Republican hypocrisy driving people from the party

You should really listen to WHY people want to allow gays to get married. It's not because they are angry at nothing and have decided to attack an issue for no reason.

 

Now that is disingenuous. I'm talking about the same rights that people like you say that gays deserve. Those rights. Give them to everyone or take them away from everyone.

Of course, that is not the business of government. The business of government is to encourage people to throw money at the politicians so that they can get exemptions and special perks. Gays have thrown enough money at them to earn the right of a special perk that marriage brings.

 

Just a thought. Could it be one of the people fighting gay marriages are insurance companies and corps.? That the insurance cost would be higher to cover more spouses. Hate to say it but aids isn't a cheap medical treatment. Corporations would also have to cover spouses. Money out their pockets. I could be wrong. Again just a thought.

 

No thanks.
I won't be hanging around this place for the next 30 or 40 years checking on you.
You're on your own.

 

Notice I challenged you to quote where I said any of this. I have the ability to speak for myself and compose my own debate when the topic is about marriage. This thread is not, so please stay on topic and stop trying to speak for me or suppose an argument I have not made.

 

You should really listen to my argument.

 

Maybe you should take a look at what you wrote and get back to me, because I'm addressing what you wrote.

 

Thank you Republican house. They are the only reason anything you say is remotely true. And the deficit was shrining faster when the Republicans held the house and senate under Clinton.

 

Hardly. I'm just asking people to be consistent in their arguments.

I agree completely. I hasten to add I have yet to hear a single compelling argument demonstrating how state marriage constitutes the protection you correctly reference above.

Agree again. In a nation of free men, the government can only fulfill one role: defender of individual liberty.

Again we agree and I hasten to add this forms the basis of my argument for the total extrication of government from the institution of marriage. AND BASEBALL FFS!!!!!!

Can you clarify this statement, please? Not sure what you're saying here exactly and specifically how it relates to the institution of marriage.

 

But why should government "give its blessing" to a certain kind of interpersonal relationship among consenting adults and not other kinds? In a nation of free men, what purpose does that serve other than social engineering? Why don't we just get rid of state marriage altogether and let the people decide for themselves? Why provide benefits and certain legal protections (in violation of Amendment 14 consequently) only for those who chose the "majority-accepted" arrangement? How does that advance the cause of freedom and defend liberty?

 

Why not just let consenting adults make their own contracts then? Why this special legal binding contract with stipulations exceeding the government's constitutionally-limited role of simply defending liberty? The whole state marriage apparatus is nothing but warmed-over nanny statism in my view at best, and social engineering at worst... and illegally-applied in its current form in 37 states.

 

You are confusing matrimony with paternity. The two are entirely separate issues. The only intersection being the presumption of paternity that accompanies a child born in wedlock.

 

It wasn't really an argument. Just a rant about nothing.

 

Long time no see, Uni... Happy New Year.

You know, some of us just see the issue as a matter of simple legal parity. As you know, my preferred solution is to simply abolish state marriage, but since most of us are addicted to the nanny state and that is unlikely, I think Amendment 14 is pretty clear concerning equal protection of the laws. Some see government as a tool to shape society in a manner that pleases them. Others, such as my self, would rather the government nanny just mind her own damn business.

YMMV.

 

No, it was Newt. His third wife, if I'm correct? Class act, that Newt. Family values and personal responsibility? Yeah right.

 

What are you talking about, montra?

- - - Updated - - -

So be it.

 

No, nor is the government supposed to be the church. For the government to dictate who gets a tax break (for instance) based on their sexual orientation is wrong.

There is only one (thin) argument I have ever heard for government to give a whit who gets married; that population growth is desirable. Government needs new taxpayers and gay people don't procreate. Pretty thin argument, if you ask me.

 

Exactly, do away with all moral legislating, not just the economic sort.

 

Sorry it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. And frankly if you were all that concerned about taxes you's stay single.

 

Yes, it would in fact be fairer to everyone, not just singles.

Any two consenting adults can enter into a contract. Walk out not pay child support? You're in breach of contract (if your contract has a provision for child support) and you can be sued to recover it. Kick me out because the house is in your name? I don't think so, my contract says I have a right to stay here.

In my opinion, government should have no say in who can enter into contracts as long as they are consenting adults. Let the churches figure out the 'god' part, but it has no place in fair government. If gay folks want to try to use government to force churches to perform religious ceremonies for them, then I'll have a problem with that.

 

Not just taxes, was just one example. Intestate succession for instance, and hundreds of other laws, benefits, and perks that married people get from the government. I don't think gay people are overly concerned about going to hell, but they do want the same treatment under the law, and access to the same perks and provisions. The law should treat everyone equally. I don't have a pink poodle in this fight, I just don't think you can/should try to legislate morality, particularly when it is discriminatory against taxpaying productive citizens.

 

All laws are ultimately an attempt to enforce some sort of moral code. for most of human history the stranger was at the all but not existent mercy of the alien tribe.

 

Except that the very wealthy do not have to follow said laws, ....and morality? ROFL No profit in that so, moot point.

 

Because as I just explained, you can already get 6 gals to move in with you, but some people want a real, license certificate, courthouse approved, marriage. You apparently want that option taken away from them. Why can't you just leave them alone? Why do you feel the need to interfere in other people's lives?

 

That is your opinion however it seems that you have chosen not to comment upon the deaths in the 100's of Millions that have occurred due to Social Intolerance, Conservative Religious Bigotry and Zealot based Ideology as well as you have not commented upon the FACT that your statement that 50+million unborn children slaughtered has been deemed by U.S. FEDERAL AND STATE LAW as not the death of a Human Child as well it is PERFECTLY LEGAL and will ALWAYS remain so.

AboveAlpha