First gay marriage, now polygamy; what next?

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Sam Spade, Sep 25, 2012.


  1. QNman

    QNman resU deretsigeR

    Yup...

    I don't give a rats behind who marries whom. The government has no business in the marriage business. Just my humble opinion, of course, but I see the "slippery slope", just from a different viewpoint than most.

    I value marriage, and at my church, it's between a (single) man and a (single) woman. But if two guys, two gals, or one man and five women, want to enter into a personal contract, I don't really GAS. As long as they maintain their lawfulness and their commitments to one another, what business is it of the fed.gov

    Now, when some weirdo wants to try and sell me that a 13-year old or a goat can enter into a contract, we'll have a problem. Until then, I see no reason for federal intervention.
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    Anarchy is the epitome of freedom

    an·ar·chy/ˈanərkē/Noun:

    1.A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

    2.Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.


    Anarchy, by definition, HAS no law. Let that marinate for a second.

    I don't see that here.

    gov·ern·ment/ˈgəvər(n)mənt/Noun:

    1.The governing body of a nation, state, or community.

    2.The system by which a nation, state, or community is governed.


    In case you didn't notice, YOU'RE going from a constitutional republic to an anarchy, by definitions alone.

    Yes, it does, and it starts with those who practice it. Yes, you'll argue that you're free to harm yourself if you want to. Ok, fine, then, destroy yourself. Who cares? But to say you can get married and be seen by our children as something that is good and should be emulated, NO. Gay marriage is a way of society saying, "You're good for our society and we want you to raise children to be like you." HELL no.

    None of what you mentioned are psychiatric, sexual disorders.

    Only in an anarchy do people have the "right to do whatever they want". As long as there is government, there WILL be restrictions.

    A little history on the Gadsden. "Join or Die". Nothing individualistic about this idea. You don't know what you're talking about.
     

  3. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    Yes, we're made up of individuals, individuals who all interact and affect others in one way or another. If you want to not affect anyone with what you do, form a group on private land and live as you choose.

    Since we're both sticking to our ideals, that makes us both bigots. I'm not ignorant, however, I have research to back what I'm saying up.

    I don't hate anybody, and I love to see you drank the gay go-go juice. You just HAVE to say "bigot", "hate", now you're just missing "homophobe" and "compassion". I'm sure you won't be able to help yourself sooner or later. It seems that you're very unwilling to see things from another point of view, and you have the gall to call me narrow minded. Oh, the hypocrisy is exhilirating! :tongueout:
     
  4. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    Great, then you should have no objection to gay marriage as long as they live in their own home on their own land after they get married.

    Ain't freedom grand! Here I thought this gay marriage thing was going to be difficult to reach a consensus on.

    Randy
     
    #124 steveksux, Sep 29, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2012
  5. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    Marriage in itself is a public institution, not a private one. By going on private land and doing as they wish, I mean that they make up their own laws and rules that only they are affected by and nobody else has to recognize.
     
    #125 Beware Owner, Oct 2, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  6. OctoberRust

    OctoberRust Anti-Federalist

    5,668
    0
    0

    It shows you do not understand government, and have never done any real studies on it. Get back to us once you find an Anarchy that realistically provides more freedom than a constitutional republic. I don't even think freetown of Christinia does.

    As for the rest, you're throwing insults out because you're called out. At this point you're too embarrassed you've been schooled on how liberties and freedom works.

    As a very wise man once said "You can't see the forest from the trees, and you can't smell your own **** on your knees." Stands true to you.
     
    #126 OctoberRust, Oct 2, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  7. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    Who am I throwing out insults to?
     
  8. The concept of anarchy is that everyone is free to do as he or she likes. That includes getting together and killing or driving out anyone the majority object to enough.

    The concept of being free to do whatever you want has virtually no relationship to freedom as in a free state. There it means freedom from despotism or oppression by government and the "freedoms" of bills of rights are effectively precise constraints on government oppression of its citizens. The only simple freedom is the freedom of religion. The others are freedoms to take action against the government by petitioning, speaking against the government, organizing resistance, keeping and bearing arms and so on. Who or what else other than a government would have the power to prevent these freedoms? Who or what do we need to defend our freedoms against?

    October Rust and QNman, dead right!

    In general, if I am to be forced to choose, I would settle for polygamy over homosexual marriage.:supergrin:

    Beware Owner,
    Your nonsense about homosexuality is just that. Homosexuals, male or female, are no more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. Pedophiles are pedophiles and can be attracted to boys or girls or both. For choice, I would execute them.

    As to whether homosexuality is a choice or not, homosexuality can be found in all species of domesticated animals and birds and probably in all wild ones as well, but the observation is harder there. Animals don't make "choices" of this kind - they just do what is in their nature to do. When it comes to humans, most humans want a loving relationship and that applies to homosexuals as much as to heterosexuals. Why would any one who actually had the choice choose to be homosexual when it reduces the chance of finding a partner by such a large amount? When the facts contradict your theories you need to re-work your theories to fit the facts.

    Engish
     
  9. That is correct. And since homosexuality occurs as part of nature, that makes it "natural".
     
  10. Uranium and anthrax are also "natural" - doesn't mean they're good for you.
     
  11. Yes, entirely natural and it seems to be amongst the things that can go wrong with the genetic or developmental system without significant detriment to the species. It is hard to see how it is advantgeous to the individual or the species but that does not mean that it does not have some species benefit to have non reproductive members. For individuals with the consciousness to want children of their own and for parents with homosexual children it is a considerable sadness.

    English
     
  12. kensb2

    kensb2 pistol n00b

    I'm curious how people see this side of the coin: Being married, in it's current traditional form (1 man, 1 woman) allows you certain benefits. One of these is Healthcare benefits. I am allowed to have my wife on my insurance plan through work, because they allow it. In the case of my employer, they also allow 'domestic partners' to have this same option. Many businesses do not, because they don't view a domestic partnership/civil union the same as a marriage. Should gay marriage/poly laws get passed, are employers now OBLIGATED to offer those benefits to everyone?

    As an aside, I personally believe that the institution of marriage is a religious one. If one gets married within the confines of a church (or by some form of clergy) before God (Allah, w/e), that is different than a 'civil union' (outside the church). I think someone's freedom to engage in a gay/poly marriage is one that should be afforded by the church (only if it so chooses!), not the gov't. It is also none of my business, but I retain the right to think that it's morally wrong, should I so choose. I think anyone in a civil union should be afforded the same tax breaks, etc that a married couple gets. I was brought up in a northern Baptist church, my dad was a deacon for many years, and both of my BILs are/were preachers. It has taken me a long time to come to those conclusions about how freedoms (should) apply to us, since you get indoctrinated to certain ways of believing when brought up in that atmosphere. Lastly, by my own above definitions, my marriage would technically be a civil union since I was married by a judge in a courthouse and not by a clergymen.
     
    #132 kensb2, Oct 3, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2012
  13. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    Cannibalism, infanticide, rape, eating your own doodoo and vomit are also "natural"...
     
  14. OctoberRust

    OctoberRust Anti-Federalist

    5,668
    0
    0


    Here we go back to the beginning of the argument again.

    I think eating your own "doodoo" as you put it, is legal. I'm not 100% sure though.. It'd be silly to make it illegal, all it hurts is yourself.

    Comparing rape to homosexuality? Last time I checked, when someone rapes another person, that carries a victim.

    Let's go back to eating our own doodoo and vomit though. Who's being hurt by that again?

    Just think about it. No need to reply. You just went back about 4-5 pages in this thread and started from the beginning, which we have already covered.
     
  15. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    My point is that using what you see in nature as an excuse is immature at best.
     
  16. OctoberRust

    OctoberRust Anti-Federalist

    5,668
    0
    0

    And comparing rape to homosexuality is not immature, at best?
     
  17. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    No, sir, it puts the "natural" argument in perspective.
     
  18. If a man wants 6 angry wives instead of one that let him have it. Heck, women can have as many husbands too....I foresee no good coming from either so I am happy with my one wife.
     
  19. OctoberRust

    OctoberRust Anti-Federalist

    5,668
    0
    0

    "Natural" is almost as subjective as "normal". Hell, they may even intertwine.
     
  20. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    Natural as in what you see in nature. It astounds me that people want to lower themselves to the point where they are like intellectually inferior animals.
     
    #140 Beware Owner, Oct 3, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2012

Share This Page