Well, it's Kalifornia, so.. there's going to be a slant/bias, of course but..Originally Posted by mahkagari
Not sure where folks get the idea of "more" folks being in favor of gay marraige, beyond the false-impression given by the (again, biased) media play-up of an otherwise non-issue...
i dont think that piece is entirely accurate.
i do believe that more americans support the right to gay marriage than any time in american history. however, when states vote on the issue either through legislatures or initiatives the vast majority are against same sex marriage.
personally i am not in favor of gay marriage but i am opposed to government involvement in marriage.
I wouldn't say "vast". Depending on the state, it's been close, just like gun control. What the article is pointing out is that the trend is more and more toward getting government out of either.
I'm against gay marriage as well. At least for me. Even if Clay Aiken finally answers my letters, I don't don't need him keeping me from Renee Olstead. I don't care what anyone else does.
Some of us have realized that loving our neighbors and treating others as we want to be treated means granting everybody an equal shake at the whole "marriage" business. Simultaneously, those same people recognize there are those who are angry that others might enjoy equality and would violently seek to oppress those of different beliefs. We see that the only way to stand against such oppression is by being our own defenders.
So yeah, not too surprising to see marriage equality and the right to self-defense come together. Delicious.
"If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex
As usual you manage to be inflamatory and come to the incorrect conclusion.
I'm a conservative person and I fully support the right of two people to marry, regardless of gender. It's not my lifestyle, but who am I to tell two people that they can't or shouldn't live their lives in a way that maximizes their happiness. Two men or two women being legally married, has ZERO impact on anyone. As conservatives, we owe it to our integrity to uphold our principal value, the pursuit of freedom from government intervention in our personal lives, and defend everyone's right to equal access to the institution of marriage. To do otherwise is contrary to everything we believe in.
Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com
What conclusion is incorrect, and what's inflammatory about stating how we view equality? Marriage is a word used in two contexts, with two meanings. One is civil marriage, the other is religious. Nothing legally prevents a same-sex couple from being religiously married in the status quo. Civilly, however, is a different story.
People have taken their religious views and voted to impose them upon society, preventing loving couples in long-term relationships from enjoying the civil protections and status of marriage. Ironically, these people are voting based on their religious views, and are usually the same people who would cry out "Sharia!" the moment a Muslim voted to enforce their religious views upon the public.
So, what's the incorrect conclusion? That denying someone a civil marriage because your religion says no or because it makes you feel squicky is denying people equal treatment under the law? That some have acted violently towards gays, including gay bashing and other forms of targeted battery? That self-defense is the only option in many of these cases? As the pink pistols put it: "Armed gays don't get bashed." What's incorrect about those conclusions, and why is expressing them inflammatory?
"If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex
28% think gay marriage is important to their vote? What a crock of crappola ... "back up the trucks boys ! We got another load of s**t to dispose of !"
Do keep in mind that the PRK put it to a vote and banned gay marriage. The bay area, in particular SF, is extremely mature sexually, but that doesn't apply to the rest of the "state."
Live Free or Die
Well, when they, the cops, start hassling gay couples who happen to be married like the OCer get hassled, then gay folks will know what it is like to be oppressed by the state.
i want to start my post by saying i want government out of the marriage business.
now, i am also against gay marriage, its wrong, its immoral and just plane weird.
but if the pro-gay marriage crowd what to be consistant and have a shred of credibility in their argument, they have to be for
polygamy and incest marriage. if you have the "right" to marry the same gender, surely you have the right to marry multiple people of the same gender,
you have the right to marry your brothers, sisters, heck even your mom and dad. or even all of them at the same time.
i will even extend it to you should be able to marry minors. who are you to say that 14 year old cant marry a 60 year old. if they consent, why not.
we currently have a very arbitrary age of 18. but why 18, can people not make the decision to get married at 17, or 16, 15, 14, etc.
people have sex before 18 all the time, get pregnant too, should we throw them all in jail? but they cant get married.
Government should stay out of the business of marriage, all of it. That means who marries who, or how many. Separation of church and state, and all that jazz.
Replace "gay marriage, gun rights" with "civil rights"
"Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting twice." -Zeus
"Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" - Malcolm Reynolds
EDC = Walther PPQ 9mm
the bolded appears no where in the constitution
You missed the part about freedom of religion?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Nor does typing as a form of speech, but we can read the words of the first amendment and understand them in the context of how they are meant to function. Considering the very men who wrote or were contemporaries of the constitution writers described the first amendment as establishing a wall of separation between church and state, is it really that much of a stretch to mention that?
"If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex
You know I never thought we would agree on anything.
this is what the amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
yeah nothing about separation of church and state. it clearly mean they cant make a law promoting a religion. like they cant pass a law saying everyone has to be baptist or you go to jail.
you do realize they used to hold church services in congress right?
and im sure you are invoking Thomas jefferson's letter mentioning a "wall of separation". well first of all, seeing as letters written by people who didnt write the constitution, has never been considered considered law, let alone constitutional law, it really has no bearing on public policy. 2nd that very man, thomas jefferson often lead congress in church and prayer inside of the congress building. so much for separation of church and state. you cant get much more conjoined than that.
the intent of the amendment was never to meant to eliminate religion from the public sphere.
Last edited by osmanobma; 08-07-2012 at 10:44 PM.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
You seem to have missed the bold part of the First Admendment...
+ 1
+1
A 14 year old is a minor, minors can not legally give consent. To make marriage of minors legal, you're going to have to change a lot of laws and the basic framework of our legal system regarding them.
As for incest and polygamy, absolutely should be legal. I support gay marriage as well. Why project your own religious beliefs on to other people? Makes you no different than the Brady Bunch.
This.Replace "gay marriage, gun rights" with "civil rights"
And the separation of church and state does not eliminate religion from the public sphere. It simply makes it so that no religion is granted preferential treatment over another.
I'm not only invoking Jefferson, but Madison as well (you know, the "father of the constitution"?). He specifically mentions that the constitution and our form of government has benefited, as has the church, from "the total separation of the church from the state." You may [url=http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm]read many more of his quotes[/quote], but don't play the game of "they didn't mean what they clearly meant and said they meant."
"If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex
The manner/tone in which you express it is inflammatory. Especially that last sentence (but just the overall thing and how you make homosexuals out to be such victims). Also the "incorrect conclusion" is that you are implying that the right to self-defense and marriage equality are coming together because they are hand-in-hand (or at least the RKBA goes with homosexuality, not nessesarily the other way around). There are plenty of people for marriage equality that are for gun control. Likewise there are plenty of people for less gun control that are against marriage equality. The two things are NOT mutually inclusive as you imply; even if there are a growing number of people for both things.
Posting Permissions
