Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Breaking news: congressman says same sex marriage part of push for socialism!
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
From the TheHill.com:
Congressman: Same sex marriage part of push for socialism
According to Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), same sex marriage is part of a socialist agenda to undermine "the foundations of individual rights and liberties." And here I was thinking it was about marriage equality.
Damn socialists. Always running around undermining individual rights and liberties by fighting for the individual rights and liberties of minorities and victims of discrimination. Fuckers.
Congressman: Same sex marriage part of push for socialism
According to Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), same sex marriage is part of a socialist agenda to undermine "the foundations of individual rights and liberties." And here I was thinking it was about marriage equality.
Damn socialists. Always running around undermining individual rights and liberties by fighting for the individual rights and liberties of minorities and victims of discrimination. Fuckers.
0
Comments
SHHHH!!! The secrets out! LGBT persons are secretly plotting to take over the world with socialism. Why would we want equal rights when we con force everyone into our way of thinking! We will be erecting a statue to Harvey Milk as soon as we get our way and force all Americans to bow down to it! Then we'll force everyone to give up their personal beliefs and cause boys and girls to be brainwashed into this way of life! The plan started with TV many years ago. If you remember early episodes of Dr. Livingston on "Lost in Space", it was a subtle way to introduce our ways by television. Then lets not forget Paul Lynde and Charles Nelson Riley. Watching shows with open homosexuals will cause homosexuality. They were such compelling role models that I couldn't wait to grow up and be just like them!
Now we think we deserve to be treated as human beings. BAD GAYS/LESBIANS! Before you know it, we will be knocking down government offices demanding that "Heather has 2Mommies" and "Daddy's Roommate" be forced on everyone.
All we want is equal rights like everyone else. We will continue to work for it and hope that one day it will.
You see, we new American socialists (led by our colored president; who we secretly worship) hate humanity sooo much, that the reason we are using the homosexual agenda as a tactic in the greater war, is to make all human reproduction repulsive to the general population! This way, mother Gaia will be cleansed of the virus that is homo sapien, returning nature back to the furry animals and trees.
You see, the gay agenda a mere tactic, and the unsuspecting gays and lesbians mere pawns in the grand evil strategy (raises pinky to corner of mouth).
LOL.
I hate being asked if I'm in favor of gay marriage, because my answer ("No") sounds bigoted, but I'm not in favor of straight marriage either. Unfortunately, the "Ban Straight Marriage" campaign hasn't gotten much traction.
Palzang
didn't you know the next buddha, maitreya is a Canadian?
(me :cool:) eh?
Palzang (the un-Maitreya)
I edited my response because I just realized I'd made a misread part of your post. So only the following applies...
If you really believe the government has no business defining marriage, then you should be in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. As things stand, the status quo has the government interfering with marriage by allowing it in some cases and denying it in others. Rectifying the situation does not require an "expansion of government power" as you have suggested. Quite the opposite, it means revoking the governmental bans on same-sex marriage currently in place.
Banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and unethical. Every human being should have the right to marry the one he or she loves. If you believe in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then you cannot support legislation that inhibits or bans the right to marry the one you love. It just doesn't add up.
Perhaps you do understand Libertarian policy to this extent and simply disagree with it as a misinterpretation or our basic liberties as Americans, but I thought some clarification would be harmless either way.
I feel compassion for those so blinded by fear and prejudice they feel they must hide behind unjust laws and political agendas.
That would allow the government to define marriage as a legal union between two people and to also define what that means (e.g. grounds for divorce, obligations of both parties, etc.). I don't think it's up to the government to confer such rights. I think the government should stay out of it and allow citizens to draw up their own marriage contracts, which would define what person or persons they marry and what the terms of the marriage are.
Marriage is by almost any definition a restriction of the liberty of an individual, not an expansion. Let's not confuse benefits with freedoms. Marriage invites the state into a private relationship.
I agree, everyone should marry the person or people they want to marry. However, I would like marriage to be a private contract, not a government institution.
In practice, I'd probably vote for gay marriage legislation, but I still think it's a step in the wrong direction.
This is the Libertarian Party (big "L") view, but not the libertarian (small "l") view. The Libertarian Party typically concerns itself with states' rights, but philosophical libertarians (often called Civil Libertarians) concern themselves with the rights of the individual (and would prefer that marriage be a private contract). Libertarians (big "L") want the Federal Government to bugger off, and libertarians (small "l") want all government to bugger off. So, while I mostly vote Libertarian, I am actually a libertarian. Make sense?
Oooooo, good to know. I'm still learning.
Puck is spreading, eh?
+1 I love it! I don't see why everyone has to be for or against gay marriage only. I've always thought that marriage was a religious institution and if your church won't marry you, then too bad. I'm a lesbian and I'm not for gay marriage either, I just want equal rights for my self and my partner! I don't care if we get married as long as we can commit to each other and receive normal benefits (allowed to make decisions for each other in medical cases, allowed to make decision about our children, etc.) like everyone else.
Slavery was a state-sanctioned institution, and I think a debate on whether it should have been would have been appropriate during discussions surrounding its implementation.
Does this include the polyamorous?
As I mentioned, in practice I would vote to include gays in the marriage institution, but it makes no sense. Each individual citizen should choose the members of his or her immediate family and decide for him or herself what obligations that entails. That is freedom.
Lyssa, while I appreciate your position, you have a tendency to exaggerate and compare things that aren't comparable in order to make a point, which takes away from your argument. Marriage grants right, slavery denies them. Slavery should not extend to a single person. Marriage should extend to all couples in a consentual relationship.
Sure, why shouldn't it? Adults capable of mutual consent in a relationship they are happy with... sure, why not?
Agreed. But the status quo right now is...
So yes, I can appreciate your position, but obviously, like you said, in practice, it would not make sense to vote against gay marriage if you are for equal rights.
Marriage confers some benefits, but actually limits freedom. State-sanctioned marriage comes with a litany of legal obligations. Benefits and rights are not the same. Rights are typically free whilst benefits generally cost money.
I realize that marriage and slavery are hardly the same, but I was attempting to illustrate the point that it is reasonable (and valuable) to continue to discuss the legitimacy of established institutions even if they are entrenched.
I'm talking mainly about rights, so I'm not sure why you brought up benefits. A gay man was not allowed to claim the body of his dead partner whom he had been with for 17 years and had married in another state. If you are not married you cannot visit your partner in the hospital. Without marriage, your custodial rights are limited. I'm talking mainly about these sorts of things.
If you want me to say that marriage limits freedom, sure, why not, because the point is that marriage is something people willingly and happily take part, whereas slavery is not.
I agree that the government being involved is ridiculous. BUT the fact remains that they are, and you yourself said that as such, in practice, you would vote for gay marriage rather than against it.
I personally think marriage has become a joke. I really don't disagree with you. I see your points, and personally feel the same way.
Do you typically base your arguments on false equivalencies?
I'd have no objection to that.
Why would you vote for something you feel makes no sense?
Yes, and?
( Oh by the way im not against gay marriage im just not happy with it being used as a political weapon )
I realize the point was lost on you. It was dependent on context. My explanation (again!):
Please go back and read my previous posts, because you appear to be mistaken about my position.
Polygamy and bestiality are hardly the same thing (animals can't give legal consent), and your reaction is typical. People who are all for not limiting a person's nuptial choices to certain races or gender are happy to limit the number of people a person can marry or prohibit them from marrying family members. So it's perfectly legitimate to stop Mormons who want to marry several people or hillbillies who want to marry their cousins from practicing marriage in the way they see fit. You don't have a problem with limiting people's marital choices, you just want it done in a way that doesn't offend your sensibilities and to hell with everyone else. This is blatantly hypocritical, and it's what happens when government gets in the marriage business.
But why not extend marriage to the polyamorous? I have nothing against them or gays. What makes monogamous marriages superior to polygamous ones?
I tend to fall into the category of people who ponder why government has anything to do with marriage. It's a private/religious contract.
I don't think there's anything criminal or sinful about homosexuality. It's a private affair.
My medical care runs on the average 1,000 dollars a month praying there is no emergencies. We have had 3 in 6 months. I've applied for SS Disability and trying to get some form of public assistance for medical insurance. If I mention I live with him and he gives me anything, I'm told I don't need help. Being an educated white man who is not dying but still requiring a great deal of medical care at this point in my life is used against me. I've spent my professional life caring for people and not caring a whit about the money, who or what someone did in the bedroom, or their race/ethnicity. I feel it's used against me now since I'm so "overprivileged". I paid for my own damn education and pulled myself up with others helping to be a productive member of society with a social conscience.
To be told I don't deserve basic rights is infuriating. Whether one believes in it personally is none of my business. I'm tired of seeing heterosexual relationships celebrated as "the sancitity of marriage" when what my partner and I have been through would break up most relationships. We have bitten the bullet and vowed that we were going to stick together through thick or thin. This is without a ceremony but old fashioned hard work.
No offense my fellow men of the heterosexual persuasion, but you would have more right by marrying a hooker on Monday that you met tomorrow than my partner and I have now. Most of you realize that, but for those of you that don't this is the reality.
Seeking78, we agree in principle. I don't care what they call our relationships as long as they are treated the same as married heterosexual couples. My partner wants it called marriage as he performed many of them in his days as a minister, and is infuriated also that we are treated as 2nd class citizens. We are both serious about helping our fellow persons. I worked as a hospice nurse in inner city Detroit and treated everyone the same. I would have families ask the black nurse's aide about stuff that I was more than willing to teach them about since it was what I do. Asking her what meds worked was counterproductive. I know in the LGBT community, gay men have a history of being known for their selfishness. I've learned over the years it applies to everyone who is a human being. We have to start at some point.
Sorry about this diatribe, but it's just more than "The right to marry". It's the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the individual American sees fit, not what some government or church group wants. If the sanctity of marriage is so important, BAN DIVORCE!!!!!!
the thing that kills me is why anyone would think that being gay is something that would need a cure.
worrying about other peoples sexual preference is like worrying about what color shirt they are wearing.
I agree 1000% with you. As a young man (19 y/o) my mind was not screwed on yet and I thought drugs and booze were helping me deal with a great amount of pain. It didn't and I lost my ability to question things. If I had done so, I'm sure I would have told the church to back off. Many people were telling me I needed to "get straight" to "please the Lord". Now I realize they were a bunch of bigots who knew no better.
Religious folks may never get it. I'm fine with that as long as they mind their own business and stop making me follow their beliefs so they won't be offended. But I would like for my partner and I to have a big ceremony in a well known church. All I can do is keep trying.
If I were to marry, I wouldn't pick an institution that has proven hostile and repressive towards me or my partner. I would give my last breath fighting against that oppression, but that doesn't mean I would want the most sacred and important ceremony in my life conducted in enemy territory. I understand the motivation, but I think it would ultimately be a disappointment. It just feels like it would be turning my marriage ceremony into an "up yours" to the establishment. That's not the predominant feeling I want for my wedding.
If a cathedral wedding is what you've always dreamed of, then by all means, please disregard my words. I'm not trying to sway you from something you have your heart set upon. I only hope that when it comes to your wedding, you can set aside all the negative emotions and focus on what will make the day most sacred and beautiful for you and your partner.
~ AD
Palzang
~ AD
Palzang
Part of the reason for a church ceremony is for my partner. It is something he wants and I take his feelings into consideration. Part of me wants to do it in a church just to remind all Americans that religion is a private matter for every individual not just what they believe. There are churches that aren't necessarily Christian. Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency so when my partner and I get to that point I wrill remember that. I think a forest/protected national park is the best cathedral/church you can find. After what we've been through in the past 5 years and being told regularly we don't count as a couple even though we've survived more than most heterosexual couples would has been frustrating. "Irreconcilable differences" is a fancy way of saying "We don't get along and aren't willing to try that hard to make it work" in my opinion.
Still thinking this through and not meaning to insult anyone. Please recognize after 45 years, I'm tired of being a 2nd class citizen who pays 1st class citizen taxes. Those who know me know that I try my best to think of my fellow sufferers and treat them with compassion and respect.
~ AD
Then I fell in love with a beautiful, sweet, funny, intelligent and extremely caring young woman.
And I would marry her and raise a child with her tomorrow.
Socalism sucks try living in the UK some aspects are good but when the majority in power are ex-communists expect it to go mad. :-/
And give up my shitty existance here ? Never