California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

@spendius,

Hey spendius, do you agree that the government should get out of marriage, so that everyone can marry in their church according to their beliefs, instead of government forcing everyone to accept one standardized interpretation of marriage?

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Actually, as long as it's a government institution, it isn't fine.

It's perfectly fine. Who gets to vote and drive is based on age discrimination.

Who gets to marry, as well. That is because we define certain people as 'minors' who don't enjoy full rights, based on their being below the age of maturity - 18. It has nothing to do with discrimination.

Quote:

I don't see the courts striking that down. If the state is in the business of marrying people, that's a government privilege, not a right.

You're incorrect, and the courts disagree with you on this. It is not a privilege, but a right, that people should be able to marry who they wish, regardless of skin color, economic status - and yes, sexual orientation.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
This is why you've seen Supreme Courts across the country reach the same conclusion over and over: that it is in fact illegal for the government to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

You're appealing to expert opinion. The courts are wrong.

No, they are right. You are simply making assertions - multiple separate courts have confirmed that my position is the legally correct one and yours is not.

What more, why should anyone take your word for it?

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Just turn everything into Civil unions, from a government point of view, and leave marriage to the churches.

That would simply be renaming the privilege. If government gets out of marriage, everyone could marry according to their interpretation of marriage. But if we just rename the government privilege the statists still force society to accept their interpretation of marriage (either side), just under a different name.

[/quote]

That doesn't bother me. Your problems with it are more of an internal problem that you suffer from than an external one with the system.

The best part of this conversation is that we both know which way this thing is heading - and it certainly isn't towards your position. You are allowed to have whatever opinion you like, but that opinion is increasingly in the minority of society and is fading quickly.

You seem to say that the government should 'get out' of marriage, but there are complex financial matters involved with marriage that have no other option but to be regulated by a governing body. You don't seem to have actually put any real thought into your 'solution' at all...

Cycl0ptichorn

4 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I find this to be extremely wise.

Yes--doesn't it sound easy. Almost like a magic wand. Governments have controlled marriage ever since property was invented. If the government isn't in control of that matter it is only in relation to those who have nothing and are of no consequence.

Are you suggesting that all these years of the government's control of marriage was a waste of time and effort? And in all those countries over so long a time. Phew! that's some baby.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Emperor wrote:

Quote:

It's perfectly fine. Who gets to vote and drive is based on age discrimination.

Both are wrong: it has nothing to do with "age discrimination." I'm gonna let your do your own homework to find out why you are wrong.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I don't see the courts striking that down. If the state is in the business of marrying people, that's a government privilege, not a right.

It is not a privilege, but a right, that people should be able to marry who they wish, regardless of skin color, economic status - and yes, sexual orientation.

What is "it"? Marriage or government marriage? Of course it is a right that "that people should be able to marry who they wish". But government marriage is a privilege, not a right.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

the courts disagree with you on this. (...) Supreme Courts across the country reach the same conclusion (...) multiple separate courts have confirmed

I am making factual arguments, you are simply stating that your opinion must be true because the experts say so.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
If government gets out of marriage, everyone could marry according to their interpretation of marriage.

That doesn't bother me.

Of course it doesn't bother you. Because authoritarianism is all fine and dandy if it enforces your morality.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Emperor wrote:
Quote:
It's perfectly fine. Who gets to vote and drive is based on age discrimination.

Both are wrong: it has nothing to do with "age discrimination." I'm gonna let your do your own homework to find out why you are wrong.

Tell me, how is telling someone "you can't vote because you are 12" not discriminating against his age:

Quote:

discrimination - treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

You seem to say that the government should 'get out' of marriage, but there are complex financial matters involved with marriage that have no other option but to be regulated by a governing body

For instance? The tax code is easily rewritten, a lot of people think it should be done anyways. Inheritance can be strictly genetic based absent a binding contract, the state never needs to certify anything about the marriage or the family structure. Insurance policies can cover others besides the primary when ever and however they want as they already do. Family courts can rely on genetics and cohabitation, marriage never needs to be part of the conversation. The only sticking point I see is Social Security, because it would be helpful for the government to recognize a persons will to pass on benefits to a surviving partner should they die, but even here all the government needs to do is to honor the will of the citizen. The state does not need to regulate marriage, ever, honoring valid contracts is good enough.

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

Of course it
Quote:
doesn't bother you. Because authoritarianism is all fine and dandy if it enforces your morality.

It is not I, but you, who is Authoritarian. I am working to increase maximum rights for all in this area; you are working to deny them.

Quote:

I am making arguments, you are simply stating that your opinion must be true because the experts say so.

You haven't made a single argument; you've only made assertions.

Not only that, you have an extremely nutty view of the way you think America should work that has very little to do with the way things actually are. As I said earlier, you're entitled to your opinions- but you will be muttering them to yourself, because in the real world, gays are busy getting equal rights to everyone else. And that isn't going to change just because you don't like it.

I understand how frustrating this topic must be for bigots, homophobes, and dead-enders - you fall into at least one of those categories and likely all three. It doesn't bother me that it's frustrating to you; you're just another speed bump on the road to equality, to be ran over and forgotten just like the anti-women's equality forces and the anti-blacks.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
You seem to say that the government should 'get out' of marriage, but there are complex financial matters involved with marriage that have no other option but to be regulated by a governing body
For instance? The tax code is easily rewritten

Full stop. No, it can't. And this is the mark of a true idiot to claim that it can.

Quote:

The state does not need to regulate marriage, ever, honoring valid contracts is good enough.

Are you really this stupid? Recognizing marriage is the government honoring a contract. It just takes one step and then you don't have to have such complexity for each other individual instance.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawk, It's too bad you don't see the irony of your own opinions. You say that the government can get out of the business of marriage, but it's okay for people like to to dictate who can marry?

You're a joke.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You are right I do agree to a point. Things are changing the mass is becoming more educated.[ I do realise that this is extremely hard to see but it is happening.]
The church seems to be loosing its placebo effect over government as science continues to prove that our ancestors had very creative imaginations.
I do realise that much of this imagination is still continuing today but the mass is waking up and they are pissed off.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

hawk, It's too bad you don't see the irony of your own opinions. You say that the government can get out of the business of marriage, but it's okay for people like to to dictate who can marry?

You the person who keeps reminding that the Government is us......when the Government says that someone is married they are in part saying so in my name, and if I dont agree we have a problem. I dont agree that Gays should be married, so the government saying that gays are married is a problem. Gays can call themselves what ever they want, but they dont have the right to demand that I agree. If the state never agrees that they are married, and the state never demands that I agree that they are married, the we have no problem. They can claim that they are married, and I will say that they are not married according to me.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is not I, but you, who is Authoritarian. I am working to increase maximum rights for all in this area; you are working to deny them.

You want the state to force all of society to accept your specific interpretation of marriage. I want the state to get out of marriage so that everyone can marry who they want.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You haven't made a single argument; you've only made assertions.

Argument: Something you receive from the government is a privilege, not a right. Do you have a counter argument?

Argument: If the government marries people that's a privilege. Do you have a counter argument?

Argument: Not all groups have to receive the same privileges from the government. Do you have a counter argument?

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
It is not I, but you, who is Authoritarian. I am working to increase maximum rights for all in this area; you are working to deny them.

You want the state to force all of society to accept your "tolerant" interpretation of marriage.

I'm not asking 'society' or 'you' to be tolerant of anything. You're free to be as big an ass and bigot as you like. However, the GOVERNMENT should acknowledge the right of Gays and Lesbians to marry.

You seem to have some deficiencies in reading ability, as you continually respond to things that I didn't write. Perhaps you should consider sticking to what people actually said, instead of putting words in their mouths.

Quote:

I want the state to get out of marriage so that everyone can marry who they want.

Why not let the state stay IN marriage, and then just let everyone marry who they want? It is far easier than what you propose and nobody is harmed by it at all.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You haven't made a single argument; you've only made assertions.

Argument: Something you receive from the government is a privilege, not a right. Do you have a counter argument?

That's an assertion, not an argument. Do you even know the difference between the two?

If you want to present an argument, provide supporting evidence and documentation and logic for your position. Simply asserting that something is true isn't an argument.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Are you really this stupid? Recognizing marriage is the government honoring a contract. It just takes one step and then you don't have to have such complexity for each other individual instance.

Are you really this stupid? Right now the state defines what a marriage is, what we are talking about is the state having zero to say about what a marriage is or what a union is but simply honoring valid contracts negotiated by the citizens re the government benefits that they have accumulated. Do you see the difference yet?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Are you really this stupid? Recognizing marriage is the government honoring a contract. It just takes one step and then you don't have to have such complexity for each other individual instance.

Are you really this stupid? Right now the state defines what a marriage is, what we are talking about is the state having zero to say about what a marriage is or what a union is but simply honoring valid contracts negotiated by the citizens re the government benefits that they have accumulated. Do you see the difference yet?

Yeah - your proposed system is full of legal and ethical problems, where as mine is straight-forward, and only hurts the feelings of a few ******* bigots such as yourself, which is no big deal.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why not let the state stay IN marriage, and then just let everyone marry who they want?

Then you are forcing everyone to accept your interpretation of marriage through the coercive force of the state. Of course you see no problem with enforcing your morality. That's only bad when other people do it.

EmperorNero wrote:

Argument: Something you receive from the government is a privilege, not a right. Do you have a counter argument?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If you want to present an argument, provide supporting evidence and documentation and logic for your position. Simply asserting that something is true isn't an argument.

It is an a priori fact, that something you receive from the government is a privilege, not a right. Are you denying that fact?

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

It is an a priori fact, that something you receive from the government is a privilege, not a right. Are you denying that fact?

It is not an a priori fact. It's just an assertion on your part.

If it's a fact, provide evidence that your position is true.

In fact, don't even bother. This is pretty boring and I really don't care what your answer is.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:
It is an a priori fact, that something you receive from the government is a privilege, not a right. Are you denying that fact?

It is not an a priori fact. It's just an assertion on your part.

If it's a fact, provide evidence that your position is true.

Here you go:

Quote:

A privilege is a special entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Nah, too boring and I don't give a ****. Instead, I'll go have a beer with my married gay friends. Go California!

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know