[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="LOXO7"]Boom. I hit the wall. Only thing I can do here is spray graffiti on it. [QUOTE="Rich3232"] sorry to say, but rights and privileges are one and the same in this nation. Don't believe me? Go and ask the Japanese Americans if they had "rights" during WW2. Why do you apologize? Do you believe they are or don't believe nothing can be done about it? You can conceptualize rights all you want, but unless you have a majority/powerful minority backing up those "rights" , than they're not "rights" The only environment where you have true freedom/rights is in an anarchy. A republic is government ruled by law. Lets make this law to guarantee our freedom. Anarchy is freedom by democracy. You have to be in the majority to have freedom. You have no rights in anarchy if you are in the minority.
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"] The Libertarian "government is bad, taxation is theft," shtick is starting to get real old. How about reading the Constitution? What the Constitution does not say is not the law. Congress has the power to collect taxes to pay for three things, pay debt, common defense, and general welfare. Anything besides these three things it is not the law. Interesting, please tell me how the decisions of the Warren Court are unconstitutional. Government deciding what is law? That's a laugh. That government is called monarchy or oligarchy. Not republic or government by law.
[QUOTE="MrPraline"] because the government holds a monopoly on it. either keep government out of all of it (preferable), or allow gays to have the same legal rights and tax benefits that come with it.mattbbpl
The only thing government holds is our balls in a vise. Everyone pays taxes because everyone is afraid of the government. You get a marriage license to fit in. Thank you government. The privileges from this tit you have provided me with tastes much better than my rights. The Libertarian "government is bad, taxation is theft," shtick is starting to get real old. How about reading the Constitution? What the Constitution does not say is not the law. Congress has the power to collect taxes to pay for three things, pay debt, common defense, and general welfare. Anything besides these three things it is not the law.
[QUOTE="MrPraline"] As I said, I would prefer there is no government sponsored marriage at all. I'm on our side in that. But surely you can understand why, while there is still state sponsored "marriage", I would rather have marriage for gay couples rather than not?Abbeten
Submission? Freedom is hard. It's not for everyone as it requires self responsibility. so uh true freedom in this case is just legally banning gays from marrying? How is it freedom if government uses law to give freedom?
Boom. I hit the wall. Only thing I can do here is spray graffiti on it. [QUOTE="Rich3232"] sorry to say, but rights and privileges are one and the same in this nation. Don't believe me? Go and ask the Japanese Americans if they had "rights" during WW2. Why do you apologize? Do you believe they are or don't believe nothing can be done about it?
Tell me the first marriage license issued by the state.
That doesn't mean government owns their property, that means government sets standards in case of disputes, mediates according to those standards in disputes, and enforces its decisions. It's a mediating power between two property owners, not a third property owner. Like I said, actually learn a little about liberalism before you go trying to hit people over the head with your bastardized version of it.
The first marriage licenses were for interracial marriages. Interesting? I think so. Blacks had the privilege to marry that many cheer for today. The first gun license were for blacks. "Amazing! I want these privileges." Gay's want these privileges. Anyone that doesn't not want government troubles want these privileges. "Hey, that man is wearing a gps chip! I want that privilege. Hey, that man is wearing a ball and chain. I want that privilege." Just because government grants privileges it doesn't make those privileges good. And whatever the government grants it can never be as good as a right. The right to do and own anything is a lot better than what the government says I can do or own. Government is partial owner of your marriage and anything that comes from it, like children. Control of the children.
Tell me the first marriage license issued by the state.
That doesn't mean government owns their property, that means government sets standards in case of disputes, mediates according to those standards in disputes, and enforces its decisions. It's a mediating power between two property owners, not a third property owner. Like I said, actually learn a little about liberalism before you go trying to hit people over the head with your bastardized version of it.
Does this mean you don't know the origin of the first marriage license in the USA?
Because even without government issuing marriage licenses marriage still bleeds over into the legal. Marriage concerns joint property ownership, fiscal responsibility for raising children and providing for spouses, ability to adopt children, ability to have legal responsibilities in medical matters and in case of emergency, and other legal issues. If government didn't issue marriage licenses then it could turn into a clusterf*ck of people dubiously claiming marriage and money owed, and there's no way to disconfirm that claim because government is no longer in the business of authorizing people to conduct legitimate marriages and recording who is authorized and whom they conducted marriages for. This whole "government shouldn't be involved at all" claim is so stupid it's not even funny. honestly, I think it's mostly just biggots who finally realized they couldn't argue against government discrimination and then fell back on this argument so they could effectively discriminate as private citizens.
theone86
Joint property ownership of three parties, partner one, partner two, and the government.
Your stupid is showing.
Tell me the first marriage license issued by the state.
[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="MrPraline"] you are right, and we do not disagree. all i'm saying is that as long as there's government sponsored marriage, i'd like homosexuals to have the same ability to marry. ideally the state has nothing to do with marriage of course.MrPraline
I don't like that. Gays have a struggle against government. I would like to use this struggle to shine light on other struggles. Government is not the answer. It's the problem. How sick is it that we think we need the government to force everyone to be equal? Very sick. I don't wish anyone to have a government burden. As I said, I would prefer there is no government sponsored marriage at all. I'm on our side in that. But surely you can understand why, while there is still state sponsored "marriage", I would rather have marriage for gay couples rather than not? Submission? Freedom is hard. It's not for everyone as it requires self responsibility.
Log in to comment