Libertarian Party calls for marriage equality, full equality

[houndawg]

So "just" does not neccessarily mean equal?

Has it ever? You're a football fan. Can't a game be justly conducted and officiated with an unequal outcome; one team scoring more points than the other?

Excellent analogy - a textbook example would be EWU vs NDSU in last years playoff.

[citdog]

i say leave it to the states

[Bronco]

Man Marries Mannequin





[Ned] Nefer, 38, says he's married to a mannequin named Teagan, and the kooky couple is traveling 70 miles from Syracuse to Watertown on foot, the Watertown Daily Times reported.

Or at least Nefer is walking. The Syracuse native is pushing his 6-foot wooden wife in a wheelchair across upstate New York.

…Teagan was only a head when they first met.
But he built her a wooden body and claims they were married on Oct. 31, 1986, in California.


"....its a relationship build on trust - and lumber"




"http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... =obnetwork

[William Fette]

Has it ever? You're a football fan. Can't a game be justly conducted and officiated with an unequal outcome; one team scoring more points than the other?

Excellent analogy - a textbook example would be EWU vs NDSU in last years playoff.

Truth

[JohnStOnge]

And/or churches could get entirely out of the government business. That's all that this is about - liberty hating churches.

There is kind of something to that in that religous people do push for laws to enforce their personal relgious doctorines. For instance my wife has a friend who is active in trying to get titty bard to shut down. There is absolutely no basis outside of religious belief.

But defininng marriage in a certain way is not denying liberty. If you say that two (or more, I suppose) homosexuals can't live together and have "sex," ect., that is denying Liberty. But "marriage" is simply a recognition. If you define it at all you're excluding somebody. You are not saying that anybody can't do what they want to do by defining "marriage" in any particular way.

I put "sex" in quotes because we have defined "sex" in a very broad way. Like either D or Capn' once posted about a guy having "sex" with a picnic table. And "sex" with a picnic table makes about as much sense as "sex" with a member of an individual's own sex does.

I prefer to define "sex" in terms of what "sex" really is: The means by which members of dioecious species reproduce. Obviously homosexual "sex" has nothing to do with that.

[OpieGSU]

But defininng marriage in a certain way is not denying liberty. If you say that two (or more, I suppose) homosexuals can't live together and have "sex," ect., that is denying Liberty. But "marriage" is simply a recognition. If you define it at all you're excluding somebody. You are not saying that anybody can't do what they want to do by defining "marriage" in any particular way.

Yes you are denying liberty and equal protection unde rthe law, because certain rights and privleges come with marriage. For instance, tax breaks, and the right to make medical decisions for your spouse. If you deny same sex couples the right to marry under the law, you are denying the of those rights that hetero couples enjoy. That isn't equal, nor is it just.

I put "sex" in quotes because we have defined "sex" in a very broad way. Like either D or Capn' once posted about a guy having "sex" with a picnic table. And "sex" with a picnic table makes about as much sense as "sex" with a member of an individual's own sex does.

It makes as much sense to you, because you are hetero. A gay person would tell you that having sex with a person of the opposite gender would seem about as sensical to him/her as banging a picinic table as well. Last I checked, you're not the arbiter of what is and isn't a legitimate relationship.

prefer to define "sex" in terms of what "sex" really is: The means by which members of dioecious species reproduce. Obviously homosexual "sex" has nothing to do with that.

Obviously, this is your definition. If you were gay, you wouldn't think that way, and having sex with a member of your own gender would seem natural to you. The fact is that most gays are born that way. It's not a choice, so denying them rights and equal protection under the law is unamerican, and will be proven to be unconstitutional in time.

[JohnStOnge]

Yes you are denying liberty and equal protection unde rthe law, because certain rights and privleges come with marriage. For instance, tax breaks, and the right to make medical decisions for your spouse. If you deny same sex couples the right to marry under the law, you are denying the of those rights that hetero couples enjoy. That isn't equal, nor is it just.

If you define marriage at all, you exclude someone. Otherwise you wouldn't have to define it. Think about it.

It makes as much sense to you, because you are hetero. A gay person would tell you that having sex with a person of the opposite gender would seem about as sensical to him/her as banging a picinic table as well. Last I checked, you're not the arbiter of what is and isn't a legitimate relationship.

Sexually motivated behavior plays a critical role in the survival of dioecious species. It's not just a matter of preference. It's the role of sexually motivated behavior in biology. Prefering sexual contact with members of your own sex in the context of the role of sexually motivated behavior in biology makes about as much sense as preferring sexual contact with a picnic table does. That is not true of preferring sexual contact with members of the opposite sex.

this is your definition. If you were gay, you wouldn't think that way, and having sex with a member of your own gender would seem natural to you. The fact is that most gays are born that way. It's not a choice, so denying them rights and equal protection under the law is unamerican, and will be proven to be unconstitutional in time.

I don't think it will be "proven" unconstitutional but I do think there is a good chance that the Judiciary will once again pervert the Constitution and declare that there is some "equal protection" issue.

When I talk about what "sex" is, I am talking about the role that sex plays in biology. Is masturbating sex? Is gratifying yourself with a picinic table sex? It is according the the broad definition commonly used nowadays.

But, biologically and in our species, sex is the insertion of the male penis into the female vagina followed by the ejection of spermatazoa which hopefully fertilize ova. That is what sex is all about.

Well, admitedly there are many who hope that fertilzation does not take place. But that is the basis behind the drive. Saying that a homosexual sex drive is normal is like saying that a hunger drive directed towards eating sand is normal.

[JohnStOnge]

Yes you are denying liberty

I need to get back to this one because that is not true. You are not denied Liberty by virtue of the State opting not to recognize a relationship you are in as marriage.

Like say I want to be in a relationship with two women. I am free to be in that relationship. The fact that the State does not recognize that triangle as a marriage doesn't impact that. Also, the fact that I cannot make a decision about whether one of my two partners can be disconnected from life support or something like that is not an infringement upon my own liberty. It just means I can't make a decision about someone else's life.

As I may have said, I think we have reached a point in this society where we need to just get government out of the business of marriage. I think that because we have reached a point where there is significant disagreement about what a marriage is.

I think it is absolutely absurd that we are talking about recognizing a relationship between two members of the same sex as a "marriage." I think it is a manifestation of how ridiculous our culture is getting. But it is what it is. And it is time to get government out of the business of recognizing relatinships as "marriage" as a result.

[OpieGSU]

Yes you are denying liberty

I need to get back to this one because that is not true. You are not denied Liberty by virtue of the State opting not to recognize a relationship you are in as marriage.

You most certainly are. Society recognzes homosexual couples in just about every way, except allowing the to legally bind themselves and reap the legal benefits of that relationship, just as a hetero married couple can. Gays can adopt, they buy property, and they can hold themselves out in society as a committed couple that most recognize as a legitimate bond.
The purpose of state recognzed marriage has absolutely nothing at all to do with procreation. The purpose of marriage and the benefts of marriage have to do with creating stable familial relationships, which are the backbone of most successful civilizations. That's why your polygamy example is bogus. Clearly in 2011, it has been proven that gays can raise a family as well as, if not better than straight people. One's ability as a parent is not determined by who you sleep with at night, and I'm sure we all have frends who are examples of that.
By denying gays the right to marry, you are 1.) essentially labeling them as second class citizens, 2.) encouragng promiscuity and unstable relationships in the gay community which is good for nobody.

In all seriousness, why do you even have an opinion on who fvcks who and what marriage is? If two men or two women want to bind themselves because they love each other, then who are you to say that is wrong? And who are you to deny them the rights that any other bound hetero couple would get under the exact same circumstances? Live and let live.

Gay people have been around since the dawn of time. They are indeed born that way. This is not some deviant behavior that you will someday, "cure". These are human beings not "picnic tables", with real emotions, real lives, and all they want to do is live in peace and be treated like everybody else. I will never understand the mentality that wishes to deny them that right.

[citdog]

I need to get back to this one because that is not true. You are not denied Liberty by virtue of the State opting not to recognize a relationship you are in as marriage.

You most certainly are. Society recognzes homosexual couples in just about every way, except allowing the to legally bind themselves and reap the legal benefits of that relationship, just as a hetero married couple can. Gays can adopt, they buy property, and they can hold themselves out in society as a committed couple that most recognize as a legitimate bond.
The purpose of state recognzed marriage has absolutely nothing at all to do with procreation. The purpose of marriage and the benefts of marriage have to do with creating stable familial relationships, which are the backbone of most successful civilizations. That's why your polygamy example is bogus. Clearly in 2011, it has been proven that gays can raise a family as well as, if not better than straight people. One's ability as a parent is not determined by who you sleep with at night, and I'm sure we all have frends who are examples of that.
By denying gays the right to marry, you are 1.) essentially labeling them as second class citizens, 2.) encouragng promiscuity and unstable relationships in the gay community which is good for nobody.

In all seriousness, why do you even have an opinion on who fvcks who and what marriage is? If two men or two women want to bind themselves because they love each other, then who are you to say that is wrong? And who are you to deny them the rights that any other bound hetero couple would get under the exact same circumstances? Live and let live.

Gay people have been around since the dawn of time. They are indeed born that way. This is not some deviant behavior that you will someday, "cure". These are human beings not "picnic tables", with real emotions, real lives, and all they want to do is live in peace and be treated like everybody else. I will never understand the mentality that wishes to deny them that right.

closet queer

[FormerPokeCenter]

[/quote]Obviously, this is your definition. If you were gay, you wouldn't think that way, and having sex with a member of your own gender would seem natural to you. The fact is that most gays are born that way. It's not a choice,[/quote]

Finally, a topic upon which you can opine dispositively....

[OpieGSU]

Obviously, this is your definition. If you were gay, you wouldn't think that way, and having sex with a member of your own gender would seem natural to you. The fact is that most gays are born that way. It's not a choice,

Finally, a topic upon which you can opine dispositively....

the quote feature isn"t that difficult.

[FormerPokeCenter]

Okay, so make that two topics....Impressive!

[OpieGSU]

Okay, so make that two topics....Impressive!

On one of those, I would defer to you, as you obviously have lots of experience bending over in front of other men. xoxo
I would let you get married if it was up to me.

[FormerPokeCenter]

That's nothing but homoerotic wishful thinking on your part...

[OpieGSU]

ok, "pokecenter'.

[AZGrizFan]

Clearly in 2011, it has been proven that gays can raise a family as well as, if not better than straight people.

Wow. That's one MASSIVE generalization.

[OpieGSU]

Clearly in 2011, it has been proven that gays can raise a family as well as, if not better than straight people.

Wow. That's one MASSIVE generalization.

Study after study says it's fact. Sorry if that doesn't fit your ancient paradigm.

[AZGrizFan]

Wow. That's one MASSIVE generalization.

Study after study says it's fact. Sorry if that doesn't fit your ancient paradigm.

So it's been proven that gays can raise a family better than straight people? Really? You got proof to back that assinine claim, or do you usually throw out baseless statements as "fact" in court too?

Oh, and FYI: PM dbackjon on my position regarding gays and marriage. I'd tell you, but you've already proven you're too lazy (and too dumb) to spend time getting to understand people's positions on things here before throwing out insults and incorrect assumptions. So, if Jon won't tell you, you can go look it up for yourself. I've made it very clear here on multiple threads. Sorry if I don't fit into your nice little preconceived notion of a bigot.

[citdog]

Wow. That's one MASSIVE generalization.

Study after study says it's fact. Sorry if that doesn't fit your ancient paradigm.

citation needed

[OpieGSU]

So it's been proven that gays can raise a family better than straight people? Really? You got proof to back that assinine claim, or do you usually throw out baseless statements as "fact" in court too?

Again, you seem to have a problem with reading.
My statement was as follows:
"Clearly in 2011, it has been proven that gays can raise a family as well as, if not better than straight people."

The huge jump that you make from what I said, is again an example of you reading into things what you want to see.
Study after study shows that there are no marked differences in the development of children raised by gay couples as opposed to straight.
So, since there is no correlation between the sexual orientation of the parents and the functionality of the children, then there are clearly gay couple who are providing more stable environments than some straight couples. In other words, families are families, reagrdless of sexual orientation of the parents. Some are good, and some are not so good.
The fact that I have to explain this sh*t to you really does show a complete lack of comprehension on your part.

[AZGrizFan]

So it's been proven that gays can raise a family better than straight people? Really? You got proof to back that assinine claim, or do you usually throw out baseless statements as "fact" in court too?

Again, you seem to have a problem with reading.
My statement was as follows:
"Clearly in 2011, it has been proven that gays can raise a family as well as, if not better than straight people."

The huge jump that you make from what I said, is again an example of you reading into things what you want to see.
Study after study shows that there are no marked differences in the development of children raised by gay couples as opposed to straight.
So, since there is no correlation between the sexual orientation of the parents and the functionality of the children, then there are clearly gay couple who are providing more stable environments than some straight couples. In other words, families are families, reagrdless of sexual orientation of the parents. Some are good, and some are not so good.
The fact that I have to explain this sh*t to you really does show a complete lack of comprehension on your part.

So just provide a link to your "studies". Is that so fucking hard to comprehend? You should, at the VERY least, understand that your word around here isn't exactly gold, so excuse me if I don't take you at it.