U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:31 PM
 
17,297 posts, read 25,691,472 times
Reputation: 8567

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
I grasp things very well.

Now explain to me why three women have a compelling interest to get married but it should be denied.
Easy. There is a rational basis for keeping marriage 1+1:

The marriage contract does not lend itself to more than one person + one person. Marriage confers over 1000 benefits, rights, privileges, responsibilities and immunities that under the present scheme simply cannot be 1+1+1+1+1...

Figure out how to make it work for more than 1+1, and suddenly there may NOT be a rational basis for keeping marriage 1+1. I just don't think those burdens can ever be overcome, however, so it's a non-issue. Perhaps those interested in plural marriage should do the leg work.


Now, what is the RATIONAL BASIS for keeping the marriage contract (which is all it is, as far as the government should be concerned), one man and one woman?

What other contract can YOU identify that restricts parties based on their sex?


Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
Or, siblings.
I refuse to believe anyone wants to marry their sibling. Besides personal aversion, however, I suppose I have no problem and no business interfering with those that do.

If the law was changed to allow siblings to marry, it would have no bearing whatsoever on me or my life though, so I honestly do not care. Let the first brother-sister pair to want to marry bring a case and start down that road if they want to. Their situation has zero to do with gay marriage, which stands on its OWN merits and considerations.

 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:32 PM
 
Location: Somewhere extremely awesome
3,024 posts, read 2,461,585 times
Reputation: 2312
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
Really? Your response is "I don't know, but that's ok, because you don't either, ergo I win"?
No, I believe in consistency. So if you could tell me that back in the day when gay marriage wasn't even a concept that you believed that the state should have nothing to do with marriage, then I'll buy it.
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:32 PM
 
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,475 posts, read 13,829,760 times
Reputation: 6359
It's an argument based on one person's perception of how they want things to be.
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:33 PM
 
Location: Salinas, CA
15,016 posts, read 4,795,880 times
Reputation: 8076
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
I used to live in a small town with a few liberal activists, who were insufferably smug. At our annual summer festival (two weeks before labor day), he (the librarian) was off yammering at the Republican Women's tent, being his usual obnoxious self. I was picking through the tables of books for sale from the library right next to their booth and finally got tired of his screed.

He was going on about how "gay marriage" was a right just as I turned around. I said "no, it's not a right".

"YEs it is".

"No, it isn't. If marriage were a right, the state would have no say in who can get married - just like it can't decide who gets free speech and who doesn't". But you're not trying to make it a right, you just want to change who the state says is allowed and who isn't."

The guy stood there for a while, unable to find any response, while the old ladies at the booth snickered at him, and finally he stormed off to the Democrat tent, presumably looking for a retort.

Which is true. Democrats no more believe in marriage as a right, than conservatives do. They just disagree on WHO gets married.

When Democrats insist that ANYONE and EVERYONE can can get married, including siblings and other unsavory combinations, with the blessings of the state, THEN they can claim marriage is a right. Until then, they're just trying to demagogue the issue, making accusations of discrimination. Well, of course, marriage IS discrimination. After all, we deny it to lots and lots situations, and liberals generally support that idea.
It should be a right. Legally, it was not. That does not mean it should not be a right. Remember that slavery was legal at one time and I am sure people were saying if freedom for blacks was a right, then the state would have no say in the matter.

Nonetheless, his behavior was obnoxious and over the line. It sounds like he was not happy to say his opinion once and then mind his own business. I am also assuming from your post that he started the confrontation. Regardless of our views, we are all accountable for our behavior and he was not.
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:34 PM
 
Location: 60630
12,247 posts, read 17,986,322 times
Reputation: 11674
Quote:
Originally Posted by KickAssArmyChick View Post
i used to be pretty close minded on the whole gay marriage thing... I didn't believe marriage between people of the same gender was okay. Then one day I realized how wrong I was and how it is none of my business to tell 2 consenting adults they cannot marry. I don't want anyone to tell me who I can and cannot marry so what gives me the right to do that to others?

I am more Conservative than Liberal. I know plenty of Conservatives who think like I do. We are not rare like some may think.
I feel the same way.My husband has always voted republican and is conservative on may issues. But when it comes to gay marriage he is all for it. I think part of it has to do with who's in your life and how does that affect your way of thinking. I have a sister in law who is gay and has been partners with her girlfriend for 15 years now. They were both in the Air Force together and retired. We also have gay friends. All these people in your life makes you open your mind to the whole issue. You see things just a little bit differently.

Last edited by glass_of_merlot; 11-14-2013 at 08:14 PM..
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:36 PM
 
Location: Salinas, CA
15,016 posts, read 4,795,880 times
Reputation: 8076
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Really? You might want to call the supreme court and tell them this. Equal protection was used in the Loving v Virginia case it removed the race restriction and didn't remove any of the other restrictions on marriage.

I'm sure you know more about the constitution than supreme court justices.
Great point! The man's viewpoint was correct even if his behavior was not. The Supreme Court is more qualified regarding the Constitution than any of us.
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:37 PM
 
9,472 posts, read 5,900,496 times
Reputation: 2162
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Really? You might want to call the supreme court and tell them this. Equal protection was used in the Loving v Virginia case it removed the race restriction and didn't remove any of the other restrictions on marriage.

I'm sure you know more about the constitution than supreme court justices.
No, the supreme court is not the source of the Constitution. It is. My understanding is of equal importance to theirs. What, you think that SCOTUS doesn't act in violation of the Constitution to get what IT WANTS?

I'm sorry, but I do NOT surrender my intellect to some political appointees in robes. You might, but don't be critical of people who choose to think for themselves.
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:39 PM
 
9,472 posts, read 5,900,496 times
Reputation: 2162
Quote:
Originally Posted by chessgeek View Post
Great point! The man's viewpoint was correct even if his behavior was not. The Supreme Court is more qualified regarding the Constitution than any of us.
No, it is not. They're lawyers, and the Constitution is written plain language, ergo, we, the people have equal footing and equal ability to read and understand.

It's a bunch of political appointees, who are supposed to SERVE us, not rule us.

It's always telling to see who surrenders their mind to political types, professing intellectual inferiority to their peers.
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:40 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,159,607 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
Making clueless arguments doesn't give credence to yours.

Your argument was that I am "not nuanced". Wow. Now that's one heavy duty train of logic.
That wasn't my argument. The subsequent 7 sentences were my argument (complete with illustrative examples). Do you know what an argument is?

Quote:
And then you went off into saying that the state is empowered to restrict rights anytime it thinks something bad might happen if someone exercises their rights. Which is to say, there are no rights, merely priveleges that the state allows - which contradicts ANY reliance on the Constitution, since it prohibits government from doing precisely what you argue it is empowered to do.
I argued no such thing. I said the Constitutional promise of equal access to legal rights can be limited when doing so prevents a demonstratable harm to the people - for instance, not allowing blind people to drive cars, or disallowing severely mentally retarded people from piloting commercial aircraft, or not allowing grown men to have sex with and marry 6 year olds.

In any event, my scheme (the actually one employed by the US Supreme Court) is a lot less restrictive than what you advocate. In your world, things like civil marriage and driving on public roadways aren't rights in any sense and are not protected by the Constitution. Instead, they're simply privileges and the government can give them or deny them to anybody for any reason (for instance, you think the government can give civil marriage "privileges" to straight people but deny them to gay people, because, well, they're just privileges and gay people have no right to them).

Your way takes too much power from the people and gives it to the government.

Last edited by hammertime33; 11-14-2013 at 07:49 PM..
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:42 PM
 
17,297 posts, read 25,691,472 times
Reputation: 8567
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk;

"No, it isn't. If marriage were a right, the state would have no say in who can get married - just like it can't decide who gets free speech and who doesn't". But you're not trying to make it a right, you just want to change who the state says is allowed and who isn't."

The guy stood there for a while, unable to find any response, while the old ladies at the booth snickered at him, and finally he stormed off to the Democrat tent, presumably looking for a retort.

Which is true. Democrats no more believe in marriage as a right, than conservatives do. They just disagree on WHO gets married.

When Democrats insist that ANYONE and EVERYONE can can get married, including siblings and other unsavory combinations, with the blessings of the state, THEN they can claim marriage is a right. Until then, they're just trying to demagogue the issue, making accusations of discrimination. Well, of course, marriage IS discrimination. After all, we deny it to lots and lots situations, and liberals generally support that idea.

A right can be regulated. Even speech and religion is regulated.

People have the RIGHT TO VOTE.... it does not mean that the government cannot regulate who gets the right to vote.

Felons, non-citizens, under age 18, people without valid ID... all citizens whose right to vote can be denied, curtailed, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top