said it better myself.

So tired of people being bigots and calling what is happening a "war on christianity".

I cant wait until the word is free of religion someday.

[trey4sports]

what is this world coming to....

[GunnyFreedom]

I wasn't referring to you. I was talking about people in this thread specifically comparing homosexual marriage to marrying their dog and others on the board who say they are against the government being involved in all marriage and yet the opposite seems to be true. It's come up in other threads on the topic but it's calmed down a bit since eduardo got banned.

It may just be a perspective thing here, but both of your quotes from Danke, both in context and out of context seem to me to be an attempt to point out the ills of government involvement in marriage. Now, I've never taken the 'marry your dog' tact, because the argument ad-ridiculum is a fallacy and only rhetorically valid in a fraction of a percent of the arguments it's actually used in, and this is clearly not one of them. The subtext I gathered from Danke's posts was "a government big enough to grant heterosexual or homosexual marriage, is a government big enough to grant bestial marriage."

While I avoid the bestiality argument like the plague, and while a LOT of the bestiality arguments do indeed try to de-humanize homosexuals, a still pretty significant portion of the bestiality arguments do not try to dehumanize homosexuals but use the fallacy to ridicule a whole other link in the chain. The problem they encounter is an automatic knee-jerk reaction from the pro state-sponsored gay marriage crowd who automatically see any bestiality reference as applying to themselves without bothering to examine the actual argument itself to see if it's making that attempt.

MOST of the bestiality arguments ad-ridiculum on this board do not try to link homosexuality with bestiality but with runaway government power. Still, the pro-sanction people see the word 'dog,' and freak out, 'OMG you are comparing gay people to dog-sex!!' even when it's just not so.

Even so, the bestiality argument is a non-starter, it's BS and crap and wholly fallacious and a non-sequitur. Nevertheless I bring it up because I have the objective detachment to recognize that it's not being used here how some people think it's being used here.

But in any case, examine Danke's argument more closely and you will see that he's not talking about the dangers of gay marriage, he's actually talking about the dangers of government sponsored marriage.

[jbauer]

MOST of the bestiality arguments ad-ridiculum on this board do not try to link homosexuality with bestiality but with runaway government power. Still, the pro-sanction people see the word 'dog,' and freak out, 'OMG you are comparing gay people to dog-sex!!' even when it's just not so.

I bet if you type hot bitch into google you'll get some really good photoes back :p

[Sola_Fide]

I think you've got that backwards buddy. It's the "Christian libertarians" who refuse to be consistent and denounce all marriage licensed by the government. Sure, they say they do, but where are the millions of threads and discussions about that? All I see is talk about "abnormal lifestyles" and "abominations" which has nothing to do with the actual argument. I thought we were against restricting freedom? Doesn't that include the freedom to make bad decisions? If a homosexual couple wants to make the mistake of getting married and face all the consequences people have listed...why should you care? Everyone on this board who is married should have a common law marriage but I doubt that's true.

I'll just leave this here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaJ2iF9oLi0&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Until I see secularists as consistent as that^^^, I will give them no respect.

[jmdrake]

I vow never to eat at Chik-fil-la on Sundays.

[jmdrake]

I'll just leave this here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaJ2iF9oLi0&feature=youtube_gdata_player


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sola_Fide again.

[jmdrake]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

So tired of people being bigots and calling what is happening a "war on christianity".

I cant wait until the word is free of religion someday.

A) I assume you meant to say "world is free of religion" instead of "word is free of religion".

B) I LOL @ U for saying on the one hand those who call this a "war on Christianity" are "just being bigots" and on the other hand saying you want to see a "world free of religion". So it's not Christianity you are at war with, but all religion. I guess being an equal opportunity anti religious bigot makes you not a bigot.

[Danke]

The Rick Santorum argument? You are comparing two humans marrying each other to a human marrying a different species (in this case a dog). Are you implying that homosexuals are subhuman? Can a dog consent to marrying someone? I didn't think so


Can a mentally handicap person? Should we restrict them from marrying?

My point is everyone should be able to marry to whomever or whatever. No state benefits because of their choices.

[Danke]

I vow never to eat at Chik-fil-la on Sundays.

I've tried.

[Miss Annie]

I'll just leave this here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaJ2iF9oLi0&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Until I see secularists as consistent as that^^^, I will give them no respect.

Love me some Glenn Bradley! :)

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Is there anything that concretely lays out the benefits that the government grants married couples? I honestly don't know how much contracts are affected by marriage licenses granted by the state (had an argument with someone who wanted to maintain government presence in marriage in order to ensure contracts were enforced).

[Nickels]

Is there anything that concretely lays out the benefits that the government grants married couples? I honestly don't know how much contracts are affected by marriage licenses granted by the state (had an argument with someone who wanted to maintain government presence in marriage in order to ensure contracts were enforced).

Ask why people want to get married if there isn't.

Edit : jmdrake didn't like my short answer. So I'll copy what he said : the benefit is "it's the thing to do" "because it's what people do for thousands of years". This may not be a very material one, but it is when you don't have it. If people think they don't have benefits to a marriage license, let's see them get rid of it. If they admit they do, let them tell you why gays shouldn't get the same.

[jmdrake]

Ask why people want to get married if there isn't.

Marriage predated government recognition or benefit.

[Nickels]

Marriage predated government recognition or benefit.

Government registered marriage did not. So I meant to say/ask "Why do people register their marriages unless there are benefits to it"?

You register your car and driver license because it's basically a crime without it, you can be fined, it's not nice and not fair, but you deal with it.
There is no crime to simply cohabitate, nor is there a crime to have children without marriage, and the state enforces child support regardless of marriage status.
So why DO people register their marriages? Do they just want a new driver license?

[jbauer]

http://www.history.com/shows/pawn-stars/bios/the-old-man-the-appraiser

So does the guy who looks content up until the end (to the right of the screen) look like the old man from pawn stars?


I'll just leave this here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaJ2iF9oLi0&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Until I see secularists as consistent as that^^^, I will give them no respect.

[seyferjm]

http://www.history.com/shows/pawn-stars/bios/the-old-man-the-appraiser

So does the guy who looks content up until the end (to the right of the screen) look like the old man from pawn stars?

Beat me to it, I was going to post the exact same thing, haha.

[jmdrake]

Government registered marriage did not. So I meant to say/ask "Why do people register their marriages unless there are benefits to it"?

You register your car and driver license because it's basically a crime without it, you can be fined, it's not nice and not fair, but you deal with it.
There is no crime to simply cohabitate, nor is there a crime to have children without marriage, and the state enforces child support regardless of marriage status.
So why DO people register their marriages? Do they just want a new driver license?

I can speak for myself. I got married by my former pastor. (Now retired). Sometime after the wedding he came up to me and said in an urgent voice "Wait! We haven't signed the marriage license yet." I was like "Okay. But you just pronounce me married...so I'm married." He was like "It's not official until the license is signed." which I thought was kinda odd since I'd already been on my honeymoon. Does that mean we were "foreignicating"? Anyway, I signed the dang thing not cause I was hoping for a tax break (most folks get a tax penalty) or hoping to be on my wife's insurance (I had health insurance before I got married) or for any other supposed granted "benefit". I signed it because we wanted to be married. I think that's the case for a lot of people.

[jkr]

Just fuck the mayor of Boston, leave Boston out of it. There are many good people there and Ron Paul supporters.AGREED
its just too much...they go on the "zero commerce" list with Tennessee, watch it Cali you are on thin ice...

[Nickels]

I can speak for myself. I got married by my former pastor. (Now retired). Sometime after the wedding he came up to me and said in an urgent voice "Wait! We haven't signed the marriage license yet." I was like "Okay. But you just pronounce me married...so I'm married." He was like "It's not official until the license is signed." which I thought was kinda odd since I'd already been on my honeymoon. Does that mean we were "foreignicating"?


Legally you were not married, you may not care, and this is no reflection on your moral character, but that's just it. If you don't care if you're legally registered a marriage, who does?



Anyway, I signed the dang thing not cause I was hoping for a tax break (most folks get a tax penalty) or hoping to be on my wife's insurance (I had health insurance before I got married) or for any other supposed granted "benefit". I signed it because we wanted to be married.


What the hell does that mean? You just said "I was married because the church said so, who cares about that dang piece of paper"!
How did signing that paper make you any more married than you were?



I think that's the case for a lot of people.

So why shouldn't any 2 people sign a pointless piece of paper according to you? You were not more married than you were before, so why not let any 2 adults sign it?

Basically what you and some have said, is summed up as "the government doesn't get to tell me if I'm married, I was married because I said so, but I still wanted to get their stupid pointless recognition because I don't know who I was trying to convince, I knew my word wasn't good enough".

If you want to denounce your recognition of the government's authrotiy to license and recognize marriage, UNREGISTER YOUR MARRIAGE OR REGISTER A DIVORCE. It's very easy for one to say "You're not missing out on anything" when you're enjoying it. Say it like you mean it. If you believe you don't need a driver license to drive, TEAR IT UP. If you believe you don't need permission to fish, DO IT. Don't get permission and then say "Well, I didn't need your permission anyway".

[PaulConventionWV]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

So tired of people being bigots and calling what is happening a "war on christianity".

I cant wait until the word is free of religion someday.

You mean including the religion of atheism?

[Indy Vidual]

Why are dogs getting treated like dogs?
Puppies are our future :o

http://i.imgur.com/8ZvPW.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Qr5M9.jpg


If you were stranded on a real "Planet of the Apes" would you agree that humans have no rights?

[PaulConventionWV]

I wasn't referring to you. I was talking about people in this thread specifically comparing homosexual marriage to marrying their dog and others on the board who say they are against the government being involved in all marriage and yet the opposite seems to be true. It's come up in other threads on the topic but it's calmed down a bit since eduardo got banned.

I've never done that. I solely focus on getting the government out of marriage. If you're talking about Danke, I'm not even sure if he's a Christian. He's just likes to mess with you. Most people here are talking about government intervention.

[jmdrake]

Okay. I think you missed the point of my anecdote so I'll spell it out for you. I believed then (and still believe) that to be married before God I needed to go through the ceremony. I'm not a "we're shacking up so we're married" kind of guy. The person who officiated over the ceremony told me I wasn't really married. Now if he had said "Okay, technically you're really married, but for tax purposes you're not married until you sign this paper" would I have signed? I don't know. Tax wise many people are penalized by being married. (If you and your spouse have close incomes then being married is a tax penalty. If there is a big disparity in incomes it's a tax benefit). The point is that there was no discussion about the legal ramifications of signing a piece of paper. It was just presented as "the thing to do". I'd bet you a dime to a dollar that this is true for most folks that get married. There is no sit down calculation of "This is how our lives will change under the law if we get married versus if we shack". Hope you get what I'm saying now. My point isn't about what people should do but rather what they do do.


Legally you were not married, you may not care, and this is no reflection on your moral character, but that's just it. If you don't care if you're legally registered a marriage, who does?



What the hell does that mean? You just said "I was married because the church said so, who cares about that dang piece of paper"!
How did signing that paper make you any more married than you were?



So why shouldn't any 2 people sign a pointless piece of paper according to you? You were not more married than you were before, so why not let any 2 adults sign it?

[idiom]

Because they were right for the past 120 years.

It was a mistake to let women vote?

[Nickels]

Okay. I think you missed the point of my anecdote so I'll spell it out for you. I believed then (and still believe) that to be married before God I needed to go through the ceremony. I'm not a "we're shacking up so we're married" kind of guy.


Actually I understood that. I apologize if I left your pastor out of the last line.



The person who officiated over the ceremony told me I wasn't really married. Now if he had said "Okay, technically you're really married, but for tax purposes you're not married until you sign this paper" would I have signed? I don't know.


So he lied to you? You can undo the damage right now.



Tax wise many people are penalized by being married. (If you and your spouse have close incomes then being married is a tax penalty. If there is a big disparity in incomes it's a tax benefit). The point is that there was no discussion about the legal ramifications of signing a piece of paper.


Goes to show how easy it is to sucker you into signing a paper you don't understand. And then tell people it's not as good as they think, while you stay married and registered



It was just presented as "the thing to do". I'd bet you a dime to a dollar that this is true for most folks that get married.


What do you mean by "the thing to do"? What is the benefit of "the thing to do"? To not look like sneaky fornicators?

If you're trying to say "there ARE benefits, but that wasn't what we were thinking" then that changes no facts. Some people care about the benefits. Even if its purely superficial.



There is no sit down calculation of "This is how our lives will change under the law if we get married versus if we shack". Hope you get what I'm saying now. My point isn't about what people should do but rather what they do do.

So now I am asking you what people SHOULD DO. Should gay couples have the benefit of signing the same piece of paper that you did? Yes or no?

If yes, then good, you can keep your license.
If not, why not, why do you keep your license if there is no benefit, and why do you think you get a benefit they do not?

My question is : are you serious about getting the government out of marriage? Or equality for gays? If so, what are your actions to show that? If not, fine.

[PaulConventionWV]

Government registered marriage did not. So I meant to say/ask "Why do people register their marriages unless there are benefits to it"?

You register your car and driver license because it's basically a crime without it, you can be fined, it's not nice and not fair, but you deal with it.
There is no crime to simply cohabitate, nor is there a crime to have children without marriage, and the state enforces child support regardless of marriage status.
So why DO people register their marriages? Do they just want a new driver license?

That's a very good question. The answer is because we are conditioned that way. You'll notice that marriage is never mentioned on TV without the implication that you have to have a license in order to be married. This has been drilled into us. We believe that we can't function in society unless the government recognizes our marriage and we apply for it so that we can have the government handle our taxes and our legal concerns as a couple instead of as two individuals. In reality, however, there are many liberty perks to being in an unlicensed marriage. I can't really list them, per se, but I know that inviting the government into your marriage only allows the government more control over your personal life.

My argument is that we don't need government marriage licenses. What's more, it's unconstitutional for the government to regulate marriage. Thus far, the debate has revolved around the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

This is a false dichotomy. Instead of bickering about why heteros and ***** are unequal, let's examine why the government is sponsoring anyone's marriage. Get the government out of hetero marriages and you don't have the problem of unfairness, and you also relieve the tax burden on people who don't want to be paying for other people's marriages, as well as generally loosening the government grip on our personal lives.

[PaulConventionWV]

http://www.history.com/shows/pawn-stars/bios/the-old-man-the-appraiser

So does the guy who looks content up until the end (to the right of the screen) look like the old man from pawn stars?

I was just watching that show when I saw your post, and no, he doesn't.

[Nickels]

My argument is that we don't need government marriage licenses. What's more, it's unconstitutional for the government to regulate marriage. Thus far, the debate has revolved around the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

when people like jmdrake who are married and registered actually unregister their marriages or register a divorce, I'll take these arguments seriously. Why don't people put their license and marriage where their mouth claims to be?

[jmdrake]

Actually I understood that. I apologize if I left your pastor out of the last line.

Okay.



So he lied to you? You can undo the damage right now.


A) I don't think it was a lie. I think he probably thought that himself.
B) Undo what "damage"? I don't think signing a piece of paper damaged me in any way.



Goes to show how easy it is to sucker you into signing a paper you don't understand. And then tell people it's not as good as they think, while you stay married and registered


Ummmm.....okay. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say but....okay.



What do you mean by "the thing to do"? What is the benefit of "the thing to do"? To not look like sneaky fornicators?


I'm sure you have a point in here somewhere.



If you're trying to say "there ARE benefits, but that wasn't what we were thinking" then that changes no facts. Some people care about the benefits. Even if its purely superficial.


You're initial position was that for someone to get a breakdown of what the advantages of marriage are that person should ask people why they get married. I'm glad you know realize that was a ridiculous question. Took you long enough. ;) To answer your question, marriage has been around for thousands of years and is deeply ingrained in our culture. People have gotten married long before there were marriage licenses. And there were marriage licenses before most of what people now consider to be "marriage benefits". (Insurance, pension plans etc). The marriage license came about to prevent miscegenation and not as some "key" for getting "benefits". While the miscegenation laws are now void, the marriage license, having been connected to "benefits", remains. Older marriage "rights" (inheritance, joint property, etc), can be conferred between private parties without the involvement of the state through wills, powers of attorney, deeds, etc. Most people being unsophisticated many years ago, society came up with some "default rules" for married people. But those rules don't only apply to married people. You can though private document avail yourself of most of those defaults. And taxes, as I explained, can be higher or lower for a married/unmarried couple based on the disparity in income. But sense it's politically correct to push gay marriage today, nobody is talking about marriage tax penalties, only marriage tax benefits.



So now I am asking you what people SHOULD DO. Should gay couples have the benefit of signing the same piece of paper that you did? Yes or no?


People should advocate to get rid of the income tax which will have the immediate effect of getting rid of any marriage tax benefit or penalty as well as decoupling health insurance from employment. Social security should also be restructured to 100% retirement savings accounts which you can leave to whoever you want and not just your "spouse". Then the fight over marriage will go away.



If yes, then good, you can keep your license.
If not, why not, why do you keep your license if there is no benefit, and why do you think you get a benefit they do not?


I never said there was no benefit to the license. I said I didn't get married for it. But let's say there was no benefit to it. Why should I get rid of it? Just to make some argument point with some stranger on the internet?



My question is : are you serious about getting the government out of marriage? Or equality for gays? If so, what are your actions to show that? If not, fine.

I'm serious about decreasing the size of government. Are you?

[jmdrake]

when people like jmdrake who are married and registered actually unregister their marriages or register a divorce, I'll take these arguments seriously. Why don't people put their license and marriage where their mouth claims to be?

Then by all means don't take me serious. Just go about your live thinking you know everything.

Edit: But while your at it go back and read your snide and flippant answer to NIU Students for Liberty's serious question.

[Nickels]

Okay.
A) I don't think it was a lie. I think he probably thought that himself.
B) Undo what "damage"? I don't think signing a piece of paper damaged me in any way.


No damage, no benefits? So it's a pointless piece of paper?



Ummmm.....okay. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say but....okay.

I'm sure you have a point in here somewhere.


You were obviously trying to convince somebody by signing that peice of paper.



You're initial position was that for someone to get a breakdown of what the advantages of marriage are that person should ask people why they get married. I'm glad you know realize that was a ridiculous question. Took you long enough. ;) To answer your question, marriage has been around for thousands of years and is deeply ingrained in our culture.


But like you said, "government came later", and didn't stop you from signing their recognition papers. Perhaps one of the most obvious benefits people don't think about especially when they're young, is inheritance or power to decide when family is not available.



People have gotten married long before there were marriage licenses. And there were marriage licenses before most of what people now consider to be "marriage benefits". (Insurance, pension plans etc). The marriage license came about to prevent miscegenation and not as some "key" for getting "benefits".


I understand people don't get married for the intention of abusing recent benefits, at least most do not, but that doesn't change the fact they get a piece of paper of recognition which gays and whoever else currently isn't "allowed" doesn't get.



While the miscegenation laws are now void, the marriage license, having been connected to "benefits", remains. Older marriage "rights" (inheritance, joint property, etc), can be conferred between private parties without the involvement of the state through wills, powers of attorney, deeds, etc. Most people being unsophisticated many years ago, society came up with some "default rules" for married people. But those rules don't only apply to married people. You can though private document avail yourself of most of those defaults. And taxes, as I explained, can be higher or lower for a married/unmarried couple based on the disparity in income. But sense it's politically correct to push gay marriage today, nobody is talking about marriage tax penalties, only marriage tax benefits.


Or, some people just simply focus on the benefits you said, the most superficial ones. "it's a piece of paper" "I want to get married" if there's no damage to having it, why shouldn't any 2 people sign a harmless peice of paper?



People should advocate to get rid of the income tax which will have the immediate effect of getting rid of any marriage tax benefit or penalty as well as decoupling health insurance from employment. Social security should also be restructured to 100% retirement savings accounts which you can leave to whoever you want and not just your "spouse". Then the fight over marriage will go away.

I never said there was no benefit to the license. I said I didn't get married for it. But let's say there was no benefit to it. Why should I get rid of it? Just to make some argument point with some stranger on the internet?

just to show you are serious about getting government out of your bedroom.




I'm serious about decreasing the size of government. Are you?

then get rid of that document you don't need. show me you are serious.

[Nickels]

Then by all means don't take me serious. Just go about your live thinking you know everything.

Edit: But while your at it go back and read your snide and flippant answer to NIU Students for Liberty's serious question.

I edited my answer just to make you happy.

[jkr]

It was a mistake to let women vote?DEEPENS on whos COuNTING

[KingNothing]

Then do you have a line to be drawn?

Can I marry my dog and be equally recognized by the state as a heterosexual couple?

Who gives a chicken? No one is going to do that anyway.
What about 10-percent of the population does care about, however, is the right to marry the consenting adult of their choosing even though they do not currently have that right.

Chik-fil-A is stupid for speaking against it, as is anyone else who does so. Being anti-gay marriage is moronic.

You've either got to be completely against State sanctioned marriages, or in favor of any consenting adult marrying another consenting adult. There should be no in between.

[jmdrake]

No damage, no benefits? So it's a pointless piece of paper?

I never said there were no damages. I never said there were damages. I never said there were no benefits. I never said their were benefits. All I said was that none of that factored into why I signed it. You're trying to make something out of nothing.



You were obviously trying to convince somebody by signing that peice of paper.


Ummm...no. You obviously do not know what I was obviously doing. Why is everything so agenda driven for you? When I got married I wasn't at all thinking about the "pros and cons of having a state sanctioned marriage". It's like a lot of people will sign petitions without even reading them.



But like you said, "government came later", and didn't stop you from signing their recognition papers. Perhaps one of the most obvious benefits people don't think about especially when they're young, is inheritance or power to decide when family is not available.


It neither stopped me from signing them nor caused me to sign them. You are right that the government tries to guess the will of people who don't have a will. (Pun very much intended). And if you care about someone enough to make sure they get your stuff when you die, have a will. (Or a trust or a fill-in-the-blank). Even if you're married there's no guarantee your spouse will get everything when you die if you don't have a will. In some states the spouse takes the "elective share". That's good because some spouses are total jerks and would leave the children out if not for state intervention. Then again, maybe you wanted your kids left out. How to make sure? Have a will. Or be a statist and let the state make the decision for you.



I understand people don't get married for the intention of abusing recent benefits, at least most do not, but that doesn't change the fact they get a piece of paper of recognition which gays and whoever else currently isn't "allowed" doesn't get.


Let's take the inheritance issue we just talked about. A will is as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> piece of paper than a marriage license/certificate in that regard. Gay people can get that. I think the way to get the state out of marriage is for more people to realize that you can take care of many basic necessities through wills, powers of attorney etc. You think "we'd better make sure gays can get that too." And you're entitled to your opinion as long as you don't try to force it on anyone else.



Or, some people just simply focus on the benefits you said, the most superficial ones. "it's a piece of paper" "I want to get married" if there's no damage to having it, why shouldn't any 2 people sign a harmless peice of paper?


You've got access to a laser printer right? If you don't go to Kinkos, print off a piece of paper and sign it already. But if you want your partner to have certain legal benefits then go to a lawyer. That's the smart thing to do whether you are gay or not.



just to show you are serious about getting government out of your bedroom.


To who? You? If you haven't figured it out already I don't care what you think.




then get rid of that document you don't need. show me you are serious.

See above.

[jmdrake]

I edited my answer just to make you happy.

Don't do it for my benefit. I'm not the one that asked the question. And you didn't actually answer NIU's question by the way, which shows how moronic your initial answer was as well as your follow up. Again, most folks aren't sitting around calculating the pros/cons of a marriage license. Sure that's the obsession of the gay marriage community (and many of them haven't figured out yet that most gays will be on the tax penalty side of the equation if gay marriage is ever federally recognized), but your average "I want to get married" couple just doesn't do that. If they were that intentional about understanding the financial aspects of marriage the divorce rate wouldn't be so high. Now the real answer to NIU's question is that state recognized marriage gives some default "contracts" that people could draw up for themselves without government intervention as well as some government "benefits" (as well as a big tax penalty for many) that really shouldn't exist anyway. The small government solution (for me anyway) is to work toward getting rid of our current tax system and restructuring social security to get the federal government out of marriage. If you wish to help in that effort, by all means do so.

[Nickels]

The small government solution (for me anyway) is to work toward getting rid of our current tax system and restructuring social security to get the federal government out of marriage. If you wish to help in that effort, by all means do so.

why not just stop registering marriages? Taxes and social security were not designed for married people, so why wait on that?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

So going back to my question, do the tax benefits from a marriage license outweigh the potential economic drawbacks (not sure what those would entail but someone earlier in the thread mentioned that homosexual couples are better off not going before the state)?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

So going back to my question, do the tax benefits from a marriage license outweigh the potential economic drawbacks (not sure what those would entail but someone earlier in the thread mentioned that homosexual couples are better off not going before the state)?

Edit: I didn't see Drake's latest response before posting this.

[James Madison]

So going back to my question, do the tax benefits from a marriage license outweigh the potential economic drawbacks (not sure what those would entail but someone earlier in the thread mentioned that homosexual couples are better off not going before the state)?

Depends on your gender. If you're female it could be advantageous, though probably not. For men, the risk of getting screwed in the family courts makes it not worth it.

[Nickels]

So going back to my question, do the tax benefits from a marriage license outweigh the potential economic drawbacks (not sure what those would entail but someone earlier in the thread mentioned that homosexual couples are better off not going before the state)?

Edit: I didn't see Drake's latest response before posting this.

even if the actual measureable tangible monetary benefits didn't exist, people still, to jmdrake's admission, register to marry, they seem to have no problem getting state recognition. so why shouldn't this superficial and harmless benefit be extended to any 2 adults, if monetary benefits were completely gone?

[jmdrake]

why not just stop registering marriages? Taxes and social security were not designed for married people, so why wait on that?

I'm not sure I follow your question. Since the tax laws (for better and worse) recognize marriage, the tax laws themselves need to be changed. And since this movement primarily is about economic liberty, why is that not your priority?

[Nickels]

I'm not sure I follow your question. Since the tax laws (for better and worse) recognize marriage, the tax laws themselves need to be changed. And since this movement primarily is about economic liberty, why is that not your priority?

what a convoluted way to say "I'm IDEALLY against income tax, and in the meantime (which is going to be a long time), I don't care if it's unfair to people who can't or don't get married, I'm staying married because I can"

[jmdrake]

even if the actual measureable tangible monetary benefits didn't exist, people still, to jmdrake's admission, register to marry, they seem to have no problem getting state recognition. so why shouldn't this superficial and harmless benefit be extended to any 2 adults, if monetary benefits were completely gone?

Why limit it to 2 adults? Why not three? And why limit it to 2 adults that are not married? Why not brothers and sisters? (Or brothers and brothers or sisters and sisters)? In fact, why have any limits at all? Of course as soon as someone points out the other possibilities someone else says "How dare you compare homosexuality to polygamy, incest, bestiality, fill-in-the-blank!" To that I reply "How dare you thumb your nose at the polygamists, sibling lovers and beast lovers of the world!" I mean, look at the whole thread. Some president of a private business says he doesn't approve of gay marriage and gay rights activists flip out about it. "How dare he be open about his beliefs! Let's boycott!" Ummmmm....okay. If the goal is to get rid of "marriage inequality" then the only way forward as far as I'm concerned is to press even harder to get rid of the artificial "benefits" of marriage (and get rid of the artificial welfare benefits of being an unwed mother too). If you do anything else, you're really just making things more unequal for the people left out. (The polygamists etc). And no I'm not going to get divorced or "unregister" my marriage just to make you feel better about me. You aren't my standard. I doubt my wife would agree with such stupidity anyway (I barely got her to consider voting for Ron Paul) but even if she would, impressing some stranger on the net isn't a good reason to do anything.

[jmdrake]

//

[QuickZ06]

Homosexuals....We are going to hate on a certain group because we are threatened by their opinion and hate being hated on for being a homosexual so to prove our point we will hate on that certain group. Makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

[jmdrake]

what a convoluted way to say "I'm IDEALLY against income tax, and in the meantime (which is going to be a long time), I don't care if it's unfair to people who can't or don't get married, I'm staying married because I can"

Well you want to make them more unfair to polygamists. I mean if we're going to play the "put words in someone's mouth" game.

Edit: And you also want to raise taxes on gullible homosexuals since they are more likely to have similar incomes and will be hit with the tax penalty instead of the tax benefit.

[Nickels]

Why limit it to 2 adults?


If we are talking about how pointless the mariage document is absent monetary benefits, then yes, we shouldn't limit it to 2 adults.



Why not three? And why limit it to 2 adults that are not married? Why not brothers and sisters? (Or brothers and brothers or sisters and sisters)? In fact, why have any limits at all? Of course as soon as someone points out the other possibilities someone else says "How dare you compare homosexuality to polygamy, incest, bestiality, fill-in-the-blank!" To that I reply "How dare you thumb your nose at the polygamists, sibling lovers and beast lovers of the world!"


I don't condemn beastiality or incest, so that's not a problem here.



I mean, look at the whole thread. Some president of a private business says he doesn't approve of gay marriage and gay rights activists flip out about it. "How dare he be open about his beliefs! Let's boycott!" Ummmmm....okay. If the goal is to get rid of "marriage inequality" then the only way forward as far as I'm concerned is to press even harder to get rid of the artificial "benefits" of marriage (and get rid of the artificial welfare benefits of being an unwed mother too).


Answer my question, please. If we got rid of monetary benefits of marriage, either by abolishing taxes or simply not recognizing privileges to married couples, would the benefits of marriage license be superficial and pointless, and if so, would you limit, or have a problem letting any 2 or more people sign one?



If you do anything else, you're really just making things more unequal for the people left out. (The polygamists etc). And no I'm not going to get divorced or "unregister" my marriage just to make you feel better about me.


I have no problem about inequality, if anybody has a problem with gay people , or want them be treated unequally, I don't have a problem with it. It's when people pretend to want equality but do another that I'll pick bone with. If you actually believe gay people don't deserve the same rights you do, say it. I don't need to hear why. I don't believe polygamists, incestors, beastialitists are less human or deserve to be treated differently, but I have no problem if you disagree. I don't claim to speak for gay equality.



You aren't my standard. I doubt my wife would agree with such stupidity anyway (I barely got her to consider voting for Ron Paul) but even if she would, impressing some stranger on the net isn't a good reason to do anything.

at least you admitted you don't care about showing you do what you believe.

[Nickels]

Well you want to make them more unfair to polygamists. I mean if we're going to play the "put words in someone's mouth" game.

Edit: And you also want to raise taxes on gullible homosexuals since they are more likely to have similar incomes and will be hit with the tax penalty instead of the tax benefit.

No, I don't.

I also don't care about gays being taxed for being gay, just so we're clear what I do or don't have a problem with.

[jmdrake]

If we are talking about how pointless the mariage document is absent monetary benefits, then yes, we shouldn't limit it to 2 adults.

Again I never said it was pointless or that it wasn't pointless. Why do you insist on being dishonest about that? I said that I didn't sit down and think about it at the time. I've also pointed out repeatedly that for some taxes go up with marriage. Take two people with the same income (they have higher taxes being married) both working full time so both get healthcare without being married, and both have good retirement accounts that dwarf what they might get under social security. Do they have a financial incentive to get married? Not really. Might they want to get married? Maybe. Anyway, unless you're out their on the front lines pushing to decriminalize polygamy like you are fighting for gay marriage then your words are hollow. And since you keep demanding this and that from me, I now formally demand from you proof that you've donated to some pro polygamist organization.



I don't condemn beastiality or incest, so that's not a problem here.


Where's your receipt from the national beastiality legalization society? I mean since you're running around making demands of others.



Answer my question, please. If we got rid of monetary benefits of marriage, either by abolishing taxes or simply not recognizing privileges to married couples, would the benefits of marriage license be superficial and pointless, and if so, would you limit, or have a problem letting any 2 or more people sign one?


I already said you have a laser printer. Print one up and sign one with your partner today for all I care. I don't think the state should be involved in that. It's not on my priority list either way. I'm not donating to the "Save traditional marriage" foundation, but I'm not pushing for gay marriage either.



I have no problem about inequality, if anybody has a problem with gay people , or want them be treated unequally, I don't have a problem with it. It's when people pretend to want equality but do another that I'll pick bone with. If you actually believe gay people don't deserve the same rights you do, say it. I don't need to hear why. I don't believe polygamists, incestors, beastialitists are less human or deserve to be treated differently, but I have no problem if you disagree. I don't claim to speak for gay equality.


That's just it. I don't see it as a matter of rights as much as it is a matter of definitions. Marriage was initially a religious institution. Gay people get "married" all the time. I don't recognize those marriages myself because I don't think they're valid. That doesn't mean I'm saying gays are "less human". (Stupid straw man argument). Andrea Dworkin (sp), a famous feminist and lesbian author, married a gay man.



at least you admitted you don't care about showing you do what you believe.

At least you quit beating your wife (or husband). Anyway, it's clear. I have one goal in mind (getting the government out of marriage) you have another goal (equalizing marriage even if you say otherwise). At some points those goals converge, at other points they don't.

[jmdrake]

No, I don't.

Since you insist on shoving your words in others mouths, you should expect the same in return.



I also don't care about gays being taxed for being gay, just so we're clear what I do or don't have a problem with.

And let's be clear that the end result of the equalization of marriage will be a disparate impact of taxes on gays going up, not "because they are gay" but because people of the same gender are more likely to have similar incomes. And lets the be clear that the gay marriage movement as a whole isn't being honest about this.

[Nickels]

Again I never said it was pointless or that it wasn't pointless.

So now is your chance to get it straight. Is it or is it not pointless?

If it's pointless, why do you have a problem with polygamists, incestors, beastialitors getting it? (I don't).
If it's not pointless, tell me what the point is.
Is there a middle ground? Third option? You obviously know a lot about this, is it a fair question?

[Nickels]

Since you insist on shoving your words in others mouths, you should expect the same in return.

And let's be clear that the end result of the equalization of marriage will be a disparate impact of taxes on gays going up, not "because they are gay" but because people of the same gender are more likely to have similar incomes. And lets the be clear that the gay marriage movement as a whole isn't being honest about this.

People who want equality are not honest, I know that already. People who don't want equality aren't always either.

[Nickels]

I already said you have a laser printer. Print one up and sign one with your partner today for all I care. I don't think the state should be involved in that. It's not on my priority list either way. I'm not donating to the "Save traditional marriage" foundation, but I'm not pushing for gay marriage either.

You just care enough to keep your license. That's not at all like a person saying nobody should get welfare but he won't stop getting it, right? Or a handicap person saying handicaps shouldn't get a reserved parking spot but won't give up their reserved spot and fight with other people over normal spots, right?

[jmdrake]

So now is your chance to get it straight. Is it or is it not pointless?

Okay. Let's start off with where we agree. I think we both agree that under current law there is a difference between having a state recognized marriage and not having one. The biggest difference deals with things that can be dealt without the state. (Medical decisions, inheritance etc). The smaller but more intractable differences deal with stuff the state shouldn't be forcing on people anyway. (Income taxes, employer bases health insurance and social security). Now if all of that went away then the difference would be in the minds of the people involved. Does it matter if you exchange wedding rings? Not really. But people do it.



If it's pointless, why do you have a problem with polygamists, incestors, beastialitors getting it? (I don't).
If it's not pointless, tell me what the point is.
Is there a middle ground? Third option? You obviously know a lot about this, is it a fair question?

Okay. This sounds like fair questions so I'll try to give fair answers. Understand with your first question I have both a personal view largely on religious views and a legal view.

Polygamy
Personal view: On your question of what problem I have with polygamists? None really. That's been around for as long as man can remember. Yeah Paul talked about a "bishop being the husband of one wife", and Jesus' pronouncement on marriage implied 1 man and 1 woman as opposed to 1 man a several women, and every patriarch recorded with multiple wives seems to have had problems because of it, but...well I'm really not sure.


Legal view: It's tricky in our modern society. Which wife gets to make medical decisions for instance. The first because she has seniority? Or the last because maybe the husband love her more? My understanding is that Islam's worked that out, but we aren't an Islamic based country. I think courts would have a hard time figuring out the correct default rules. But if people wrote their own documents (wills, powers of attorney etc) the courts wouldn't have to guess. I'm for decriminalization of polygamy rather than legal recognition. I don't think it makes sense that a man can have 4 babies mamas, but if he has a private ceremony with a preacher where he declares he's committed to 2 babies mamas he can go to prison in some states.

Incest:
Personal view: Incest? Well that's been around a long time too. (Abraham and Sarah were half siblings). Incest eventually got sanctioned under the law of Moses and Paul spoke out against it.

Legal view: Historically there's been concern about birth defects. (Of course with gay incest that's not an issue). Obviously there aren't the problems of figure out who has priority that you might have under polygamy. But then if the taboo against adult incest is erased, what happens to underage incest? Not sure where that line should be drawn.

Bestiality:
Personal view: Ick!

Legal view: People talk about the lack of ability for an animal to consent, but animals don't consent to be eaten. If you have arbitrary life and death power over something then you have arbitrary power for anything else imaginable. I wouldn't have someone arrested for it. But an animal isn't in position to decide medical decisions for its human spouse. Still if someone wants to have a private ceremony with his/her sheep then I wouldn't arrest that person. And if that person wants to draw up legal documents that kinda make sense (inheritance is the only one I can think of) fine. And someone should be able to leave his retirement account to his sheep if he desires and buy health insurance for his sheep if that's what he wants to do.

I (sincerely) hope that helps you understand my view.

[jmdrake]

You just care enough to keep your license. That's not at all like a person saying nobody should get welfare but he won't stop getting it, right? Or a handicap person saying handicaps shouldn't get a reserved parking spot but won't give up their reserved spot and fight with other people over normal spots, right?

Or Ron Paul asking for entitlements then voting against the entire bill? Or someone pushing for a flat tax but taking exemptions as long as they exist?

[ClydeCoulter]

How about NO MORE LAWS. Too many already.

Accepting welfare is not bad, taking money from people to send out welfare to others is bad. Accepting back money stolen from you is not bad, stealing the money in the first place is bad. Yes, inflation is a tax and is money stolen from you. Let's all get on welfare and break it's back (j/k)

[Danke]

You've either got to be completely against State sanctioned marriages, or in favor of any consenting adult marrying another consenting adult. There should be no in between.

What about polygamy? Are these same gays pushing for this state sanctioned married too? Sister/brother?

[ClydeCoulter]

What about polygamy? Are these same gays pushing for this state sanctioned married too? Sister/brother?

Hey I'm for multiple wives, really, I see it being a great asset for the family, but it's not for everyone. just saying, not against it.

[Danke]

why not just stop registering marriages? Taxes and social security were not designed for married people, so why wait on that?

There are a lot of benefits for married couples. And surviving spouses do get SS. Along with other government pensions.

[cstarace]

It's hard to define, but its the pro-abortion, salvation-comes-through-science, every-lifestyle-is-equal, reddit types.
No...not science and equality! Tell me it isn't so!

http://therantommenace.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/shocked_meme1.png

[cstarace]

What about polygamy? Are these same gays pushing for this state sanctioned married too? Sister/brother?
Yes. Laws should be based on consent and consent alone. That's all.

[PaulConventionWV]

when people like jmdrake who are married and registered actually unregister their marriages or register a divorce, I'll take these arguments seriously. Why don't people put their license and marriage where their mouth claims to be?

Because some people married before they cared. You can't just go up to your wife or husband and say, "Honey, I want a divorce, but it's for the principle of the thing." I haven't been married yet. If I ever do get married, I will seriously discuss the idea of not getting a license with my spouse, provided she is up for it.

Regardless, though, I think you are missing my point. It's not about equality. It's about the role of government in marriage. Please don't focus on the false dichotomy of hetero vs. **** marriage, and ask yourself, why should we have marriage licenses at all? As long as you and I agree that the government, first and foremost, should get out of any marriage, I don't care what you do.

[Sola_Fide]

No...not science and equality! Tell me it isn't so!

http://therantommenace.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/shocked_meme1.png

It's not science or equality, that is the entire point.

It's not science, because science without a basis in the Christian worldview is the means for tyranny, and not equality because it is one thing to believe in freedom for every lifestyle and another thing to endorse every lifestyle.

[oyarde]

AGREED
its just too much...they go on the "zero commerce" list with Tennessee, watch it Cali you are on thin ice... My zero commerce list goes past California & Mass.

[oyarde]

Just got home from work , have had some lasagna, a chicken wing , three tall Boys , but sure would like a chicken sandwich ...

[idiom]

Polygamy is the most biblical form of marriage.

[KingNothing]

What about polygamy? Are these same gays pushing for this state sanctioned married too? Sister/brother?


What does it matter to you whom anyone else chooses to marry?

If they're consenting adults, stop being a butt-insky.

[Danke]

What does it matter to you whom anyone else chooses to marry?

If they're consenting adults, stop being a butt-insky.

Only thing that matters to me is more debasement of the currency by ever increasing government expenditures. I'm not saying anything about the behavior of consenting adults. You're not too bright, are you?

[KingNothing]

Only thing that matters to me is more debasement of the currency by ever increasing government expenditures. I'm not saying anything about the behavior of consenting adults. You're not too bright, are you?

Brighter than you are, dude. Brighter than you.

[cstarace]

It's not science or equality, that is the entire point.

It's not science, because science without a basis in the Christian worldview is the means for tyranny, and not equality because it is one thing to believe in freedom for every lifestyle and another thing to endorse every lifestyle.
It isn't the government's role to endorse any lifestyle. Science certainly doesn't endorse anything other than logic and reason, and most importantly, presents us with FACTS. Explain to me how science without a Christian worldview (they contradict each other) leads to tyranny?

[Simple]

This is a core principle of the progressives. Ask a progressive and they will tell you that we cannot tolerate the intolerant and not even realize how ignorant they sound saying that.


Criticizes a restaurant chain for intolerance

Doesn't tolerate their opinion


I won't tolerate the intolerant... wait.

[Sola_Fide]

It isn't the government's role to endorse any lifestyle. Science certainly doesn't endorse anything other than logic and reason, and most importantly, presents us with FACTS. Explain to me how science without a Christian worldview (they contradict each other) leads to tyranny?

You seriously can't understand the difference between these two statements:

A. People with different lifestyles should be free to pursue how they want to live

and

B. Every lifestyle is equally preferable


We are not talking about government here, we are talking about the philosophical view of an atheist egalitarian. Do you not see the difference between the two statements above?


The other question about science needing a sufficient foundation for morality else it becomes oppressive and evil is so utterly self-evident from the past 100 years of history that I don't even need to cite examples.

[Nickels]

What does it matter to you whom anyone else chooses to marry?

If they're consenting adults, stop being a butt-insky.

It doesn't to him, he was asking me why dogs cannot.

[SchleckBros]

Strip Clubs are perfectly legal and gun stores bring in added revenue. But Chick-Fil-A is pure evil!

[Pericles]

Just got home from work , have had some lasagna, a chicken wing , three tall Boys , but sure would like a chicken sandwich ...

You know, I have also developed an urge for a chicken sandwich.

[Nickels]

Strip Clubs are perfectly legal and gun stores bring in added revenue. But Chick-Fil-A is pure evil!

Anti-chick-fil-a liberals don't approve of gun stores.

[PaulConventionWV]

why not just stop registering marriages? Taxes and social security were not designed for married people, so why wait on that?

Exactly. No more marriage licenses, that's all I really care about. No more government marriages. Take government out of the equation and I don't care. Those who say the government should give gays benefits BEFORE they get rid of government marriages are full of shit. Just get rid of government marriages and we achieve exactly the same thing. If you agree with this, Nickels, then I have no quarrel with you.

[Nickels]

Exactly. No more marriage licenses, that's all I really care about. No more government marriages. Take government out of the equation and I don't care. Those who say the government should give gays benefits BEFORE they get rid of government marriages are full of shit. Just get rid of government marriages and we achieve exactly the same thing. If you agree with this, Nickels, then I have no quarrel with you.

No, they are not full of shit (they might not fit well here though), they may just be liberals who care more about benefits and equaltiy, than reducing government. And that's basically why I give people who say "get the government out of marriage" but not "out of MY marriage" a harder time.

[PaulConventionWV]

even if the actual measureable tangible monetary benefits didn't exist, people still, to jmdrake's admission, register to marry, they seem to have no problem getting state recognition. so why shouldn't this superficial and harmless benefit be extended to any 2 adults, if monetary benefits were completely gone?

Because it's not superficial. It's a government control mechanism and it gives the government authority it shouldn't have. We can argue back and forth about the cost and benefits of getting the government out of it, but at the end of the day, the point is that we don't NEED the government to get married. If don't need the government, then it's best to keep them out of it because if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. The one thing that would make me happier than anything in this whole debate would be for the general public to realize that you don't need a license to get married.

Instead of focusing on giving gays and straight people the same piece of paper, let's just focus on getting rid of the need for a piece of paper. I honestly don't care if Jim and Jill can have a piece of paper and Jim and John can't. It doesn't make the least bit of difference and it doesn't achieve anything to let them both have it. Let's just get rid of government marriages and stop acting like we need a piece of paper to get married.

Am I insensitive for not caring who gets the piece of paper? So sue me. The whole debate over who gets the paper is trivial. Let's just cut to the chase and try to get rid of government involvement. To be honest, it doesn't even matter how important or unimportant the piece of paper is. Our top priority should be to keep government out of it. That is IT.

[PaulConventionWV]

So now is your chance to get it straight. Is it or is it not pointless?

If it's pointless, why do you have a problem with polygamists, incestors, beastialitors getting it? (I don't).
If it's not pointless, tell me what the point is.
Is there a middle ground? Third option? You obviously know a lot about this, is it a fair question?

False dichotomy is false.

It doesn't matter whether it's pointless or not. It's still just a piece of paper that we really don't need in order to get married. Get rid of the government involvement and all of a sudden it doesn't matter what the piece of paper is or isn't. No need to get it straight.

His point, I believe, was exactly that. It doesn't matter whether it's pointless or not. It doesn't belong there, so let's get rid of it.

[PaulConventionWV]

No...not science and equality! Tell me it isn't so!

http://therantommenace.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/shocked_meme1.png

"Equality" is the most hyped up BS over-used word in politics. Just saying.

[PaulConventionWV]

Polygamy is the most biblical form of marriage.

Who decides what degree of biblicality something has? Who are you to say what is "most biblical"?

[PaulConventionWV]

Brighter than you are, dude. Brighter than you.

Obviously not because even I can tell that his point went way over your head.

[PaulConventionWV]

This is a core principle of the progressives. Ask a progressive and they will tell you that we cannot tolerate the intolerant and not even realize how ignorant they sound saying that.

Ignore the ignorant.

[The Free Hornet]

Instead of focusing on giving gays and straight people the same piece of paper, let's just focus on getting rid of the need for a piece of paper.

Trying to get people to focus on what you want is likely a waste of time. Especially if you do so by telling them that their focus is wrong - without a lick of evidence no less. I welcome you to focus exactly as stated ("getting the government out of it").


I honestly don't care if Jim and Jill can have a piece of paper and Jim and John can't. It doesn't make the least bit of difference and it doesn't achieve anything to let them both have it.

It mattered to "Jim and Jill" and it matters to some "Jim and John". That you don't care might* be a fact. But it is a fact that it matters to some people ("52 percent of Americans support the legalization of same-sex marriage" (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/mixed-numbers-for-same-sex-marriage-support-across-country/)).

In other words, you are factually incorrect. Now I am focusing not on your goal - "getting the government out of it" - but your lie - "It doesn't make the least bit of difference and it doesn't achieve anything to let them both have it".

For the record, I don't think anybody should willingly submit themselves to the family law or divorce court system without damn good reason. Why? Because it matters - big time! Divorce and separation costs are huge. Alimony and child support can cripple you financially.


Let's just get rid of government marriages and stop acting like we need a piece of paper to get married.

Great plan.


Am I insensitive for not caring who gets the piece of paper? So sue me. The whole debate over who gets the paper is trivial.

You are insensitive for lying - the issue matters to some people. Divorce court is real, not imaginary. Just as you can't avoid the estate tax as effectively without marriage, you can't replicate divorce court with civil contracts.

I - like Ron Paul - believe our health care spending should be with pre-tax dollars ("tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/health-care/)"). Marriage helps accomplish that as more people get under the umbrella of employee-provided tax benefits.

I - like Ron Paul - believe there should be NO estate tax ("abolish the income and death taxes (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/taxes/)"). Marriage helps accomplish that by allowing estate transfer without tax to your significant other.

Should we focus on getting as much of our spending with pre-tax dollars (thus reducing our tax burden)? HELL YES!

Should we eliminate the perverse incentive that ties health care to our employers? HELL YES!
["Make all Americans eligible for Health Savings Accounts (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/health-care/)"]

Should we focus on eliminating the estate tax? HELL YES!

Should we focus on telling people to change their focus and thus reveal our bigotry as we implicitly accept the status quo to tilt at a larger windmill (recall the focus can only be on getting government out of marriage specifically in the PaulConventionWV way not anybody else's way)?

Should we cockblock people trying to avoid estate and income taxes via marriage? No. MAXIMUM FREEDOM!!! If you don't stand up for others, others are less likely to stand up for you.

One step in getting government out of marriage, is keeping government from determining who we marry. Is this a first step or a necessary step? Maybe - I don't know. But it is a step in the direction of "getting the government out of it" w.r.t. the decision making process. If you believe the institution of government marriage is so evil - and it is - that you wish to save as many people from it is possible, then that would be a valid perspective. Pretending it doesn't matter? Not so much as the Kafkaesque evil of divorce/family court does not gel with "doesn't make the least bit of difference".

Ask a tax attorney and they will tell you, married versus non-married makes a difference (http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/2012/02/22/tax-implications-of-getting-married/). Pretending otherwise is a lie. Everybody here ought to know better.

I am OK if somebody is intolerant of a position whether due to bigotry, homophobia, electoral strategy, or a well justified hatred of government marriage. What I would like, is arguments that are worthy and will not detract from the liberty movement.

I hope you or someone else knocks that windmill of government marriage down. I'll take a tilt myself! In the meantime, I will be on the correct side of history:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1502&d=1343170246

Whatever. I'm just the guy with facts and graphs.

1502

*If you didn't care, I suspect but cannot prove, you would have no objection to the same-sex marriages.

[James Madison]

Polygamy is the most biblical form of marriage.

Yeah, I'd mostly agree with that. Not to mention, polygamy is more or less the norm in nature. Even in humans. How many people can claim to have had one sexual partner?

[MelissaWV]

I feel as if that poll is trying to tell me something.

[Sola_Fide]

Polygamy is the most biblical form of marriage.

No its not.



1 Corinthians 7:2 ESV

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.



Deuteronomy 17:17 ESV

And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.



1 Corinthians 7:1-40 ESV

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ...



1 Timothy 3:2 ESV

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,



Mark 10:8 ESV

And the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.



1 Timothy 3:1-16 ESV

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?...



Mark 10:7 ESV

‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,



Leviticus 18:18 ESV

And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.



Matthew 19:9 ESV

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”



Matthew 5:32 ESV

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.



Exodus 21:10 ESV

If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.



Genesis 2:24 ESV

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.



Genesis 30:1-43 ESV

When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister. She said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I shall die!” Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” Then she said, “Here is my servant Bilhah; go in to her, so that she may give birth on my behalf, that even I may have children through her.” So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife, and Jacob went in to her. And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son. ...



Matthew 19:3-6 ESV

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”



1 Corinthians 6:16 ESV

Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her?For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”



Romans 7:2 ESV

For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.



Mark 10:11-12 ESV

And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

[cstarace]

You seriously can't understand the difference between these two statements:

A. People with different lifestyles should be free to pursue how they want to live

and

B. Every lifestyle is equally preferable


We are not talking about government here, we are talking about the philosophical view of an atheist egalitarian. Do you not see the difference between the two statements above?
What are you talking about? Preference is subjective. If I'm a polygamist, then having multiple wives would be preferable to me, and monogamy is not preferable. If I'm a monogamist, then having one wife would be preferable. If I'm a religious individual, leading my life in accordance to God's word would be preferable. If I'm an atheist, leading my life on my own terms would be preferable.


The other question about science needing a sufficient foundation for morality else it becomes oppressive and evil is so utterly self-evident from the past 100 years of history that I don't even need to cite examples.
Nonsense. Past 100 years (and especially more recently) have been tame compared to previous eras as we become more and more secular. Steven Pinker wrote a fantastic book called "The Better Angels of our Nature" that indisputably proves through statistical analysis that we're living in the least violent time in human history. The emergence of the Enlightenment philosophy has vastly increased respect for individuals and we've gone through a bit of a golden era for humanitarianism.

The notion that morality cannot exist without a God is ridiculous. Morality certainly has a place in a secular society. Religions are the simplest of moral codes. They justify their rights and wrongs through the introduction of patriarchal deities whose powers are such that moral and immoral behavior is dictated through his whims. Secularists take a different approach. They don't believe that without the fear of divine total supervision everybody would do exactly as they wished, or that we would all be wolves to each other. They believe solidarity is part of our self-interest in society.

The argument that suggest morality cannot exist without a written code governed by a divine being could easily be turned on its head and argued to the contrary. Often times good people will do evil things in the name of their religion. How many Muslims have killed themselves and others in suicide bombings because the Koran told them it's the moral thing to do? Steven Weinberg puts it quite well: “Left to themselves, evil people will do evil things and good people will try to do good things, but if you want a good person to do a wicked thing, that takes religion.”

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Wow. Liberty under assault. What an idiot. So you can basically shut down people you don' agree with according to Menino? Wow.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

In the meantime, I will be on the correct side of history

Another guy with a crystal ball. :rolleyes:

[Nickels]

Wow. Liberty under assault. What an idiot. So you can basically shut down people you don' agree with according to Menino? Wow.

This has been true pretty much since the civil rights act, sadly, it's only selectively enforced.

[Nickels]

False dichotomy is false.

It doesn't matter whether it's pointless or not. It's still just a piece of paper that we really don't need in order to get married.


So it IS pointless according to you. If it's a false dichotomy, you must be able to tell me what the 3rd option is.



Get rid of the government involvement and all of a sudden it doesn't matter what the piece of paper is or isn't.\


Let's see every person who says this unregister their marriage if they have one.



No need to get it straight.

His point, I believe, was exactly that. It doesn't matter whether it's pointless or not. It doesn't belong there, so let's get rid of it.

Except he doesn't want to get rid of his own.

[jmdrake]

Trying to get people to focus on what you want is likely a waste of time. Especially if you do so by telling them that their focus is wrong - without a lick of evidence no less. I welcome you to focus exactly as stated ("getting the government out of it").


I agree. Now if those who believe we should focus on expanding the definition of marriage as opposed to focusing on eliminating the government footprint on marriage would leave the rest of us alone we'd all be happy. ;) Seriously though. The "You must be a bigot unless you want gay marriage" rhetoric has gotten old and tired. And IMO it's gotten in the way of positive discussions on how to reduce the government footprint on marriage. Some people don't even want to consider how certain things can be accomplished without a state recognized marriage lest you take their "trump" card away.



It mattered to "Jim and Jill" and it matters to some "Jim and John". That you don't care might* be a fact. But it is a fact that it matters to some people ("52 percent of Americans support the legalization of same-sex marriage" (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/mixed-numbers-for-same-sex-marriage-support-across-country/)).

In other words, you are factually incorrect. Now I am focusing not on your goal - "getting the government out of it" - but your lie - "It doesn't make the least bit of difference and it doesn't achieve anything to let them both have it".

For the record, I don't think anybody should willingly submit themselves to the family law or divorce court system without damn good reason. Why? Because it matters - big time! Divorce and separation costs are huge. Alimony and child support can cripple you financially.


Yep. There are downsides to state recognized marriages. And taxes can be worse as well just by getting married. But the media is selling the idea that there are only "benefits".



Great plan.


We can all agree! Focus Danielsan! ;)



You are insensitive for lying - the issue matters to some people. Divorce court is real, not imaginary. Just as you can't avoid the estate tax as effectively without marriage, you can't replicate divorce court with civil contracts.


A) You can avoid estate taxes without marriage. http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/03/pf/Death_tax_morrissey.fortune/index.htm
B) Why would anyone want to replicate divorce court? :confused:



I - like Ron Paul - believe our health care spending should be with pre-tax dollars ("tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/health-care/)"). Marriage helps accomplish that as more people get under the umbrella of employee-provided tax benefits.

I - like Ron Paul - believe there should be NO estate tax ("abolish the income and death taxes (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/taxes/)"). Marriage helps accomplish that by allowing estate transfer without tax to your significant other.


Through trusts people who aren't married can avoid estate taxes. And most people don't have an estate worth more the 5.12 million anyway so the tax doesn't kick in.



Should we focus on getting as much of our spending with pre-tax dollars (thus reducing our tax burden)? HELL YES!

Should we eliminate the perverse incentive that ties health care to our employers? HELL YES!
["Make all Americans eligible for Health Savings Accounts (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/health-care/)"]

Should we focus on eliminating the estate tax? HELL YES!

Should we focus on telling people to change their focus and thus reveal our bigotry as we implicitly accept the status quo to tilt at a larger windmill (recall the focus can only be on getting government out of marriage specifically in the PaulConventionWV way not anybody else's way)?


Should we quit falsely claiming that those with a different focus than ourselves are bigots? HELL YES! :rolleyes:



Should we cockblock people trying to avoid estate and income taxes via marriage? No. MAXIMUM FREEDOM!!! If you don't stand up for others, others are less likely to stand up for you.


For most gays income taxes will go up. And most people fall under the 5.12 million personal estate exemption anyway. And with trusts, joint tenancy with right of survivorship and joint bank accounts estate taxes can be largely avoided without marriage.



One step in getting government out of marriage, is keeping government from determining who we marry. Is this a first step or a necessary step? Maybe - I don't know. But it is a step in the direction of "getting the government out of it" w.r.t. the decision making process. If you believe the institution of government marriage is so evil - and it is - that you wish to save as many people from it is possible, then that would be a valid perspective. Pretending it doesn't matter? Not so much as the Kafkaesque evil of divorce/family court does not gel with "doesn't make the least bit of difference".


Except gay marriage doesn't accomplish that step. Gay marriage isn't a criminal offence like polygamy. So technically gays can already get married. And granting gays the privileges of government recognition of marriage doesn't extend any legal rights to those who's marriage choices are criminalized. Further having more people invested in government marriage means more people to lobby for more marriage benefits. So if your goal is to reduce the government footprint on marriage, I don't see how your focus accomplishes that.



Ask a tax attorney and they will tell you, married versus non-married makes a difference (http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/2012/02/22/tax-implications-of-getting-married/). Pretending otherwise is a lie. Everybody here ought to know better.


Sure it makes a difference. For some people (most gay couples) it makes your income tax bill higher. Yes. Everybody ought to know better indeed.



I am OK if somebody is intolerant of a position whether due to bigotry, homophobia, electoral strategy, or a well justified hatred of government marriage. What I would like, is arguments that are worthy and will not detract from the liberty movement.


Let's talk electoral strategy. I can see getting cultural conservatives on board with the idea of reducing the government footprint on marriage based on the "You're losing the cultural war anyway." argument. But if it becomes impossible to advocate simply reducing the government footprint on marriage lest you are labelled a "bigot" by your own allies...well there goes that strategy down the drain. Did you see Gunny's speech opposing a marriage definition bill in NC? Great speech! And it's something sensible cultural conservatives could rally around.

[Danke]

jmdrake is a lawyer, the ones who will benefit from more clients with increasing marriage licensure. Listen to what he has to say, it is spot on.

[papitosabe]

so any of y'all heard about chik-fil-a removing the muppet toys from their children's meal due to possible safety issues? i read it on reddit, but people are making comments that its not really about a safety issue but something else...but I don't know what...

[specsaregood]

I'm not religious and I don't eat at chik whatever the hell it is called; but I do enjoy how the owners drive douchebags crazy mad.

[cstarace]

so any of y'all heard about chik-fil-a removing the muppet toys from their children's meal due to possible safety issues? i read it on reddit, but people are making comments that its not really about a safety issue but something else...but I don't know what...
Jim Henson Co., which makes the Muppet toys, said it was their decision to no longer do business with Chick-Fil-A as consequence of Chick-Fil-A's stance on this whole gay thing. So either Chick-Fil-A is lying to avoid more bad publicity from this controversy or Jim Henson Co. is lying to cover up potential safety hazards/liabilities.

[TonySutton]

so any of y'all heard about chik-fil-a removing the muppet toys from their children's meal due to possible safety issues? i read it on reddit, but people are making comments that its not really about a safety issue but something else...but I don't know what...


The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors. Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-jim-henson-company/july-20-2012/10150928864755563

[PaulConventionWV]

Trying to get people to focus on what you want is likely a waste of time. Especially if you do so by telling them that their focus is wrong - without a lick of evidence no less. I welcome you to focus exactly as stated ("getting the government out of it").

Evidence? The evidence is plain as day. Government doesn't belong in marriage according to the Constitution. Fact. Furthermore, it would solve the same problems that this supposed "equality via more government" option would. You may be right that I'm wasting time, but then, so is everyone else on this thread.


It mattered to "Jim and Jill" and it matters to some "Jim and John". That you don't care might* be a fact. But it is a fact that it matters to some people ("52 percent of Americans support the legalization of same-sex marriage" (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/mixed-numbers-for-same-sex-marriage-support-across-country/)).

Fifty-two percent of Americans do not know what "same-sex marriage" really means. They think that, in order to be married at all, you have to get the government's permission. That's not true. You can still get married without a government license, but most people just take the old washed-out "it doesn't matter what two people do" and completely forget about the angle of whether government should be regulating marriage at all because from decades of indoctrination, they don't even know that marriage exists apart from government.

Also, I didn't say it didn't matter to some people. Perhaps it does, but many of those, first of all, do not really know what they are talking about. That's not to say they are stupid, but they just don't have a firm grasp on the concept because all they've heard about it, they heard from Faux News or some other entertainment-based news source. I'm saying it doesn't matter, not that it doesn't matter to some people. The reason I say it doesn't matter isn't because I don't care about things being fair, but because getting government out of marriage achieves the same thing as giving licenses to gays in terms of equalities, but it hurts the American people by taxing us more and inviting the government into our private lives instead of just stopping all government regulation of marriage. This is the opposite of what many gays truly want, but they don't realize it yet because they aren't educated on the terms and concepts of the debate.


In other words, you are factually incorrect. Now I am focusing not on your goal - "getting the government out of it" - but your lie - "It doesn't make the least bit of difference and it doesn't achieve anything to let them both have it".

I didn't lie. In terms of the desired outcome, it really doesn't matter. If you get the government out of it, you have marriage equality. If you get the government involved, surprise, you still don't have equality because there are many other groups that are discriminated against, even by the gays because they don't want to be associated with "those freaks" (think polygamists, etc.) I guess you could argue that it would make a difference because of the taxes and such, but I wasn't speaking in those terms. I'm speaking in terms of equality within the law. The government doesn't have the authority to regulate marriage in the first place, so that is out of the question. What I am saying is, why not try to get the government out of it when you get the same equality? Are you, as a supposed libertarian on this majority libertartian website, going to tell me that every marriage deserves government benefits and more government regulation?


For the record, I don't think anybody should willingly submit themselves to the family law or divorce court system without damn good reason. Why? Because it matters - big time! Divorce and separation costs are huge. Alimony and child support can cripple you financially.

I agree.


Great plan.

I agree. Who needs complicated plans when things can be solved in a simple manner? It's like the Republicans arguing over nuances in their foreign policy. Ron Paul correctly points out that we shouldn't be there to begin with. Keep it simple, stupid (not you). Follow the Constitution.


You are insensitive for lying - the issue matters to some people. Divorce court is real, not imaginary. Just as you can't avoid the estate tax as effectively without marriage, you can't replicate divorce court with civil contracts.

Again, I never said it didn't matter to some people, but to some people is much different than whether it really makes an objective difference. Some people want the government "benefits" and regulation, but the government doesn't have the authority to give it to them. If they want to take other people's money, they should set up a gay charity or something where people can give voluntarily and not have it forced on them through more laws and regulations. It's hard to believe I have to explain this to someone on this site.


I - like Ron Paul - believe our health care spending should be with pre-tax dollars ("tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/health-care/)"). Marriage helps accomplish that as more people get under the umbrella of employee-provided tax benefits.

I - like Ron Paul - believe there should be NO estate tax ("abolish the income and death taxes (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/taxes/)"). Marriage helps accomplish that by allowing estate transfer without tax to your significant other.

Bravo on no estate tax, but marriage doesn't need the government in order to accomplish that. If you want, sign a prenup agreement. There are all kinds of things that can be sorted out with a little bit of forethought and contractual agreements rather than government oversight.


Should we focus on getting as much of our spending with pre-tax dollars (thus reducing our tax burden)? HELL YES!

Should we eliminate the perverse incentive that ties health care to our employers? HELL YES!
["Make all Americans eligible for Health Savings Accounts (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/health-care/)"]

Should we focus on eliminating the estate tax? HELL YES!

Rock on.


Should we focus on telling people to change their focus and thus reveal our bigotry as we implicitly accept the status quo to tilt at a larger windmill (recall the focus can only be on getting government out of marriage specifically in the PaulConventionWV way not anybody else's way)?

What bigotry? I'm not biased against anybody. I just believe we should enforce the law as found in the Constitution and get rid of unnecessary government regulation. I am NOT accepting the status quo. I am trying to radically change it, perhaps even more so than if I wanted to ADD government regulation by taxing people more to support gay couples. I have nothing against gay couples, but getting rid of government regulation can achieve the same kind of equality, and probably more. In the end, there are only two choices. You can either support more government involvement, or less. I am for the latter. You, it would seem, are for the former.


Should we cockblock people trying to avoid estate and income taxes via marriage? No. MAXIMUM FREEDOM!!! If you don't stand up for others, others are less likely to stand up for you.

What does cockblocking have to do with any of this? If you get rid of government involvement in marriage, gays and straights are on equal grounds. If you want freedom, get the government out of it. Since when does more government regulation of marriage equal more freedom? Your priorities are messed up. Maximum freedom means minimal government.


One step in getting government out of marriage, is keeping government from determining who we marry. Is this a first step or a necessary step? Maybe - I don't know. But it is a step in the direction of "getting the government out of it" w.r.t. the decision making process. If you believe the institution of government marriage is so evil - and it is - that you wish to save as many people from it is possible, then that would be a valid perspective. Pretending it doesn't matter? Not so much as the Kafkaesque evil of divorce/family court does not gel with "doesn't make the least bit of difference".

I agree that that is a step in getting government out of marriage, but that can be achieved with less government just as well as it can with more government regulation. If you support the government getting involved in more people's lives, then you are NOT supporting "getting the government out of it." You are heading in the opposite direction if you support that. I'm not saying it doesn't "make a difference" to "some people." I'm saying it achieves just as much equality just as effectively if we eliminate the government regulation. Trying to achieve equality by adding more government regulation of marriage doesn't make sense when you can try to get the government out of it to achieve the same ends.


Ask a tax attorney and they will tell you, married versus non-married makes a difference (http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/2012/02/22/tax-implications-of-getting-married/). Pretending otherwise is a lie. Everybody here ought to know better.

I know that it makes a difference now in terms of family court and taxes. What I'm saying is that we can solve the same problems that we would by letting gays get licenses as we would by taking the government licenses away from heterosexuals. Not that we're depriving heterosexuals of anything. We just take the power of the government to enforce those away and then people can decide how to regulate their own marriage. That is much better than trying to achieve equality through more government because then we would have to fight for marriage licenses for all the other groups who are currently discriminated against. Stop adding government and start subtracting. That is the ONLY reliable way to reduce government dependence because adding government has NEVER resulted in less government.


I am OK if somebody is intolerant of a position whether due to bigotry, homophobia, electoral strategy, or a well justified hatred of government marriage. What I would like, is arguments that are worthy and will not detract from the liberty movement.

You got it. A liberty-oriented view is less government, not more. If it's liberty you want, then there is no other way. Any liberty-minded person should know that.


I hope you or someone else knocks that windmill of government marriage down. I'll take a tilt myself! In the meantime, I will be on the correct side of history:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1502&d=1343170246

Whatever. I'm just the guy with facts and graphs.

1502

*If you didn't care, I suspect but cannot prove, you would have no objection to the same-sex marriages.

I don't have an objection to same-sex "marriages." If they want to have a ceremony and have five witnesses agree that they are married, more power to them. I don't think it's valid because I see the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, but that is just a personal view. I care about the government regulation. That's ALL that I care about. I don't see why gays would want to get married without the government benefits, but that's none of my business.

[PaulConventionWV]

So it IS pointless according to you. If it's a false dichotomy, you must be able to tell me what the 3rd option is.

The third option besides pointless or not pointless is that the piece of paper matters for now, but it wouldn't if we eliminated the governmen regulation that creates the dilemma of "is it worth something or not." We really don't need to answer that question if we get rid of government marriages.


Let's see every person who says this unregister their marriage if they have one.

I have a better idea. Let's take away the government authority to regulate marriage, thereby making registration of marriages null and void. The difference between my view and yours is that I strike at the root, the government involvement. You tend to strike out at the people who are simply taking advantage (or disadvantage) of something they have been led to believe they need. Don't attack the people who have government marriages just like you shouldn't attack people who are on welfare. Attack the government involvement for usurping its power to regulate.


Except he doesn't want to get rid of his own.

You can't eliminate the problem by convincing every single person who has a government certificate of marriage to get rid of it. Instead, strike at the tree, not the branches. Get rid of the government and you don't have the dilemma in the first place.

[PaulConventionWV]

Jim Henson Co., which makes the Muppet toys, said it was their decision to no longer do business with Chick-Fil-A as consequence of Chick-Fil-A's stance on this whole gay thing. So either Chick-Fil-A is lying to avoid more bad publicity from this controversy or Jim Henson Co. is lying to cover up potential safety hazards/liabilities.

I don't see why Chik-Fil-A would try to avoid the controversy. They've already stated that they are guilty as charged when it comes to supporting traditional family.

[KingNothing]

Wow. Liberty under assault. What an idiot. So you can basically shut down people you don' agree with according to Menino? Wow.

Menino is certainly an idiot. Anyone who tries to use government as a tool to correct human stupidity, moral failings, or logical inconsistency is off base.

[KingNothing]

Step 1.) Get government out of marriage altogether.
Step 2.) Convince bigots to not be so bigoted and idiots to not be so idiotic.
Step 3.) Arrive at Utopia


Wouldn't it be nice if we could get religious people to not giving a damn about who other people are sleeping with and forming loving relationships with, and convince liberals to stop advocating for the state to do something about non-violent bigots?

Why on Earth do we have such a hard time leaving each other alone?

[Anti Federalist]

Chicago ward boss jumps on the bandwagon.


Chicago alderman says he’ll block Chick-fil-A expansion in northwest part of the city

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/chicago-alderman-says-hell-block-chick-fil-a-expansion-in-northwest-part-of-the-city/2012/07/25/gJQAnPIt9W_story.html

Wednesday, July 25, 6:02 PMAP CHICAGO — A Chicago alderman, angered by the president of Chick-fil-A’s comments that he is against gay marriage, said he will block the company from building a restaurant in his ward.

Alderman Joe Moreno said Wednesday that unless the company comes up with a written anti-discrimination policy, Chick-fil-A will not open its first free-standing restaurant in the city as it plans to do.

[PaulConventionWV]

Step 1.) Get government out of marriage altogether.
Step 2.) Convince bigots to not be so bigoted and idiots to not be so idiotic.
Step 3.) Arrive at Utopia


Wouldn't it be nice if we could get religious people to not giving a damn about who other people are sleeping with and forming loving relationships with, and convince liberals to stop advocating for the state to do something about non-violent bigots?

Why on Earth do we have such a hard time leaving each other alone?

Why do you have such a hard time not calling us bigots?

[papitosabe]

Jim Henson Co., which makes the Muppet toys, said it was their decision to no longer do business with Chick-Fil-A as consequence of Chick-Fil-A's stance on this whole gay thing. So either Chick-Fil-A is lying to avoid more bad publicity from this controversy or Jim Henson Co. is lying to cover up potential safety hazards/liabilities.


https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-jim-henson-company/july-20-2012/10150928864755563

ahhhh....thanks guys

[PaulConventionWV]

Chicago ward boss jumps on the bandwagon.


Chicago alderman says he’ll block Chick-fil-A expansion in northwest part of the city

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/chicago-alderman-says-hell-block-chick-fil-a-expansion-in-northwest-part-of-the-city/2012/07/25/gJQAnPIt9W_story.html

Wednesday, July 25, 6:02 PMAP CHICAGO — A Chicago alderman, angered by the president of Chick-fil-A’s comments that he is against gay marriage, said he will block the company from building a restaurant in his ward.

Alderman Joe Moreno said Wednesday that unless the company comes up with a written anti-discrimination policy, Chick-fil-A will not open its first free-standing restaurant in the city as it plans to do.

This is comical. Chick-Fil-A doesn't discriminate. They simply have personal views and are being ruthlessly persecuted for it by government force. How can anyone justify this?

[PaulConventionWV]

Menino is certainly an idiot. Anyone who tries to use government as a tool to correct human stupidity, moral failings, or logical inconsistency is off base.

Would you call Menino a bigot?

Why do people care what someone's personal views on homosexuality are as long as they don't advocate the use of force? The president of Chick-Fil-A is not a bigot. He just has different moral standings than you. If someone is a bigot for speaking out against gay marriage or the homosexual lifestyle, then I say someone is a bigot for judging people who have different moral views.

[The Free Hornet]

This is comical. Chick-Fil-A doesn't discriminate. They simply have personal views and are being ruthlessly persecuted for it by government force. How can anyone justify this?

You are correct. Shall we

a) focus on ending the need for business licenses and all that bullshit (Chick-Fil-A can wait!)?
or
b) grant Chick-Fil-A a government-granted business license?
or
c) all of the above?

[PaulConventionWV]

You are correct. Shall we

a) focus on ending the need for business licenses and all that bullshit (Chick-Fil-A can wait!)?
or
b) grant Chick-Fil-A a government-granted business license?
or
c) all of the above?

A.

[cstarace]

Would you call Menino a bigot?

Why do people care what someone's personal views on homosexuality are as long as they don't advocate the use of force? The president of Chick-Fil-A is not a bigot. He just has different moral standings than you. If someone is a bigot for speaking out against gay marriage or the homosexual lifestyle, then I say someone is a bigot for judging people who have different moral views.
This is what a bigot says, man. Do you call heterosexuality a lifestyle? Do you call being black a lifestyle? The use of the word 'lifestyle' assumes choice (at least that's how it comes off to me). I try to stress this to people as much as I can when discussing the topic of homosexuality -- trust me, there is no choice. At all. Through extreme mental and physical deprivation, could somebody renounce their sexuality? Sure, but that's true for just about every emotion/desire human beings feel. If a heterosexual individual hated being heterosexual enough, I'm sure they could internally train themselves to abhor sex with the opposite gender. The mind is a very, very powerful tool.

When I was as young as seven or eight years old and going through that gender identification phase, I remember quite clearly playing 'doctor' with a male neighbor of mine. I had absolutely no idea what homosexuality was. None. I was simply doing what felt natural to me. I can only draw one conclusion from that.

All this being said, yes, Menino is a bigot if you define bigotry as being intolerant of other opinions. And he's a bigger bigot than this Dan Cathy fellow, because regardless of Cathy's individual beliefs, he still serves any individual who comes into one of his restaurants and does so with respect. Menino is essentially refusing to 'serve' Chick-Fil-A. Hell, even if Shirley Phelps-Roper herself came into the Pizza Hut I work at, it would be bigoted of me not to serve her. Can't say I'd serve her with a smile, but I'd serve her.

I'm curious, though. Let's say Cathy instituted a policy of not serving known homosexuals in his restaurants (assuming the Civil Rights Act never existed). Now, I'd support his right to do this based upon private property rights, as I assume you would, as well. But would you support his decision on an individual level? And even if you did, would you consider such an action to be an example of bigotry?

[James Madison]

There's no reason to obsess over calling someone a bigot or being called a bigot. All humans are bigoted. It's just some forms of bigotry are socially acceptable and others are not.

[PaulConventionWV]

This is what a bigot says, man. Do you call heterosexuality a lifestyle? Do you call being black a lifestyle? The use of the word 'lifestyle' assumes choice (at least that's how it comes off to me). I try to stress this to people as much as I can when discussing the topic of homosexuality -- trust me, there is no choice. At all. Through extreme mental and physical deprivation, could somebody renounce their sexuality? Sure, but that's true for just about every emotion/desire human beings feel. If a heterosexual individual hated being heterosexual enough, I'm sure they could internally train themselves to abhor sex with the opposite gender. The mind is a very, very powerful tool.

When I was as young as seven or eight years old and going through that gender identification phase, I remember quite clearly playing 'doctor' with a male neighbor of mine. I had absolutely no idea what homosexuality was. None. I was simply doing what felt natural to me. I can only draw one conclusion from that.

All this being said, yes, Menino is a bigot if you define bigotry as being intolerant of other opinions. And he's a bigger bigot than this Dan Cathy fellow, because regardless of Cathy's individual beliefs, he still serves any individual who comes into one of his restaurants and does so with respect. Menino is essentially refusing to 'serve' Chick-Fil-A. Hell, even if Shirley Phelps-Roper herself came into the Pizza Hut I work at, it would be bigoted of me not to serve her. Can't say I'd serve her with a smile, but I'd serve her.

I'm curious, though. Let's say Cathy instituted a policy of not serving known homosexuals in his restaurants (assuming the Civil Rights Act never existed). Now, I'd support his right to do this based upon private property rights, as I assume you would, as well. But would you support his decision on an individual level? And even if you did, would you consider such an action to be an example of bigotry?

I'm going to stop you at the first sentence. Heterosexuality, by definition, is a lifestyle. Being black is not.

[specsaregood]

I'm going to stop you at the first sentence. Heterosexuality, by definition, is a lifestyle. Being black is not.

I'd say it is more of a behavior by definition, not a lifestyle

[cstarace]

I'm going to stop you at the first sentence. Heterosexuality, by definition, is a lifestyle. Being black is not.
The way it's used in regards to homosexuality is questionable. When we're referencing a lifestyle we're talking about the way somebody lives in accordance with their values and their attitudes. This is the definition that is most widely accepted. Values and attitudes towards life can change. For example, going out to nightclubs, excessively consuming alcohol, and engaging in unprotected sex with random strangers is a lifestyle, and that lifestyle has been chosen, reflecting upon the values of those engaged in that lifestyle. Conversely, abstaining from the usage of alcohol/drugs, practicing abstinence, and maintaining faithful monogamous relationships is another lifestyle which has been chosen. These are what I'd consider 'lifestyles'.

I don't consider the state of being heterosexual or homosexual a lifestyle. Are you straight because you're a Christian and it's Biblically acceptable to be straight, thus reflecting your values? Or are you straight because you have a natural preference towards women?

[KingNothing]

I'm curious, though. Let's say Cathy instituted a policy of not serving known homosexuals in his restaurants (assuming the Civil Rights Act never existed). Now, I'd support his right to do this based upon private property rights, as I assume you would, as well. But would you support his decision on an individual level? And even if you did, would you consider such an action to be an example of bigotry?

This is the crux of the matter. Yes, people have a right to dislike gay people. Yes, people should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for anyone reason. Yes, doing so for a reason as ridiculous as the color of their skin or who they find sexually attractive is completely insane.

That someone feels the need to even speak, through implication or directly, in any sort of negative light about homosexuals seems completely moronic to me. It's such a non-issue.

[KingNothing]

I'm going to stop you at the first sentence. Heterosexuality, by definition, is a lifestyle. Being black is not.

I think I agree with this. If I were gay, I could be gay without anyone knowing about it. If I were black, I wouldn't have that luxury.

Now, as a society, we need to get beyond this pathetic, immature, simple-minded, stupid, nonsense where we actually care about the differences between straight and gay, and black and white. One way to do that is to actually have the same laws for ALL people. If the state grants marriages to heterosexuals, it should do the same to homosexuals.

[specsaregood]

I think I agree with this. If I were gay, I could be gay without anyone knowing about it.

How exactly could you be gay and nobody know about it? wouldn't that just make you non-sexual?

[jay_dub]

The banning of Chick-Fil-A has now spread to Chicago. “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel in a statement to the Chicago Tribune.

Values? Chicago??

Chicago's mayor claiming the moral high ground has got to be the joke of the day.

[Bruno]

The banning of Chick-Fil-A has now spread to Chicago. “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel in a statement to the Chicago Tribune.

Values? Chicago??

Chicago's mayor claiming the moral high ground has got to be the joke of the day.

The values of Chicago are limited to gang violence and sky-high murder rates, and any intolerance to homosexuality definitely crosses a line, apparently. Good thing the mayor has stepped in to voice his opinion on the matter when it really should be left to people to vote with their dollars in the marketplace.

[dannno]

How exactly could you be gay and nobody know about it? wouldn't that just make you non-sexual?

No.

Sexuality is defined by desires.

Some people can't fullfill their desires for whatever reason. It may be due to the people they are attracted to aren't attracted to them, or it may be due to societal pressures and they feel their lives would be negatively affected in such a drastic way if they were to pursue those desires that they hide them... The latter being what many people outside of religion think is going on with many religious people, i.e. Marcus Bachdoorman.

[specsaregood]

Sexuality is defined by desires.

I guess it depends on which dictionary you want to use
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexuality


sex·u·al·i·ty
noun
1. sexual character; possession of the structural and functional traits of sex.
2. recognition of or emphasis upon sexual matters.
3. involvement in sexual activity.
4. an organism's preparedness for engaging in sexual activity.


But according to you, let's say I've looked at some chickens and thought, hey maybe I should give that a toss but never did anything about it. According to your definition I'd still be a chicken-fucker even though I never diddled a single chicken.

[dannno]

I guess it depends on which dictionary you want to use
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexuality


But according to you, let's say I've looked at some chickens and thought, hey maybe I should give that a toss but never did anything about it. According to your definition I'd still be a chicken-fucker even though I never diddled a single chicken.

I am using definition #4, but #3 applies as well. Both engagement and desire are relevant.

The question about the chicken really comes down to how serious were you about it, if you could do it without anybody knowing WOULD you actually do it, etc.. Just having the thought come across your mind as sort of a test of your own desires and then saying "nah, f that" doesn't really mean anything.

[specsaregood]

I am using definition #4, but #3 applies as well. Both engagement and desire are relevant.


#3 does not support your claim; but rather mine. If you do not engage in activity, then you are non-sexual (as I stated).
#4, "Preparedness" is so broad that arguing over the semantics of what you want it to mean is pointless.

[liveandletlive]

as long as the CEO isnt refusing to hire gays, what is the big deal.

[Nickels]

as long as the CEO isnt refusing to hire gays, what is the big deal.

That's exactly what makes these bans so stupid, they dont trust consumers to make their choice, these mayors probably think that an overt initiative action will save them pressure from pressure groups later, but may well cost them a suit.

[PaulConventionWV]

The way it's used in regards to homosexuality is questionable. When we're referencing a lifestyle we're talking about the way somebody lives in accordance with their values and their attitudes. This is the definition that is most widely accepted. Values and attitudes towards life can change. For example, going out to nightclubs, excessively consuming alcohol, and engaging in unprotected sex with random strangers is a lifestyle, and that lifestyle has been chosen, reflecting upon the values of those engaged in that lifestyle. Conversely, abstaining from the usage of alcohol/drugs, practicing abstinence, and maintaining faithful monogamous relationships is another lifestyle which has been chosen. These are what I'd consider 'lifestyles'.

I don't consider the state of being heterosexual or homosexual a lifestyle. Are you straight because you're a Christian and it's Biblically acceptable to be straight, thus reflecting your values? Or are you straight because you have a natural preference towards women?

Here are my personal views:

If you want to call it natural, I guess you could. I'm attracted to women because I was created to be, and I am. The two aren't mutually exclusive, though. I believe nature is only an expression of how God made you. For example, I am naturally inclined to screw every attractive woman I see, but that doesn't mean I do it. I live as I was made, and I have made a moral decision to do so even if I somehow magically turn gay. I believe that gay people may have inclinations to be gay, but it's not their nature. You can have what you call a "natural" inclination and still make a choice not to follow it. There are many who have done so and have been successful, although many gay advocates here will automatically discredit their success because they say they're trying to be something they aren't. Why must you draw such rigid lines?

I call homosexuality a lifestyle because I believe you can choose. There is nobody who is so strongly gay that they can never do anything to avoid living that way. I am not comparing homosexuality to alcoholism, but I believe that, just like alcoholism, you can wean yourself off of that behavior and it would be perfectly natural to do so. Likewise, you can choose to immerse yourself in a homosexual lifestyle and, while being "natural" per se, and become so involved with it that it becomes the only way you know how to live, just like you could do so with alcoholism or other practices. I've never understood the lines that people draw between them. Habits are learned. There doesn't have to be such a rigid line between "nature" and "choice." We are creatures of habit, and any behavior or lifestyle which we choose to take up can be unlearned and exchanged for something else. Nowhere in nature have we seen such a clear distinction between nature and choice as the homosexual community would have us believe.

However, make note that this is only my personal view. I have had friends who were bisexual, but I don't persecute them for it. I don't verbally reprimand them every time I see them either. I also have friends who are alcoholics. I don't condone that behavior but I don't judge them because I know I have my own personal flaws. I am not a bigot because my beliefs on this subject do not affect how I treat someone. The ones making the harshest judgments around here are not the ones who endorse a heterosexual lifestyle, but the ones who endorse a homosexual one and verbally reprimand anyone who would choose to speak out against the moral character of such behavior. They judge anyone who chooses to say which lifestyle they believe is morally right. As noted, I can hang out with people who are gay, the one that I used to hang out with understood my moral views and didn't judge me for it. This is not typical of my experience, though. It seems the only ones who create such rigid divides between gays and straights are the ones judging straight people for which lifestyle they choose to endorse, even though that doesn't necessarily mean they use force. To me, it seems a bit anti-liberty to actively judge people who don't endorse your lifestyle. I don't endorse gay people's lifestyle, and I say so, but that doesn't mean I actively judge them and avoid them like the plague. I encourage them to change just like I would encourage people who drink excessively to change.

[KingNothing]

How exactly could you be gay and nobody know about it? wouldn't that just make you non-sexual?

"No body" was loose language on my part.

I don't know the sexual orientation of almost everyone I meet. I do know their skin color, though.

[Nickels]

"No body" was loose language on my part.

I don't know the sexual orientation of almost everyone I meet. I do know their skin color, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2CMeIGV1Tc

[Lucille]

The banning of Chick-Fil-A has now spread to Chicago. “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel in a statement to the Chicago Tribune.

Values? Chicago??

Chicago's mayor claiming the moral high ground has got to be the joke of the day.

Heh. What does he plan on doing about the anti-gay marriage churches in Chicago, I wonder?

It's a violation of the 1st (http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/25/no-building-permits-for-opponent-of-same-sex-marriage/), and Rahm's Chicago might be facing a lawsuit if Chick-fil-A is so inclined.


But denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation. Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor’s speech, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996). It is even clearer that the government may not make decisions about how people will be allowed to use their own property based on the speaker’s past speech.

And this is so even if there is no statutory right to a particular kind of building permit (and I don’t know what the rule is under Illinois law). Even if the government may deny permits to people based on various reasons, it may not deny permits to people based on their exercise of his First Amendment rights. It doesn’t matter if the applicant expresses speech that doesn’t share the government officials’ values, or even the values of the majority of local citizens. It doesn’t matter if the applicant’s speech is seen as “disrespect[ful]” of certain groups. The First Amendment generally protects people’s rights to express such views without worrying that the government will deny them business permits as a result. That’s basic First Amendment law — but Alderman Moreno, Mayor Menino, and, apparently, Mayor Emanuel (if his statement is quoted in context), seem to either not know or not care about the law.
[...]
Of course, if Chick-Fil-A actually discriminated in their serving or hiring decisions in Chicago in a way forbidden by Chicago or Illinois law, they could be punished for this violation, and possibly even denied future permits based on such illegal behavior. But the stories give no evidence of any such actions, and suggest that the city officials’ statements are based on the Chick-Fil-A president’s speech, not any illegal conduct on the company’s part. Finally, note that the government may generally insist that, when it hires people to communicate a government message, those people use that government money only for the government-selected speech (see Rust v. Sullivan (1991)); but that power of the government to control its own speech is far removed from the government’s attempt in this case to retaliate against businesses for their owners’ speech. Thanks to commenter CalderonX for the pointer.

UPDATE: Just to make clear, I think the government has even less power to control the speech of those it regulates than its (already heavily limited) power to control the speech of those to whom it awards government contracts. The Court, for instance, has repeatedly protected the rights of even heavily regulated businesses to speak; that the government may regulate the business in various ways, or even bar it from being in business, doesn’t mean that the government may restrict the speech of the business. See, e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission (1980) (holding that even status as a heavily regulated monopoly doesn’t strip the speaker of First Amendment rights). And just as the government may not restrict speech by businesses that are already operating, so it can’t deny a business a license to operate based on its owner’s speech.

FURTHER UPDATE: To be precise, the permit is “to divide the land so it can purchase an out lot near Home Depot”; I call it a building permit as shorthand, because it’s a permit that would be needed for Chick-Fil-A to build and open its restaurant. In any case, nothing turns constitutionally on whether the case involves a building permit, a subdivision permit, a business license, or what have you.

[KingNothing]

Here are my personal views:

If you want to call it natural, I guess you could. I'm attracted to women because I was created to be, and I am. The two aren't mutually exclusive, though. I believe nature is only an expression of how God made you. For example, I am naturally inclined to screw every attractive woman I see, but that doesn't mean I do it. I live as I was made, and I have made a moral decision to do so even if I somehow magically turn gay. I believe that gay people may have inclinations to be gay, but it's not their nature. You can have what you call a "natural" inclination and still make a choice not to follow it. There are many who have done so and have been successful, although many gay advocates here will automatically discredit their success because they say they're trying to be something they aren't. Why must you draw such rigid lines?

I call homosexuality a lifestyle because I believe you can choose. There is nobody who is so strongly gay that they can never do anything to avoid living that way. I am not comparing homosexuality to alcoholism, but I believe that, just like alcoholism, you can wean yourself off of that behavior and it would be perfectly natural to do so. Likewise, you can choose to immerse yourself in a homosexual lifestyle and, while being "natural" per se, and become so involved with it that it becomes the only way you know how to live, just like you could do so with alcoholism or other practices. I've never understood the lines that people draw between them. Habits are learned. There doesn't have to be such a rigid line between "nature" and "choice." We are creatures of habit, and any behavior or lifestyle which we choose to take up can be unlearned and exchanged for something else. Nowhere in nature have we seen such a clear distinction between nature and choice as the homosexual community would have us believe.


So, that a "gay" gene exists means nothing to you? Wow. "HOW DARE THAT MORALLY INFERIOR PERSON LIVE AS NATURE TELLS THEM TO LIVE!"

Then again, you're a hardcore religious guy, so it shouldn't surprise me to see you disregard science and maintain the erroneous belief that it's just a choice.

[KingNothing]

Ardently religious people are infuriating. To go through life so willfully ignorant of science and reason is baffling. Then to double-down on that by being intolerant and judgmental of others, while claiming to worship a tolerant and loving God (who, apparently, hates a hell of a lot of people for being such a "loving" guy) is offensively stupid.

[GunnyFreedom]

Ardently religious people are infuriating. To go through life so willfully ignorant of science and reason is baffling. Then to double-down on that by being intolerant and judgmental of others, while claiming to worship a tolerant and loving God (who, apparently, hates a hell of a lot of people for being such a "loving" guy) is offensively stupid.

How very tolerant of you sir.

[truelies]

Calling the coupling of two men or of two women a 'marriage' doesn't make it one.

[PaulConventionWV]

I think I agree with this. If I were gay, I could be gay without anyone knowing about it. If I were black, I wouldn't have that luxury.

Now, as a society, we need to get beyond this pathetic, immature, simple-minded, stupid, nonsense where we actually care about the differences between straight and gay, and black and white. One way to do that is to actually have the same laws for ALL people. If the state grants marriages to heterosexuals, it should do the same to homosexuals.

Why don't we just repeal state marriages for heterosexuals instead of adding more laws?

[awake]

Yet more evidence that there's an agenda behind this.

These timely "issues" are pooped out for the I wanna be president race.

[PaulConventionWV]

So, that a "gay" gene exists means nothing to you? Wow. "HOW DARE THAT MORALLY INFERIOR PERSON LIVE AS NATURE TELLS THEM TO LIVE!"

Then again, you're a hardcore religious guy, so it shouldn't surprise me to see you disregard science and maintain the erroneous belief that it's just a choice.

No such gene exists. Even if it did, genes dictate that I should be an alcoholic. That doesn't mean I have to do it. You must have really glossed over my post to miss that, which is pretty much the whole point.

Also, I never said it was just a choice. Try though I might, I can't seem to get you to intellectually wrap your head around the idea that choice and nature are not mutually exclusive. We are creatures of habit, and any habit can be learned or unlearned.

[JacobG18]

The man from chick-fil-a seems to be a idiot, but this is foolish as well.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ardently religious people are infuriating. To go through life so willfully ignorant of science and reason is baffling. Then to double-down on that by being intolerant and judgmental of others, while claiming to worship a tolerant and loving God (who, apparently, hates a hell of a lot of people for being such a "loving" guy) is offensively stupid.

I'm not ignorant of science or reasoning. I like both and I use them regularly. Science cannot tell you what is moral and immoral, however.

I might add that your ignorance and bias is also very striking. How you can't see this is a testament to why Christians are more ardently judged than gay people in this country.

From what I can tell, you're way more of an intolerant bigot than any of the pro-traditional marriage people on this thread will ever be. I'm not asking others to like or accept my lifestyle. I'm simply asking that others support getting the government out of marriage.

[Nickels]

No such gene exists. Even if it did, genes dictate that I should be an alcoholic. That doesn't mean I have to do it. You must have really glossed over my post to miss that, which is pretty much the whole point.

Also, I never said it was just a choice. Try though I might, I can't seem to get you to intellectually wrap your head around the idea that choice and nature are not mutually exclusive. We are creatures of habit, and any habit can be learned or unlearned.

Can you unlearn drinking water or breathing oxygen? Mind over matter? Let's exercise some choice!

[GunnyFreedom]

Can you unlearn drinking water or breathing oxygen? Mind over matter? Let's exercise some choice!

Wait what? To this point in the thread I haven't taken a position on the merits of **** vs hetero sexuality, but this is just ridiculous. Are you really trying to say that homosexuals who do not engage in gay sex will die of deprivation? Sounds more like a bar room pickup line than a sociosexual philosophy.