Reason 5 Jesus 4

[BDKJMU]

I am getting so sick of you people equating homosexual marriage to "liberty."

It's not. You are not denying somebody liberty by virtue of opting not to recognize their relationship as "marriage." You are not denying somebody liberty by opting not to interact with them, serve them, engage in commerce with them, etc.

Saying someone who does not want to recognize a perverted relationship as "marriage" should be forced to do so IS denying LIberty. Saying that someone who does not want to participate in that kind of abomination IS denying liberty.

You people just don't even get what Liberty is.

Do you understand equality?

You do understand liberty? The liberty to engage in commerce with whomever you want to, and the liberty to not engage with whomever you want to..

[Grizalltheway]

So you are (or should) be able to ban black people from your business? Not rent to them based solely on skin color?

Oh wait, of course you would agree with that.

[dbackjon]

and are you married, CID? With a government issued license?

What's your point? Because he disagrees with the government intervention, he shouldn't have married his wife and had kids? That's a weak position, even for you.

Since he believes that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, and everything can be accomplished outside of marriage, then put his money where his mouth is.


Typical Libertarian crap - nice soundbite, but when confronted with reality, the impracticality of Libertarianism makes them carve exceptions for themselves, like Ayn Rand taking Social Security.

[BDKJMU]

So you are (or should) be able to ban black people from your business? Not rent to them based solely on skin color?

Oh wait, of course you would agree with that.

And a black owned business should be able to not serve to white people, or whomever.

If I was a business owner I WOULDN'T do that because one I wouldn't agree with not serving based on skin color, and 2 it would be very bad for business (negative publicity). But I should be able to if I chose.

[dbackjon]

So you are (or should) be able to ban black people from your business? Not rent to them based solely on skin color?

Oh wait, of course you would agree with that.

And a black owned business should be able to not serve to white people, or whomever.

If I was a business owner I WOULDN'T do that because one I wouldn't agree with not serving based on skin color, and 2 it would be very bad for business (negative publicity). But I should be able to if I chose.

I don't think you understand the Constitution.

[houndawg]

What's your point? Because he disagrees with the government intervention, he shouldn't have married his wife and had kids? That's a weak position, even for you.

Since he believes that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, and everything can be accomplished outside of marriage, then put his money where his mouth is.


Typical Libertarian crap - nice soundbite, but when confronted with reality, the impracticality of Libertarianism makes them carve exceptions for themselves, like Ayn Rand taking Social Security.

Or Congress exempting itself from the rules they make for the rest of us.

[CID1990]

and are you married, CID? With a government issued license?

thats one of the stupidest things youve posted on here

and then of course GATW doubled down on the stupid

[CID1990]

You're a smart feller, then SK.

I'll leave the question to Jon then-

Why should the government be in the business of approving marriages? Involved in any way with the institution's business?

I really want to hear a good argument for it.

What is the argument against it?
We as a society have built institutions for millennium based on marriage. Now the definition of marriage has been fluid, with women going from being property to our current state, multiple marriages, etc. And for the most part, it has accomplished societies goals - stability at home, path for inheritance, etc.

We don't REQUIRE marriage - you can shack up, have kids, etc without it - but it takes a lot of work to approximate marriage without getting married, and you can't fully duplicate it.

If you want to argue to eliminate marriage, go ahead - I just fail to see what that gains society or our country. And you have not made a rational argument for your side, other than "I don't like it"

so many straw men and diversions

Your entire post is predicated on me having claimed that I wanted to get rid of marriage

WRONG

I said government has no business sanctioning marriages

it is amazing how institutionalized you and a few others are - you still haven't given one good reason why the government should be able to tell people whether or not they can get married - that is what a government issued marriage license is - permission

rather than foam at the mouth why dont you offer one reason why government should be involved in marriage? You cant offer one legitimate reason?

[CID1990]

What's your point? Because he disagrees with the government intervention, he shouldn't have married his wife and had kids? That's a weak position, even for you.

Since he believes that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, and everything can be accomplished outside of marriage, then put his money where his mouth is.


Typical Libertarian crap - nice soundbite, but when confronted with reality, the impracticality of Libertarianism makes them carve exceptions for themselves, like Ayn Rand taking Social Security.

there you go again - making things up that i havent said

Show me one place where I have argued against marriage -

just admit that you cant answer the question, Jon

[JohnStOnge]

So you are (or should) be able to ban black people from your business? Not rent to them based solely on skin color?

Oh wait, of course you would agree with that.

Yes I would. I have said so for years and I think what is happening now is vindicating my position.

You should be able to do business with whoever you want to or not do business with whoever you want to. And your reasons for opting to do business with someone or not do business with someone should be NONE of government's business.

The idea that you should be able for FORCE someone else to do business is you is absurd. Yes, it's an idea this country has adopted. But it's still outrageous.

And the fact that this country has adopted that idea illustrates the fact that the People of this nation have totally lost touch with what this country is supposed to be about.

[Ibanez]

Do you understand equality?

You do understand liberty? The liberty to engage in commerce with whomever you want to, and the liberty to not engage with whomever you want to..

I think I grasp the concept better than you. This country is about liberty and equality. You can't ignore one or the other.

Saying that a man and woman can have a legal bond BUT a 2 men can't isn't liberty. It's picking sides (and a religious one which isn't allowed.) Business owners should be able to do what they want. Personally, it doesn't matter if your gay, straight, white or black. Everyone pays with GREEN money. Any business owner that decides limit his target market isn't a very good one.

But we're talking about gay marriage. So, do you understand how it's wrong for the government to choose sides?


If you want to be married, go to church.
If you want a legally binding union with benefits, go to City Hall.

That's how it should be.

[CID1990]

You do understand liberty? The liberty to engage in commerce with whomever you want to, and the liberty to not engage with whomever you want to..

I think I grasp the concept better than you. This country is about liberty and equality. You can't ignore one or the other.

Saying that a man and woman can have a legal bond BUT a 2 men can't isn't liberty. It's picking sides (and a religious one which isn't allowed.) Business owners should be able to do what they want. Personally, it doesn't matter if your gay, straight, white or black. Everyone pays with GREEN money. Any business owner that decides limit his target market isn't a very good one.

But we're talking about gay marriage. So, do you understand how it's wrong for the government to choose sides?


If you want to be married, go to church.
If you want a legally binding union with benefits, sign a contract.

That's how it should be.

FIFY

[Ibanez]

I think I grasp the concept better than you. This country is about liberty and equality. You can't ignore one or the other.

Saying that a man and woman can have a legal bond BUT a 2 men can't isn't liberty. It's picking sides (and a religious one which isn't allowed.) Business owners should be able to do what they want. Personally, it doesn't matter if your gay, straight, white or black. Everyone pays with GREEN money. Any business owner that decides limit his target market isn't a very good one.

But we're talking about gay marriage. So, do you understand how it's wrong for the government to choose sides?


If you want to be married, go to church.
If you want a legally binding union with benefits, sign a contract.

That's how it should be.

FIFY

As much as I think the government shouldn't be involved, we both know that isn't going to happen. The government is going to have it's say and if you want your wife to have your SS benefits, VA benefits, etc... the government will need to be involved in some capacity.

[CID1990]

FIFY

As much as I think the government shouldn't be involved, we both know that isn't going to happen. The government is going to have it's say and if you want your wife to have your SS benefits, VA benefits, etc... the government will need to be involved in some capacity.

Well I agree with you that government never concedes power unless forced to do so

But designating a beneficiary for government benefits does not require government acknowledgment of a marriage - all it requires is a will, and government willingness to accept that each person can designate one or more beneficiaries - among whom benefits are paid on percentage

[Pwns]

The one area where it could be difficult to separate marriage from government is the whole issue of citizenship for spouses.

[Grizalltheway]

The one area where it could be difficult to separate marriage from government is the whole issue of citizenship for spouses.

The mail order bride lobby will make sure that doesn't go anywhere.

[BDKJMU]

You do understand liberty? The liberty to engage in commerce with whomever you want to, and the liberty to not engage with whomever you want to..

I think I grasp the concept better than you. This country is about liberty and equality. You can't ignore one or the other.

Saying that a man and woman can have a legal bond BUT a 2 men can't isn't liberty. It's picking sides (and a religious one which isn't allowed.) Business owners should be able to do what they want. Personally, it doesn't matter if your gay, straight, white or black. Everyone pays with GREEN money. Any business owner that decides limit his target market isn't a very good one.

But we're talking about gay marriage. So, do you understand how it's wrong for the government to choose sides?

If you want to be married, go to church.
If you want a legally binding union with benefits, go to City Hall.

That's how it should be.

Then by the same token saying 2 people can have a legal bond but 3 people can't isn't liberty, and its picking sides. After all, what business is it of the government's?

Agreed but business owners should still have that right. Be they Christian bakers or Muslin taxi drivers..

[CID1990]

The one area where it could be difficult to separate marriage from government is the whole issue of citizenship for spouses.

I have lots of experience in the immigrant visa biz and I can tell you as someone who knows-

no, it wouldnt create any problems at all