Your thoughts on same sex marriage and civil unions.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#146, civil liberties should absolutely NOT be voted on democratically. civil rights are inalienable. marriage is a civil right.
natural rights are inalienable. getting the state to bestow a special status on you to qualify for economic entitlements (among other things) is not a natural right.
#154 – Loser
>>You can’t get married without a license.
>>Period. Ergo, the state controls your
>>privilege.
Correct. The state controls many things, from driving privileges to taxation to who can marry whom.
So until we attain the nirvana of “Liberty” you seek, what do we do in the meantime? Discriminate willy-nilly against any minority that doesn’t have the necessary votes to get themselves equal rights? Bring back slavery? Forbid women to vote? Dissolve Obama’s marriage?
#156 Mustard
>> So until we attain the nirvana of “Liberty” >> you seek, what do we do in the meantime?
>> Discriminate willy-nilly
That’s the point of government controlling it. It serves no other function.
# 156 Mister Mustard said, “what do we do in the meantime? Discriminate willy-nilly against any minority that doesn’t have the necessary votes to get themselves equal rights?”
Same could be said for people making more $ than others and having the majority vote to take the money without compensation.
So, what do we do? Or, don’t you care because it’s not your minority?
#158 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>Same could be said for people making more $
>>than others and having the majority vote to
>>take the money without compensation. So, what
>>do we do? Or, don’t you care because it’s not
>>your minority?
I’d vote for a flat tax, or a “consumption tax”. However, wealthy people will ALWAYS pay “more”, since they make more and buy more.
However, that’s not the topic of this discussion. If you want to bitch about progressive income taxes (which we have ALWAYS had in this country, so the same arguments about ‘that’s the way it’s always been’ apply equally to this as to the homophobe point of view), discuss it in a thread on “redistributing income”.
Let gays marry, no big deal from me. They should have the same right to be unhappy as heterosexuals. BTW, in the states where they are allowed to be married, have the divorce laws been changed to reflect this? Probably not.
# 159 Mister Mustard said, “I’d vote for a flat tax, or a “consumption tax”.”
If you’d vote for that “fair tax” (consumption based) I’d back you for elected office… 🙂
LibertyLover – “Ergo, the state controls your privilege.” yes, no doubt, they control the privilege of granting people the rights that come with marriage. thank you for helping prove my point.
Sea Lawyer – “natural rights are inalienable. getting the state to bestow a special status on you to qualify for economic entitlements (among other things) is not a natural right.” civil rights are inalienable.
#159, I’d vote for a flat tax, or a “consumption tax”. However, wealthy people will ALWAYS pay “more”, since they make more and buy more.
Wow! I’m bookmarking this one 🙂
Gay Marriage? NOMB, NOYB either.
#160, BTW, in the states where they are allowed to be married, have the divorce laws been changed to reflect this? Probably not.
Some things still need to be worked out I’m sure. For example, child custody normally leans in favor of the woman, but in the case of a homosexual divorce, who does the preference lean towards? The one who behaves most similarly to a woman? -zing
Why isn’t this a poll?
#162, civil rights are inalienable.
Many civil rights are created by the government through the abridgment of certain liberties as a concession to prevent disorder in the society. These are not inalienable as they required the government to proactively step in and establish them, and can equally be undone.
Example: there is no natural right to not be discriminated against by others, but the associated civil right is created by restricting the liberties of those who would discriminate.
@Sea Lawyer – just because someone CAN take away an inalienable right doesn’t make that right alienable.
for instance, life is often considered an inalienable right – well, someone shoots me, they’ve taken away my inalienable right. the bastard.
civil rights need to be protected by the government and patriots because otherwise people who would exercise their natural rights would take them away.
I say no, but only because of this: if we’re going to fundamentally change what marriage means, then overhaul the system for everybody.
Require more than just $10 and a signature for the license…require some relationship education first. Just a little, the fundamentals. Churches can offer the class and sign off on it, and you can buy it, too. You can’t afford the class, then you can’t afford to get married. Just like driver’s ed and buying a handgun here in Michigan, sort of.
Add a child endorsement…you also need a basic parenting class to fully qualify for government aid or public/private medical insurance.
#170 – Olo
>>Require more than just $10 and a signature for
>>the license…require some relationship
>>education first….parenting class..
That would REALLY be the death knell for heterosexual marriage. The homos might go for it, but the heteros who have already trashed the “institution” of marriage? NFW.
Nice assumption #45. Just goes to show you what an ass you can make of yourself.
Why should someone across the nation, the world, the solar system getting married have ANY impact on me?
Elderly Woman Attacked by Gay Marriage Supporters, May Press Charges
#162, LibertyLover – “Ergo, the state controls your privilege.” yes, no doubt, they control the privilege of granting people the rights that come with marriage. thank you for helping prove my point.
By grouping all of those items into a single privilege, you are, in effect, calling them a privilege as well.
Yes, I believe they are rights, or least they should be considered rights. However, if you aren’t granted the privilege to exercise them, the point is moot.
Like a felon being denied his right to vote. He doesn’t have that right anymore. Is it still a right? Sure, but one he doesn’t have.
I suppose it comes down to semantics. If you don’t have permission to exercise a right, is it still a “right”?
#173 – Paddy-RAMBO
““I guess I didn’t see the gravity of the whole thing and how it was being portrayed to the public,” Burgess told the paper. “People are incensed. They seem to want some kind of justice.”“.
Justice?? For homos? What are they thinking, those sub-humans!!
“Palm Springs police have made no arrests yet, but said they spent time Sunday trying to convince Burgess to file charges against some of the demonstrators..
Fuckin’ A right! Even if the lady doesn’t want to press charges, TWIST HER ARM!! They’re homos! Animals! Riders of the Hershey Highway! Purveyers of unnatural acts! They deserve to be prosecuted for stomping on a styofoam cross!!
Why should the burden of proof be on those who want to keep things as they are?
@LibertyLover – stupid semantics.
ok, semantics aside, denying someone the ability to do something because of their sexual preference is wrong.
having the opinion that same-sex marriage is wrong is not wrong, it’s your right (ha!) but america is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and others should stop taking that right away for gay people – gay people will do that themselves when they actually get married – http://instantrimshot.com (ha!)
#174 – LibertyLover
>>I suppose it comes down to semantics.
That’s right. And the powerlust of the those motivated by the homophobia of the GodHatesFags mindset to not only control what other people DO, but to control even WHAT THEY CALL WHAT THEY DO.
The times they are a’ changing, though. In the not-too-distant future, people will be saying “what?? you mean there was a time when ass bandits couldn’t get married? wtf???”. Just like young people nowadays have a hard time imagining what it was like when women couldn’t vote, when blacks had to eat in separate restaurants and go to separate schools, etc.
#176 – Lyin’ Mike
>>Why should the burden of proof be on those who
>>want to keep things as they are?
Proof of what? That it’s OK to discriminate against people you don’t like?
Marriage=
2 persons that wish to share their LIVES with each other. They wish to share the benefits and privileges that SUCH a union will give.
SEX= has little or nothing to DO with marriage.
#49- Mr. Paddy,
That is funny because I used the same argument to you about gun control and how our founding fathers had no clue about what kind of modern weaponry would around today!
Somehow I don’t think you will like MY original argument used against you in this context.
I want all of my gay friends to have the same rights as I would have if I was “married”.
I do believe that marriage is a religious thing though and that should be left up to the churches to deal with. If two men or two women want to be contractually obligated to one another, they ABSOLUTELY should.
To those who argue that homosexuality isn’t “natural”, clearly you are ignorant. The animal kingdom has a long documented history of it. There is also a long documented history of humans not fitting the standard male of female social constructs. Gender is a social construct as well as marriage.
@MikeN “Why should the burden of proof be on those who want to keep things as they are?”
because the way things are is discriminatory. you should prove why that discrimination is okay.
#170 – There are initiatives like that going on here in Texas because they finally f’n realized how much these divorces are costing taxpayers.
http://www.texashmri.org/
Holy cow – 181 comments! I’m delighted with the enthusiastic interest in this topic!
As a certified gay, with papers and gift toaster, I would prefer the government get out of the business of relationships. If anything, civil unions are the answer for the purpose of applying equal benefits.
I believe “marriage” is one of those religious and ceremonial artifacts created by reliion to make money. I want no part of it and the government shouls leave that ritual to those that want divine blessing or to just throw a party and get gifts.
I probably diagree with many of my homo friends in this department but I’m sure I’m not alone.
#167, Um, yeah.
Re:Semantics
I keep going back to my original statement. If the government would get their hands out of the marriage business, there would be no semantic issues. If you swore an oath before the moon goddess on the Summer Solstice, you can call that union whatever you want to call it, married, hitched, tied knot, whatever.
Why force the majority of the population to change their definition when it is easier to remove the reason for the definition?