Marriage Amendments....

[nietzsche]

For once I agree with Phatscotty.

Why do we need governments to tell us what we can or cannot do?

f*ck off. Governments self-impose on us and we can't do anything about it.

We have become dependent our governments to tell us what can or cannot do,

[Baron Von PWN]

For once I agree with Phatscotty.

Why do we need governments to tell us what we can or cannot do?

f*ck off. Governments self-impose on us and we can't do anything about it.

We have become dependent our governments to tell us what can or cannot do,

So we should do away with government involvement in marriage? Government already dictates who can or can't marry. opening marriage to same sex marriage introduces more freedom not less.

[Woodruff]

Gay couple: Can we get married?

phatscottys of the world: take you tyrany elsewhere scum!

lmao! the question is not "can we get married"

Yes, it absolutely is the question. Period.

the question is "can we do something that has never been done before (until the extremely recent past in the most flammy areas) and therefore change the definition of marriage?"

This is such idiotic bullshit that's false on the face of it. Are you seriously so uneducated or do you just want to be a tyrant yourself?

[Woodruff]

Oh, btw, I just called out Chris Kluwe, punter for the Minnesota Vikings. He is running his mouth, talkin about politicians are afraid to take him on in a debate, and they kinda actually are, so I called him out on his fan page and on facebook and am writing a letter to the local newspaper that I will handle this myself.

If you plan to debate him like you do on this site, I would love to see you get your ass verbally kicked.

[Woodruff]

I still wonder why people that claim to be in favor of civil liberties and against government intervention are so worried about what other people do with their lives.

Because Phatscotty isn't actually in favor of civil liberties and he's not actually against government intervention. He's just a liar.

[Woodruff]

I still wonder why people that claim to be in favor of civil liberties and against government intervention are so worried about what other people do with their lives.

Hypocrisy.

Maybe it isn't about caring what other people do with their lives at all, and is about not wanting to see the words "mother" and "father" banned from all official documents. Maybe its a lot of other reasons too.

....ban the words “mother” and “father” from legal documents under the country's plan to legalize homosexual “marriage” and give equal adoption rights to both traditional couples and same-sex partners. Under the proposal, which is being aggressively pushed forward, the term “parents” would replace “mother” and “father” in an identical marriage ceremony that will be used for both traditional and homosexual weddings.

You need the government to legitimize marriage (as between man and woman) and parenting (as between mother and father)? That's pretty sad dude.

I don't need anything.

Clearly, you do. Your fear is so great that you need the government to legitimize your opinions.

The only thing that is sad is you ignoring the consequences.

THE GAYS ARE GONNA TAKE OVER!!!!!

If the government were not so large and controlling and entrenched, this would not even be an issue. You should realize that demanding "government control" to enforce same sex marriages is obviously moving in the wrong direction. Go a little further in this direction, and people will need gov't licenses to have children.

Based on your posts, perhaps some parents should.

[nietzsche]

For once I agree with Phatscotty.

Why do we need governments to tell us what we can or cannot do?

f*ck off. Governments self-impose on us and we can't do anything about it.

We have become dependent our governments to tell us what can or cannot do,

So we should do away with government involvement in marriage? Government already dictates who can or can't marry. opening marriage to same sex marriage introduces more freedom not less.

I'm against in principle with government telling us what to do.

In this specific case I'm undecided, it really is something that cannot be settled one side or the other.

You are right, but Scotty also has a point, although I'm not sure if that's his point or a point he's using because of an ulterior motive he won't disclose.

If I'm not mistaken Scotty's point is two-folded, he disagrees with the government messing with the sanctity of marriage, which is the weak side of the point and the strong side is why does the government has to tell you how and what to do, which is the ideological side to with which I agree.

It can be said however, that this second part of the point is not necessarily pertinent in this case, that he's just being paranoid or only using it to gain support for his side, but, it does feel that way, that government is gaining more and more control over us each single day, that our experience in this world is forever permeated by this.. self proclaimed group in control. Whether or not it's good that something tells you what can you do and how to do it, it goes against our natural spirit of being.

[MeDeFe]

My position on Gay Marriage is rapidly evolving.

I used to be against it... and in retrospect I think my sole argument was "Ew, that's gross".

However... the more I think about it, the more I feel I have to be for it, given the fact that I claim to be moderately Libertarian.

The only final "concern" is that we need to come to terms with the potential financial impact on Social Security... and also on impact related to Health Care.

Re: Social Security... perhaps the numbers are so small (i.e. percentage of likely gay married couples) that the impact to the system is negligible? If not we need to address this... perhaps by changing SS payouts or age requirements. (Of course we really need to do that anyway.)

Re: Healthcare... The Gov't already (essentiallY) forces private employers to fund healthcare. If (when?) same-sex marriage gets recognized by the Federal Gov't as legal... the Gov't will then be in the business of forcing private employers to recognize a (new?) private relationship... one which they (said private employer) may be morally opposed to. I don't like this.

That all said... I think I have moved essentially to the "pro" same-sex marriage side of the debate.

It's not often you see someone change their mind on the internet. Respect, bro.

[Metsfanmax]

Phatscotty, did you forget about the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution? I think you did.

[MegaProphet]

For once I agree with Phatscotty.

Why do we need governments to tell us what we can or cannot do?

f*ck off. Governments self-impose on us and we can't do anything about it.

We have become dependent our governments to tell us what can or cannot do,

So we should do away with government involvement in marriage? Government already dictates who can or can't marry. opening marriage to same sex marriage introduces more freedom not less.

I'm against in principle with government telling us what to do.

In this specific case I'm undecided, it really is something that cannot be settled one side or the other.

You are right, but Scotty also has a point, although I'm not sure if that's his point or a point he's using because of an ulterior motive he won't disclose.

If I'm not mistaken Scotty's point is two-folded, he disagrees with the government messing with the sanctity of marriage, which is the weak side of the point and the strong side is why does the government has to tell you how and what to do, which is the ideological side to with which I agree.

It can be said however, that this second part of the point is not necessarily pertinent in this case, that he's just being paranoid or only using it to gain support for his side, but, it does feel that way, that government is gaining more and more control over us each single day, that our experience in this world is forever permeated by this.. self proclaimed group in control. Whether or not it's good that something tells you what can you do and how to do it, it goes against our natural spirit of being.

I'm fine with that argument, I don't want the government involved in marriages. But to me that means that government shouldn't be involved with any marriage. No marriage licences should be given out, no tax breaks for anyone. In fact I'd rather the privileges associated with marriage become separate from marriage and be available to any persons looking to own a home together and/or start a family together. I think that would be difficult to change

[Phatscotty]

I still wonder why people that claim to be in favor of civil liberties and against government intervention are so worried about what other people do with their lives.

Hypocrisy.

Maybe it isn't about caring what other people do with their lives at all, and is about not wanting to see the words "mother" and "father" banned from all official documents. Maybe its a lot of other reasons too.

....ban the words “mother” and “father” from legal documents under the country's plan to legalize homosexual “marriage” and give equal adoption rights to both traditional couples and same-sex partners. Under the proposal, which is being aggressively pushed forward, the term “parents” would replace “mother” and “father” in an identical marriage ceremony that will be used for both traditional and homosexual weddings.

You need the government to legitimize marriage (as between man and woman) and parenting (as between mother and father)? That's pretty sad dude.

I don't need anything. The only thing that is sad is you ignoring the consequences.

If the government were not so large and controlling and entrenched, this would not even be an issue. You should realize that demanding "government control" to enforce same sex marriages is obviously moving in the wrong direction. Go a little further in this direction, and people will need gov't licenses to have children.

I don't understand how you see this as the government being more involved. The government is already involved since it handles marriage licences. LGBT people already can get married in the sense of holding a ceremony and making vows to each other. They just want to be recognized and have the same rights as far as taxes and visitations as straight couples.

but just because you know the government "already handles marriages" does not mean government involvement in marriage is right, or should be expanded, or redefined.....

now is not the time to expand or demand more government benefits, neither is it for private business. America has been downgraded 3 times in the last 14 months...which means we obviously already have a problem funding the handouts we already have..... I oppose this partly on the same grounds I oppose Obamacare. It's insane to increase benefits and privileges at a time when we can't even fund the ones we have without borrowing and going into debt, IT'S FRIGGIN INSANE.

Stack that with the principle of why I oppose government saying who can and can't and changing who can and can't get married, because I don't think the government should be involved at all. Stack that on my support for abolishing all/most tax loopholes (even the one's Mitt Romney uses) and there would be no reason for people to seek benefits through marriage.

people, knowingly or not, are failing to ask what they can do for their country, because they are too busy demanding their country do for them, and do for more people, for more reasons, for more money, for more benefits.

I don't care which issue seeks expanded benefits or privileges, the answer is f*ck NO

[Frigidus]

but just because you know the government "already handles marriages" does not mean government involvement in marriage is right, or should be expanded, or redefined...

So would you be fine with government no longer being in the business of what sort of marriage is/is not allowed and leaving those decisions up to whatever religious institution someone is seeking to be married by?

[Phatscotty]

but just because you know the government "already handles marriages" does not mean government involvement in marriage is right, or should be expanded, or redefined...

So would you be fine with government no longer being in the business of what sort of marriage is/is not allowed and leaving those decisions up to whatever religious institution someone is seeking to be married by?

i am fine with it and have argued for it from the start. I know it's easy to miss with everything else, but totally fine with it. Which is why it really isn't about "what other people do with their lives"

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, did you forget about the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution? I think you did.

No, but the equal protection clause forgot about you!!!!

what up foo

[Phatscotty]

I still wonder why people that claim to be in favor of civil liberties and against government intervention are so worried about what other people do with their lives.

Hypocrisy.

Maybe it isn't about caring what other people do with their lives at all, and is about not wanting to see the words "mother" and "father" banned from all official documents. Maybe its a lot of other reasons too.

....ban the words “mother” and “father” from legal documents under the country's plan to legalize homosexual “marriage” and give equal adoption rights to both traditional couples and same-sex partners. Under the proposal, which is being aggressively pushed forward, the term “parents” would replace “mother” and “father” in an identical marriage ceremony that will be used for both traditional and homosexual weddings.

You need the government to legitimize marriage (as between man and woman) and parenting (as between mother and father)? That's pretty sad dude.

I don't need anything. The only thing that is sad is you ignoring the consequences.

If the government were not so large and controlling and entrenched, this would not even be an issue. You should realize that demanding "government control" to enforce same sex marriages is obviously moving in the wrong direction. Go a little further in this direction, and people will need gov't licenses to have children.

So your path forward is to create further regulation of marriage by defining the term and excluding groups of people from engaging in marriage. That seems like a statist's path forward to me.

And you do need this. You need bigger, badder government with more regulation. You need the government to tell people what your definition of marriage is. This is not difficult to understand. It's why Republicans are seen as statists when it comes to social issues (such as marriage, sexuality, and religion) and why I jumped out of that political party. Now, I expected you to come in with a "yeah, but this is a state issue, not a federal one." But a state is as much an remover of freedoms from individuals as the federal government. And you're supporting increased Minnesota control over social issues. Thus, I dub you a statist. And that is a far more accurate description of you than the word "marxist" is of our current president.

No, we just understand the issue, the process, and probably the history, differently......

the amendment is by the people and for the people. It is a response to radical government and their actions in places like California, where an unelected judge overturned the votes of 10's of millions of people and "created" new rights which account for hundreds of billions of dollars of state spending. This is about the people taking control, and rejecting the government in their power grab into yet another institution.

[Phatscotty]

My position on Gay Marriage is rapidly evolving.

I used to be against it... and in retrospect I think my sole argument was "Ew, that's gross".

However... the more I think about it, the more I feel I have to be for it, given the fact that I claim to be moderately Libertarian.

The only final "concern" is that we need to come to terms with the potential financial impact on Social Security... and also on impact related to Health Care.

Re: Social Security... perhaps the numbers are so small (i.e. percentage of likely gay married couples) that the impact to the system is negligible? If not we need to address this... perhaps by changing SS payouts or age requirements. (Of course we really need to do that anyway.)

Re: Healthcare... The Gov't already (essentiallY) forces private employers to fund healthcare. If (when?) same-sex marriage gets recognized by the Federal Gov't as legal... the Gov't will then be in the business of forcing private employers to recognize a (new?) private relationship... one which they (said private employer) may be morally opposed to. I don't like this.

That all said... I think I have moved essentially to the "pro" same-sex marriage side of the debate.

I hear you on the social security one. I am always going to have a different stance for the reason that we pay our money into it, and that is what makes it "ours" and not a "handout" I think people, regardless of sex or life partner, should be able to apply and recieve the social security benefits of their partners. I only fear our people cannot handle the "responsibility" just like we are dropping the ball with the original intention of any marriage benefits from the gov't in the first place. It was meant to help "families with children" but now we demand it as a check and a "right" so we have blown that too I fear

But we don't need to redefine marriage to do that, or "change world history" either.

Otherwise, what I am hearing you say is "well, the government is already taking over everything anyways...so....f*ck it. Okay"

[Metsfanmax]

the amendment is by the people and for the people. It is a response to radical government and their actions in places like California, where an unelected judge overturned the votes of 10's of millions of people and "created" new rights which account for hundreds of billions of dollars of state spending. This is about the people taking control, and rejecting the government in their power grab into yet another institution.

The people cannot vote into law something that is unconstitutional. It is not judicial activism to overthrow an unconstitutional law. That principle has been on the books since 1803.

[Metsfanmax]

btw only came back because this business with the new leadership appeared on my Facebook news feed. I was stunned that rds is now the boss.

Probably won't stay long.

[Evil Semp]

the amendment is by the people and for the people. It is a response to radical government and their actions in places like California, where an unelected judge overturned the votes of 10's of millions of people and "created" new rights which account for hundreds of billions of dollars of state spending. This is about the people taking control, and rejecting the government in their power grab into yet another institution.

How is the amendment for the people? I thought gay people were people. Maybe I am wrong. Your comment should read is by some of the people and not for all of the people.

Gay couple: Can we get married?

phatscottys of the world: take you tyrany elsewhere scum!

lmao! the question is not "can we get married", the question is "can we do something that has never been done before (until the extremely recent past in the most flammy areas) and therefore change the definition of marriage?"

The answer to your question is YES. It is the right thing to do.

[Woodruff]

Hypocrisy.

Maybe it isn't about caring what other people do with their lives at all, and is about not wanting to see the words "mother" and "father" banned from all official documents. Maybe its a lot of other reasons too.

....ban the words “mother” and “father” from legal documents under the country's plan to legalize homosexual “marriage” and give equal adoption rights to both traditional couples and same-sex partners. Under the proposal, which is being aggressively pushed forward, the term “parents” would replace “mother” and “father” in an identical marriage ceremony that will be used for both traditional and homosexual weddings.

You need the government to legitimize marriage (as between man and woman) and parenting (as between mother and father)? That's pretty sad dude.

I don't need anything. The only thing that is sad is you ignoring the consequences.

If the government were not so large and controlling and entrenched, this would not even be an issue. You should realize that demanding "government control" to enforce same sex marriages is obviously moving in the wrong direction. Go a little further in this direction, and people will need gov't licenses to have children.

I don't understand how you see this as the government being more involved. The government is already involved since it handles marriage licences. LGBT people already can get married in the sense of holding a ceremony and making vows to each other. They just want to be recognized and have the same rights as far as taxes and visitations as straight couples.

but just because you know the government "already handles marriages" does not mean government involvement in marriage is right, or should be expanded, or redefined.

Do you have any idea how weak that sounds? You're essentially saying "I've got mine, so tough shit".

[Woodruff]

but just because you know the government "already handles marriages" does not mean government involvement in marriage is right, or should be expanded, or redefined...

So would you be fine with government no longer being in the business of what sort of marriage is/is not allowed and leaving those decisions up to whatever religious institution someone is seeking to be married by?

i am fine with it and have argued for it from the start. I know it's easy to miss with everything else, but totally fine with it. Which is why it really isn't about "what other people do with their lives"

He's ok with it because he knows it won't happen. Don't buy into his shit. He's just a run of the mill homophobe who isn't interested in equality for his fellow man.

[Phatscotty]

the amendment is by the people and for the people. It is a response to radical government and their actions in places like California, where an unelected judge overturned the votes of 10's of millions of people and "created" new rights which account for hundreds of billions of dollars of state spending. This is about the people taking control, and rejecting the government in their power grab into yet another institution.

The people cannot vote into law something that is unconstitutional. It is not judicial activism to overthrow an unconstitutional law. That principle has been on the books since 1803.

which is why it has been upheld as Constitutional. If these marriage amendments are unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court should weigh in. So that's a bullshit response

[Phatscotty]

the amendment is by the people and for the people. It is a response to radical government and their actions in places like California, where an unelected judge overturned the votes of 10's of millions of people and "created" new rights which account for hundreds of billions of dollars of state spending. This is about the people taking control, and rejecting the government in their power grab into yet another institution.

How is the amendment for the people? I thought gay people were people. Maybe I am wrong. Your comment should read is by some of the people and not for all of the people.

Gay couple: Can we get married?

phatscottys of the world: take you tyrany elsewhere scum!

lmao! the question is not "can we get married", the question is "can we do something that has never been done before (until the extremely recent past in the most flammy areas) and therefore change the definition of marriage?"

The answer to your question is YES. It is the right thing to do.

It's for the people and by the people because the people are the only ones, in my state, that can do amendments. If it weren't by the people, then the legislation would have just passed it, and there would be no vote....

gay people are people, but child rapists are people too, not sure what that means

Why is your answer "yes"?

[BigBallinStalin]

Phatscotty, why do you support the tyranny of majority rule?

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, why do you support the tyranny of majority rule?

because I hate the tyranny of the minority more. We are just making our own laws as a people. It's not tyranny, it's Liberty