Armed Polite Society
October 24, 2020, 06:04:25 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: R.I.P. Scout26
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12
  Print  
Author Topic: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8  (Read 104681 times)
MicroBalrog
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,505


« Reply #225 on: November 14, 2008, 12:40:16 PM »

That is an absolute BS argument. It seriously annoys blacks, too.

Gays have never been slaves unless they asked for it on Craigslist.

Fine. "Gays are just like Christians".

Also, gays used to be routinely imprisoned in many countries.
Report to moderator   Logged

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner
Desertdog
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 1,360


« Reply #226 on: November 14, 2008, 04:03:20 PM »

Quote
Also, gays used to be routinely imprisoned in many countries.
I do believe the gays are still executed in Islam countries.
Report to moderator   Logged
roo_ster
Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 21,225


Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats


« Reply #227 on: November 14, 2008, 08:16:35 PM »

I say no, because it is hate speech, doesn't matter if they are being "peaceful" because hate speech is violence. People who would have there rights taken away because of how they are born have a right to react violently.

Your "Reality-O-Meter" is giving you faulty data.

1. Speech is not violence, violence is violence.  Perhaps you could perform an experiment one day to finally nail that one down to your satisfaction:
Person A upbraiding you in the vilest terms.
Person B beating the snot out of you with a baseball bat.

Person A is speaking and causes no physical harm to you.  Person B may very well kill you or put you in the hospital by using this esoteric concept called, "violence."

2. Prove the folks who did the assaulting, cross-stomping, and howling were "born that way."  You will not find the science to prove causation.
Report to moderator   Logged

Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton
taurusowner
Guest
« Reply #228 on: November 14, 2008, 08:37:20 PM »

Well-poisoning.

That some gays behaved violently towards some Christian protesters somewhere is no more a valid argument against gay marriage than the the activities of Fred Phelps - a valid argument of Christianity.

Here's a hint, Makattak. I think certain views should not be respected in decent society. Racism. Communism. Fascism. And yes, gay-hating.

So what do you do when the biggest religion in the nation, and one of the biggest in the world, teaches that homosexuality is a sin?  Since the Left has already convinced the country that simple disagreement in regards to homosexuality is automatically hatred, even if it isn't really hatred; how do you "not tolerate" that?  Do you have laws against that religion?  Laws against reading those particular passages in that religion's book?  Laws against teaching those beliefs in church?

How do you not tolerate disagreement with homosexuality when it is specifically part of the dominant religion's beliefs, in a nation with freedom of religion?
Report to moderator   Logged
taurusowner
Guest
« Reply #229 on: November 14, 2008, 08:45:29 PM »

That is an absolute BS argument. It seriously annoys blacks, too.

Gays have never been slaves unless they asked for it on Craigslist.

To be fair, none of the blacks in this country have been slaves either.*




*Unless they immigrated here from some 3rd world country where they really were slaves.  But not slaves in the US in any case.
Report to moderator   Logged
freakazoid
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 6,160


« Reply #230 on: November 14, 2008, 09:59:17 PM »

Quote
That is an absolute BS argument. It seriously annoys blacks, too.

Gays have never been slaves unless they asked for it on Craigslist.

Did I compare it to slavery? I don't remember doing that, what I remember doing is comparing not allowing gays to marry is the same as not allowing blacks and whites to marry. But even if I was to compare it to the whole of the black oppression, and not just one part, it still works to my favor. Ok, back when blacks where openly being oppressed someone might compare it to the oppression of the Jews. But then someone who felt that blacks didn't get the same rights for some ignorant reason might say something to the effect of, "They can't compare themselves to the Jews, they have never been sent to concentration camps and gassed."  rolleyes Because you see, some groups of people have always had it worse than another at some time. But that doesn't make it ok to oppress them and take away there rights.
Report to moderator   Logged

"so I ended up getting the above because I didn't want to make a whole production of sticking something between my knees and cranking. To me, the cranking on mine is pretty effortless, at least on the coarse setting. Maybe if someone has arthritis or something, it would be more difficult for them." - Ben

"I see a rager at least once a week." - brimic
MicroBalrog
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,505


« Reply #231 on: November 15, 2008, 04:54:00 AM »

So, how about Jewish/Gentile marriages?

These are not allowed in Israel. Under our laws, marriage must involve the religious ceremony in question, and follow the rules of the given religion – which, de-facto, means the Muslims do their own thing, and the Jews must bring a rabbi to their ceremony (and pay him lots of money). Naturally, the purpose of this is to give money and power to the Rabbinate.

The result is that as a Jew, I cannot legally marry 2swap. I can marry her abroad (and the marriage will be recognized, and in fact even a GAY marriage done abroad will be recognized), and if I apply for a marriage license with Rabbinate and hold a copy of the rejection, I can marry her at the German embassy.  But a marriage in-country? No sir.

Me – and practically everybody else in the secular population of this country – are quite annoyed about  this. I can understand why people are annoyed by not being able to marry their male partners, too.

And yet, of course, some people argue that since I can somehow jury-rig a marriage together by going to foreign embassies, then this makes it okay.
Report to moderator   Logged

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner
Desertdog
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 1,360


« Reply #232 on: November 15, 2008, 06:33:07 AM »

Quote
Under our laws, marriage must involve the religious ceremony in question,
Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Man and woman CAN be married by a Justice of the Peace or a Judge or, by a ship's captain if you are at sea. Nothing religious needed.
Report to moderator   Logged
MicroBalrog
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,505


« Reply #233 on: November 15, 2008, 06:34:16 AM »

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Man and woman CAN be married by a Justice of the Peace or a Judge or, by a ship's captain if you are at sea. Nothing religious needed.


In *your* country. Not in mine.
Report to moderator   Logged

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner
Desertdog
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 1,360


« Reply #234 on: November 15, 2008, 06:36:48 AM »

Quote
In *your* country. Not in mine.
Well, we are talking about California law in this blog.
Report to moderator   Logged
MicroBalrog
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,505


« Reply #235 on: November 15, 2008, 06:45:17 AM »

Well, we are talking about California law in this blog.

I'm trying to understand if you're genuinely misunderstanding me, or joking.
Report to moderator   Logged

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner
Desertdog
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 1,360


« Reply #236 on: November 15, 2008, 09:32:34 AM »

Quote
These are not allowed in Israel. Under our laws, marriage must involve the religious ceremony in question,...

Quote
In *your* country. Not in mine.
Well, we are talking about California law in this blog.

Quote
I'm trying to understand if you're genuinely misunderstanding me, or joking.
Perhaps I missed something in what you mean, but in CA you do not need a religious ceremony to be recognized by the state as joined in matrimony.
The religious ceremony is what most people choose, but not necessary to be reognized by the state.

We are talking about CA law, notTX, not Israel, just CA.
Report to moderator   Logged
MicroBalrog
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,505


« Reply #237 on: November 15, 2008, 09:34:49 AM »

Quote
Perhaps I missed something in what you mean

Yes, you did.

Here's my point:

People in this thread say that gay people are being petty/childish in demanding recognition for their unions.

I pointed out that as someone who knows exactly what it means to be blocked by law from being married, I know what these people feel like. It's not petty or childish.
Report to moderator   Logged

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner
Desertdog
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 1,360


« Reply #238 on: November 15, 2008, 10:14:19 AM »

Quote
People in this thread say that gay people are being petty/childish in demanding recognition for their unions.
They do have Civil Unions, which are for practical purposes are reconized by the state, just as the civil unions by the none gay community are recognized by the state.

There is a great fear that if the state forces the us to recognize "marriage" in   the gay community, then no church can refuse to marry them, regardless of the church teachings.   

Also it may open the door for more and more types of "marriages", such as polygamy, beastiality marriage, child marriage, close relationship marriage, you name it, they will try for it.



Report to moderator   Logged
MicroBalrog
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,505


« Reply #239 on: November 15, 2008, 10:28:37 AM »

You forgot the famous non-animate object marriage.
Report to moderator   Logged

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner
roo_ster
Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 21,225


Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats


« Reply #240 on: November 15, 2008, 12:27:31 PM »

You forgot the famous non-animate object marriage.

You jest, but somebody, somewhere is getting his legal brief honed to sue for it, if gay marriage is allowed to go forward.

Just as the others listed have sued for the right to marry everything and anything that moves or has a pulse.
Report to moderator   Logged

Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton
MicroBalrog
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,505


« Reply #241 on: November 15, 2008, 12:31:19 PM »

You jest, but somebody, somewhere is getting his legal brief honed to sue for it, if gay marriage is allowed to go forward.

Just as the others listed have sued for the right to marry everything and anything that moves or has a pulse.

I have already said it in this thread: I favor the legalization of consensual polygamy. If you want to marry him/her, and she/he consents, go ahead, I really don't care.

If they're not able to sign a contract - children, the insane, inanimate objects - they obviously cannot be parties to a marriage agreement.

P.S. LINE MARRIAGES NAO.
Report to moderator   Logged

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner
Matthew Carberry
Formerly carebear
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 5,281


Fiat justitia, pereat mundus


« Reply #242 on: November 15, 2008, 02:27:08 PM »

Micro (and everyone else),

Set aside emotion, you have to in this case.  Love is irrelevent to the law.

Micro,

How can recognizing polygamy "equal treatment under the law" compared to 2 person couples of any mix be lawful?

State recognition of marriage has nothing to do with "sanctifying" anything, the state is secular and cannot sanctify.  State recognition can only bestow legal rights upon the members of a willing contract. 

If such rights are, say, access to health or retirement benefits, should a polygamous marriage involving 4 people get twice as much cash or cash-equivalent benefit as a more traditional 2 person couple?

How would you defend the discrimination if not?

Why then would people not marry 4 or 6 or 10 others for their fiduciary benefit?  Remember, the state doesn't care (or have any way to prove or disprove) if you are "in love", just that you are willing to become contractually liable to each other.

The only rational state response would then be to remove all said benefits from every married set and in fact destroy "marriage" as a legal term.

"Marriage" would be simply a societal construct with no legal meaning or binding.



This is 
Report to moderator   Logged

"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."
MicroBalrog
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,505


« Reply #243 on: November 15, 2008, 02:35:10 PM »

Quote
If such rights are, say, access to health or retirement benefits, should a polygamous marriage involving 4 people get twice as much cash or cash-equivalent benefit as a more traditional 2 person couple?

I don't really understand.

If you saved for your retirement, or that of your spouse, shouldn't it be your own business how many spouses to support?

If you're living on welfare, then it doesn't really matter if you're supporting three welfare couples or a welfare-family of six, does it not?

What kind of fiduciary benefit would any of the members of this family derive from this?

Quote
The only rational state response would then be to remove all said benefits from every married set and in fact destroy "marriage" as a legal term.

The big stuff would be inheritance, manipulation of joint bank accounts, and citizenship.

But yeah, getting the government out of marriage is the best solution.
Report to moderator   Logged

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner
Matthew Carberry
Formerly carebear
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 5,281


Fiat justitia, pereat mundus


« Reply #244 on: November 15, 2008, 02:44:53 PM »

I don't really understand.

If you saved for your retirement, or that of your spouse, shouldn't it be your own business how many spouses to support?

If you're living on welfare, then it doesn't really matter if you're supporting three welfare couples or a welfare-family of six, does it not?

What kind of fiduciary benefit would any of the members of this family derive from this?

The big stuff would be inheritance, manipulation of joint bank accounts, and citizenship.

But yeah, getting the government out of marriage is the best solution.

Marriage laws impact pensions as well.  Should my taxes have to support 3 partners after retirement for any one state employee?  Should I have to provide subsidized dental or eye care for 4 adults during their lives?

I know your government has pension and health plans as well, the employees contribution is seldom even close to half of the true cost.

Once you start redefining marriage from where it is now, you lose any logical legal ability to restrict it to just two.  That is the unintended consequence all these folks caught up in "fairness and emotion" rather than reason are missing.

The only reason marriage at the government level is limited to two persons is because of the traditional Western definition of marriage of one man and one woman.  Discard the historical definition and you lose any legal reasoning to keep it at just two persons at all, as the definition becomes completely arbitrary, without the currently used weight of Western European and common law history to back it.

(Western Common law cultures are the only relevent ones to definitions of our Western Common law-based legal system, the fact that some village in Lower Backwardistan has a history of legal polyamory is meaningless.)
« Last Edit: November 15, 2008, 02:54:43 PM by carebear » Report to moderator   Logged

"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."
MicroBalrog
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,505


« Reply #245 on: November 15, 2008, 02:58:34 PM »

Quote
I know your government has pension and health plans as well, the employees contribution is seldom even close to half of the true cost.

My government simply doesn't work that way.

And no, you don't even want to know how it works.
Report to moderator   Logged

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner
Ron
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 8,157


like a tree planted by rivers of water


« Reply #246 on: November 15, 2008, 03:11:11 PM »

The destruction of the classical western world society and culture is what this is all about.

It is seen as some form of cultural evolution by the Marxists.

They actually believe they can destroy the engine of prosperity (capitalism) and and still continue on successfully. 
Report to moderator   Logged

The wish not to believe can influence as strongly as the wish to believe.

Who can escape their own cognitive biases?
Matthew Carberry
Formerly carebear
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 5,281


Fiat justitia, pereat mundus


« Reply #247 on: November 15, 2008, 03:14:48 PM »

My government simply doesn't work that way.

And no, you don't even want to know how it works.

Well, California does, as do most municipalities, states and the Federal government.

Once the door opens on this thing, if the law is to be consistent, rational and non-arbitrary, we are going to end up with the government completely out of the marriage business and some sort of universal bastardized civil compact being created to deal with any children.
Report to moderator   Logged

"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."
MicroBalrog
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,505


« Reply #248 on: November 15, 2008, 03:16:22 PM »

What does this have to do with capitalism?

I know it has to do with it for some of the modern leftists, but nobody here is a social-democrat leftist.

Really hard-core leftists are actually even against pornography , because they claim the modern attitudes to sex are inherently capitalist. Soviet laws on sex were far more strict than anything America had in the last century.

If anything, more sexual permissiveness is MORE capitalist.
Report to moderator   Logged

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner
freakazoid
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 6,160


« Reply #249 on: November 15, 2008, 03:30:10 PM »

Quote
we are going to end up with the government completely out of the marriage business

This is bad?
Report to moderator   Logged

"so I ended up getting the above because I didn't want to make a whole production of sticking something between my knees and cranking. To me, the cranking on mine is pretty effortless, at least on the coarse setting. Maybe if someone has arthritis or something, it would be more difficult for them." - Ben

"I see a rager at least once a week." - brimic
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!