YouTube account canceled

[Oh Shoot]

Well in that case the fact that I can't grow alfalfa grass to length in my front yard due to city zoning regs I am having my right to happiness infringed upon. Can I get a movement with my own flag now?

Honestly, I care less no matter which way this argument goes. I see silliness on both sides and I don't care enough to have an opinion, but the argument that this denies the "pursuit of happiness" is so incredibly subjective and opens the doors to 99.9% of the laws our gov has on the books.

 

Well, at it's heart, it's about money. One's pursuit of happiness is certainly not enhanced when you have to pay 300K to inherit your mate's estate because you're gay instead of straight -- that was after all the basis of the suit that overturned DOMA. And of course that's just one of a thousand federal perks gay couples didn't get, even in states that recognize their unions and give them state bennies.

 

Of course, they still won't get them unless they are residents of about 13 states or so.

 

- OS

Edited July 1, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[scoutfsu]

I have a few problems with that statement.

Freedom includes being free to oppose things that you are opposed to, especially if it is a moral or religious objection.

Tyranny is attempting to force people to compromise their beliefs/principles & attempting to punish them if they don't comply.

Well intentioned tyranny, is still tyranny.

 

 

Lol, you see the flip side to that right?

[TMF]

No, they don't. They are not allowed to take part of the legal institution of marriage that provides a wide variety of legal privileges and benefits. These are being denied to a specific segment of our population simply because their lifestyle doesn't fit the worldview of a political majority in this country.

Is there a Constitutional right for the government to have an opinion on your marriage?

Sounds to me like this is a good argument for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

[Oh Shoot]

Is there a Constitutional right for the government to have an opinion on your marriage?

Sounds to me like this is a good argument for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

 

Don't let logic get in the way of government.

 

There is zero chance of that happening. The federal government has been involved with marriage since the first Revolutionary Way widow was compensated. And states were involved with it before we were even a country. As were local governments before there were even states.

 

- OS

Edited July 1, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[East_TN_Patriot]

Is there a Constitutional right for the government to have an opinion on your marriage?

Sounds to me like this is a good argument for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

 

Which was the point I mentioned.  I don't think the government should sanction any religious ceremony and/or provide special benefits to people who are allowed to participate in it.  I think the problem would be best solved by allowing any adults to enter into legally recognized civil unions that would provide the property and personal benefits associated with married couples, do away with the tax benefits completely, and letting the religious institutions decide whom they want to marry based on their own beliefs.  

Unfortunately, so many people are brainwashed into believing that society will crumble if we do away with government-sanctioned "marriage" that they won't even consider this as a reasonable solution.

[RichardR]

The logical argument is that a gay man does not have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as you do, as the vast majority of gay folks can't get any of the perks you and yours can by virtue of a legally recognized marriage.

- OS

Neither does the fellow who's really in love with & wants to marry his sister, or his goat, or his favorite stripper's shoe.

"Fair" ain't got nothing to do with it.

[Grand Torino]

Is there a Constitutional right for the government to have an opinion on your marriage?

Sounds to me like this is a good argument for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

When you're right you're right. Unfortunately you and I both know the government won't do that. They don't want to take their foot off our necks ya know. 

[TMF]

Well, at it's heart, it's about money. One's pursuit of happiness is certainly not enhanced when you have to pay 300K to inherit your mate's estate because you're gay instead of straight -- that was after all the basis of the suit that overturned DOMA. And of course that's just one of a thousand federal perks gay couples didn't get, even in states that recognize their unions and give them state bennies.

Of course, they still won't get them unless they are residents of about 13 states or so.

- OS

And why this is the only subject regarding gay marriage that gets me worked up. Our government imposes so many regulations, benefits and policies based on how our home life is structured. Arguing to change things to include new groups brings light to the fact the gov shouldn't involved AT ALL. But then there is the way things should be and the way they are.

I was traveling across our great country today and was listening to Rush as he made the same argument against gay marriage as gays are making for it, and it boiled down to the government's opinion of your relationship with your spouse. Who the f*** cares what the gov thinks? He argued that his marriage certificate is one I his most valuable possessions... seriously. Now maybe this is just my wife and I, but our marriage certificate is stuffed away somewhere and is stained with fabiric cleaner from where it was left in a seat pocket with a bottle of Febreeze for a couple of years. It is a piece of paper that means absolutely nothing to us. Our relationship is what we have with one another, not what the government opinines what it means. If the government was to stop recognizing our marriage tomorrow it would change nothing about what we have. So folks using the argument, for or against, using similar logic is beyond silly to me.

If this is just about money, benefits and patient rights then it shows how silly it is to have the gov involved at all.

[TMF]

When you're right you're right. Unfortunately you and I both know the government won't do that. They don't want to take their foot off our necks ya know.

Isn't there a good Clint Eastwood quote from Unforgiven along the lines of, "there's the the way things oughta be, and the way things are"?

Seemed appropriate to reference due to your avatar.

[Curiousgb]

I wish all those straight people would quit having gay kids. I think that might rectify the situation. 

[Nynick81]

very profound Nicky. :shrug:

[Moped]

I 100% respect that opinion if you will say the same thing about someone wanting to marry more than one or two people. If the principle is happiness and you love who you love then why stop at gays marrying? Heck there are sickos out there would marry their momma. I think that is sick but using the gay marriage logic why cant they?

 

Easy, There are not enough people advocating for it that will vote democrat.

Children will never be allowed to marry parents, nor siblings be allowed to marry each other.  No one would like the results of the offspring.

 

You do know this is Dixie right? I am sure there are plenty of conservative Christians in liberal cesspools like DE, MD, NJ, CA that would trade places. I respect your opinion, but you have to know you are in the minority.

Most of Tennessee might be in Dixie (East Tennessee did not support the Confederacy, and was considered occupied territory by the CSA.  I'm pretty proud of that), but it won't matter, because in the next 20 years Gay marriage will be legal here.  The next generation is going to see to that.  This is a total non-issue to them.

 

Well in that case the fact that I can't grow alfalfa grass to length in my front yard due to city zoning regs I am having my right to happiness infringed upon. Can I get a movement with my own flag now?

Honestly, I care less no matter which way this argument goes. I see silliness on both sides and I don't care enough to have an opinion, but the argument that this denies the "pursuit of happiness" is so incredibly subjective and opens the doors to 99.9% of the laws our gov has on the books.

The Government will never get out of the marriage business, because it's about taxes and benefits, two things the Government can't stay away from.

[daddyo]

No, they don't.  They are not allowed to take part of the legal institution of marriage that provides a wide variety of legal privileges and benefits.  These are being denied to a specific segment of our population simply because their lifestyle doesn't fit the worldview of a political majority in this country.  As long as benefits are being made available to married couples, something that I think should end, then same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry and live their lives together just as I am allowed to do as a heterosexual.  

And before anyone asks, I also think that polygamous folks should be able to marry as well as long as all involved are consenting adults and are aware of the multi-partner relationship.  It's none of my concern whether some guy wants to marry one woman, one man, or a group.

As far as the Christianity argument goes, it seems as if most Christians in this part of the country would be more than happy to establish a Christian state much like the Muslim nations in the Middle East.  Folks around these parts claim support personal freedom, but do so only as long as everyone submits to the same interpretation of the Bible as they do.  The mention of homosexuality as an "abomination" is in the same part of the Bible that also says eating shellfish is an "abomination" and encourages stoning of women who don't submit to their husbands.  Homosexuality isn't mentioned anywhere in the New Testament, which is actually the true foundation of the Christian faith.  Why religious zealots in this country have decided to camp out on the issue of homosexuality is something I'll never understand.

 

The only problem I see here is that marriage is not a right as it is not mentioned anywhere in the bill of rights.

 

I have to agree with TMF; the whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing is very subjective.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Does the Muslim faith condone or allow overt homosexuality in the Middle Easter Nations? And if not, then why not?

[Guest copperhead_1911]

There are plenty of states in the north that do not allow gay marriage.  Ready or not gay marriage will be allowed in all fifty states at some point.

 

Whose God is everywhere?  Religion has no place in whether or not gay people can marry.

And if God does not wipe the USA off the map ( or at least the northeast and west coast ) He owes to cities an apology.

 

Actually I believe gay marriage is legal except in PA ( they would be a red state if not for philly) and NJ as Christie vetoed it. I believe it is legal in every other state less maybe one. If not I am sure civil unions are.

[Guest copperhead_1911]

No, they don't.  They are not allowed to take part of the legal institution of marriage that provides a wide variety of legal privileges and benefits.  These are being denied to a specific segment of our population simply because their lifestyle doesn't fit the worldview of a political majority in this country.  As long as benefits are being made available to married couples, something that I think should end, then same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry and live their lives together just as I am allowed to do as a heterosexual.  

And before anyone asks, I also think that polygamous folks should be able to marry as well as long as all involved are consenting adults and are aware of the multi-partner relationship.  It's none of my concern whether some guy wants to marry one woman, one man, or a group.

As far as the Christianity argument goes, it seems as if most Christians in this part of the country would be more than happy to establish a Christian state much like the Muslim nations in the Middle East.  Folks around these parts claim support personal freedom, but do so only as long as everyone submits to the same interpretation of the Bible as they do.  The mention of homosexuality as an "abomination" is in the same part of the Bible that also says eating shellfish is an "abomination" and encourages stoning of women who don't submit to their husbands.  Homosexuality isn't mentioned anywhere in the New Testament, which is actually the true foundation of the Christian faith.  Why religious zealots in this country have decided to camp out on the issue of homosexuality is something I'll never understand.

I respect your argument as you are the first person who has said if they are all consenting adults polygamists should get the same rights as gays.

 

As far as comparing the decent, Christian people of the south to the middle east. I don't know about everyone else, but I personally find that very offensive. You don't think the confederate flag should be banned from public display do you?

[Guest copperhead_1911]

Does the Muslim faith condone or allow overt homosexuality in the Middle Easter Nations? And if not, then why not?

They actually many times behead them ( gays) or burn them alive.

 

What I find ironic is that in American the gays and Muslims support the same party, which makes no sense.

[Mike.357]

As far as comparing the decent, Christian people of the south

 

 

what does Christianity have to do with any of this?   So if one is not christian they are not deserving of the same rights?

[austin7.62]

I respect your argument as you are the first person who has said if they are all consenting adults polygamists should get the same rights as gays.

 

As far as comparing the decent, Christian people of the south to the middle east. I don't know about everyone else, but I personally find that very offensive. You don't think the confederate flag should be banned from public display do you?

Some people in the south want the government to be based on the Bible, yada, yada, that's all fine, but that's a Theocracy, and just for reference, Iran is a Theocracy. Not good right?

 

The Bible can say this and that, but as far as I know it's not the constitution of the United States.

 

In Iran, The Quran is pretty much the constitution.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Some people in the south want the government to be based on the Bible, yada, yada, that's all fine, but that's a Theocracy, and just for reference, Iran is a Theocracy. Not good right?
 
The Bible can say this and that, but as far as I know it's not the constitution of the United States.
 
In Iran, The Quran is pretty much the constitution.

Our Constitution is an offshoot from the Bible and Christian values.

[Oh Shoot]

 

very profound Nicky. :shrug:

 

 

Nynick82, dude, his comment was because you quoted somebody, but added zero content.

 

And you just did it again.

 

Maybe you think quoting is "liking" or something?

 

- OS

[East_TN_Patriot]

The only problem I see here is that marriage is not a right as it is not mentioned anywhere in the bill of rights.

 

I have to agree with TMF; the whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing is very subjective.

That it is not listed in the Bill of Rights does not matter.  The Bill of Rights was never intended to be an complete list of rights to be retained by the people, rather, it specifically listed the ones that the framers felt were the most important.  The Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is the pertinent amendment here.  It states:
 

 

 

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 

Note that it says the states cannot deny to any person "equal protection of the laws" meaning that the state must apply the law equally to all citizens and not select groups who are deemed worthy of getting special protections or benefits provided by the law.

 

 

Edited July 1, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[Oh Shoot]

Our Constitution is an offshoot from the Bible and Christian values.

 

Saying it isn't really so.

 

Most all the basic principles have been espoused in the distant past.

 

It's seems more reasonable to say that Judaism, the first widespread religion, took the practical lessons from early interdependent group living and incorporated them into its concept of divinity, as the basic ideas of prohibitions against murder, robbery and the like, and the idea of personal property rights evolved in most all areas of the world, simply because it was the most practical way for larger groups of people to live together without total mayhem as small clans became early cities.

 

Which all works until a crushing dictatorial  ruling class evolves, which has also happened in most every part of the world at one time or another also, from circa 3500 BC to the present. Even the democratic golden periods in Republican Greece and Rome didn't last. And I daresay that our relatively brief little experiment won't either -- it might become revitalized at some point but not until it has been lost, and after much chaos, suffering, and population reduction.

 

- OS

Edited July 1, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[scoutfsu]

Does the Muslim faith condone or allow overt homosexuality in the Middle Easter Nations? And if not, then why not?

 

Because they're a bunch of fundamentalist fucking savages??  We just watched Syrians, the same people that our Gov't is trying to help, saw the heads off of two people....all the while screaming Allah Akbar.  Yay for religion.

[TMF]

It's seems more reasonable to say that Judaism, the first widespread religion, took the practical lessons from early interdependent group living and incorporated them into its concept of divinity, as the basic ideas of prohibitions against murder, robbery and the like, and the idea of personal property rights evolved in most all areas of the world, simply because it was the most practical way for larger groups of people to live together without total mayhem as small clans became early cities.

Which all works until a crushing dictatorial ruling class evolves, which has also happened in most every part of the world at one time or another also, from circa 3500 BC to the present. Even the democratic golden periods in Republican Greece and Rome didn't last. And I daresay that our relatively brief little experiment won't either -- it might become revitalized at some point but not until it has been lost, and after much chaos, suffering, and population reduction.

- OS

Well that was sunshiny.