Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MaineShark]

Then, you cant exclude it from anybody. Period. And however one wants to define marriage must have access to this so-called state privilege. So if a 50 year old wants to marry a 13 yr old, they cant be denied. If a father wants to marry his daughter, ditto.

Repeat after me: "consenting adults."

If you want 20 wives or husbands...

Why not?  I wouldn't mind having 20 wives...

And on and on. Im sure there are some wackojobs out there that would wanna extend this 'privilege' to marrying animals too, beastiality is quite the popular hobby.

Good for them.  Does it harm me, if they do so?

Getting the State out of marriage is the only solution. Giving them MORE power, no matter how 'fair' it might seem on the surface, is never a good thing. It only creates more problems down the road.

The only way to get the State out of marriage is to eliminate the special privilege that heterosexual couples have.  So long as they have a special privilege that no one else can get, most of them will fight tooth-and-nail to keep it all for themselves.  No one should have "special rights," be that heterosexuals who get to marry, to the exclusion of all others, or minorities who are protected by "hate crime" laws.  Every person has the same rights as every other person, and the government needs to recognize that.  When no one gets special benefits that others can't have, then we can actually  get the State out of marriage and other things.

Joe

[Andvari]

Then, you cant exclude it from anybody. Period. And however one wants to define marriage must have access to this so-called state privilege. So if a 50 year old wants to marry a 13 yr old, they cant be denied. If a father wants to marry his daughter, ditto.

Repeat after me: "consenting adults."

If you want 20 wives or husbands...

Why not?  I wouldn't mind having 20 wives...

And on and on. Im sure there are some wackojobs out there that would wanna extend this 'privilege' to marrying animals too, beastiality is quite the popular hobby.

Good for them.  Does it harm me, if they do so?

Getting the State out of marriage is the only solution. Giving them MORE power, no matter how 'fair' it might seem on the surface, is never a good thing. It only creates more problems down the road.

The only way to get the State out of marriage is to eliminate the special privilege that heterosexual couples have.  So long as they have a special privilege that no one else can get, most of them will fight tooth-and-nail to keep it all for themselves.  No one should have "special rights," be that heterosexuals who get to marry, to the exclusion of all others, or minorities who are protected by "hate crime" laws.  Every person has the same rights as every other person, and the government needs to recognize that.  When no one gets special benefits that others can't have, then we can actually  get the State out of marriage and other things.

Joe

This is the same flawed and inconsistent stance the anarcho-communists take.....temporarily increase the scope and power of the State in the name of 'fairness' until we get our eutopian society. Since the State is already involved with A, B and C....lets manipulate it to do D, E and F. Those are all excuses to pursue your flavor of Statism. I take a much more black and white stance, either you are with or against it.

Sorry-- but being pro State sanctioned gay marriage is NOT the libertarian view, despite what these hypocrites might say.

[MaineShark]

This is the same flawed and inconsistent stance the anarcho-communists take.....temporarily increase the scope and power of the State in the name of 'fairness' until we get our eutopian society. Since the State is already involved with A, B and C....lets manipulate it to do D, E and F. Those are all excuses to pursue your flavor of Statism. I take a much more black and white stance, either you are with or against it.

Sorry-- but being pro State sanctioned gay marriage is NOT the libertarian view, despite what these hypocrites might say.

Um, no.  The power of the State is its ability to prohibit things.  If the State prohibits gay marriage, ending that prohibition is a reduction in the power of the State.

Check your math, before posting supposed "proofs" of your position.

Joe

[ONLYWAY]

Yes it is ironic that the guy who started this thread by whinning and tattling on his EX-friend for being a "bigot" is the same guy calling for me to be banned becuase I think homosexuality is a disgusting, evil act that God spoke very clearly on in His Word.

You have yet to give a definition of what a bigot is, although it is retty easy to see what you think.  anyone who doesnt agree with you is a bigot.

It's refreshing to see the irony of this discussion is not lost on most.

Whether it's over their nature or their behavior which harms no one, a segment of society is being insulted, disrespected, and condescended to, some are even openly advocating discrimination by governments, a few people are trying to make the question about whether saying that's intolerant is actually intolerant.   That's the question?  Srsly? 

[ONLYWAY]

wrong!  the state grants marriage licenses - which when u get you place yourself under the contract of the state.  THE STATE NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF ALL MARRIAGES...and whatever the homosexuals want to call what they have going.

This is the same flawed and inconsistent stance the anarcho-communists take.....temporarily increase the scope and power of the State in the name of 'fairness' until we get our eutopian society. Since the State is already involved with A, B and C....lets manipulate it to do D, E and F. Those are all excuses to pursue your flavor of Statism. I take a much more black and white stance, either you are with or against it.

Sorry-- but being pro State sanctioned gay marriage is NOT the libertarian view, despite what these hypocrites might say.

Um, no.  The power of the State is its ability to prohibit things.  If the State prohibits gay marriage, ending that prohibition is a reduction in the power of the State.

Check your math, before posting supposed "proofs" of your position.

Joe

[ONLYWAY]

That doesnt make any sense.  AND how does that apply to the how the term is used by the moderators and rules and regs for this site? 

Bigotry would only apply to discrimination of State privilege.

Bigotry:
Synonyms
1.  narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

I would guess if you oppose it for some, but support it for others... it would.

[MaineShark]

wrong!  the state grants marriage licenses - which when u get you place yourself under the contract of the state.  THE STATE NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF ALL MARRIAGES...and whatever the homosexuals want to call what they have going.

The State does need to stay out of marriage.  That's why my wife and I never got any sort of license from the State.

But, as long as they are involved, they need to be as indiscriminate as possible.  When any one group gets special benefits, that group will fight to defend those benefits.  Allowing homosexuals to get marriages has diluted the special benefits that heterosexuals only used to have.

Lo and behold, folks who used to defend State marriage, have started coming over to the idea of getting the State out of marriage.  In NH, it's approaching a certainty that we can get the State out of marriage, within the next five years.  Before gay marriage passed, there was no chance at all of getting the State out of marriage.

You can argue all the hypothetical theory that you want to, but here in NH, we're doing it, and it works.

Joe

[rossby]

Consenting adults¹ <shrug>.

¹For reasonable definitions of consent and adult.

i like this comment.

Reminds me of an article I wanted to write once that was just an interpretation of the first amendment.

"Congress¹ shall make no law² respecting³ an establishment⁴ of religion⁵, or prohibiting⁶ the free exercise⁷ thereof; or abridging⁸ the freedom of speech⁹, or of the press¹⁰; or the right¹¹ of the people peaceably¹² to assemble¹³, and to petition¹⁴ the Government for a redress of grievances¹⁵."


¹ Or any part of the several states.
² Or, if a state, a decree or order.
³ Except for faith-based grants of taxpayer money.
⁴ Unless for tax, social security, or healthcare purposes.
⁵ And determined to be a valid religion.
⁶ Except when prohibited.
⁷ Except when exercise is illegal.
⁸ But restricting, regulating, and controlling are fine, especially when those non-abridgements only concern the time, place, and manner of the speech.
⁹ But only if we like the speech.
¹⁰ Except when it will expose government corruption, waste, and buffoonery.
¹¹ Subject to obtaining a valid permit and paying a fee.
¹² Unless they may have guns.
¹³ May be limited to "free-speech zones".
¹⁴ Elect federal politicians.
¹⁵ The above 14 points of bullshit.

[ONLYWAY]

It is really great that you and your wife chose to keep the state out of your marriage...not many people get that. 

It is not hypothetical theory...It is simple scripture.  The Bible clearly teaches that the 2 marriages God seals is the marriage of the Church with Christ and the marriage of a woman and a man.  When you have the state involved in the process you have replaced God wth the state.  ANY churich that gets a 501c3 is wrong!   They have made the state their lord.  I have several articles on the unregisterd churches on my site if yoiu are interested.

I hope NH does get the state out of marriage!

wrong!  the state grants marriage licenses - which when u get you place yourself under the contract of the state.  THE STATE NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF ALL MARRIAGES...and whatever the homosexuals want to call what they have going.

The State does need to stay out of marriage.  That's why my wife and I never got any sort of license from the State.

But, as long as they are involved, they need to be as indiscriminate as possible.  When any one group gets special benefits, that group will fight to defend those benefits.  Allowing homosexuals to get marriages has diluted the special benefits that heterosexuals only used to have.

Lo and behold, folks who used to defend State marriage, have started coming over to the idea of getting the State out of marriage.  In NH, it's approaching a certainty that we can get the State out of marriage, within the next five years.  Before gay marriage passed, there was no chance at all of getting the State out of marriage.

You can argue all the hypothetical theory that you want to, but here in NH, we're doing it, and it works.

Joe

[ONLYWAY]

Why don't you grace us with your definition of "bigot"...it should sure would be nice to see an actual definition written into the rules and regs here.

Consenting adults¹ <shrug>.

¹For reasonable definitions of consent and adult.

i like this comment.

Reminds me of an article I wanted to write once that was just an interpretation of the first amendment.

"Congress¹ shall make no law² respecting³ an establishment⁴ of religion⁵, or prohibiting⁶ the free exercise⁷ thereof; or abridging⁸ the freedom of speech⁹, or of the press¹⁰; or the right¹¹ of the people peaceably¹² to assemble¹³, and to petition¹⁴ the Government for a redress of grievances¹⁵."


¹ Or any part of the several states.
² Or, if a state, a decree or order.
³ Except for faith-based grants of taxpayer money.
⁴ Unless for tax, social security, or healthcare purposes.
⁵ And determined to be a valid religion.
⁶ Except when prohibited.
⁷ Except when exercise is illegal.
⁸ But restricting, regulating, and controlling are fine, especially when those non-abridgements only concern the time, place, and manner of the speech.
⁹ But only if we like the speech.
¹⁰ Except when it will expose government corruption, waste, and buffoonery.
¹¹ Subject to obtaining a valid permit and paying a fee.
¹² Unless they may have guns.
¹³ May be limited to "free-speech zones".
¹⁴ Elect federal politicians.
¹⁵ The above 14 points of bullshit.

[MaineShark]

It is really great that you and your wife chose to keep the state out of your marriage...not many people get that. 

It is not hypothetical theory...It is simple scripture.  The Bible clearly teaches that the 2 marriages God seals is the marriage of the Church with Christ and the marriage of a woman and a man.  When you have the state involved in the process you have replaced God wth the state.  ANY churich that gets a 501c3 is wrong!   They have made the state their lord.  I have several articles on the unregisterd churches on my site if yoiu are interested.

I hope NH does get the state out of marriage!

The methodology of achieving that is what is "hypothetical theory" to some, but practical reality to others.

Laws that would define marriage at "one man and one woman" will only help to keep the State involved in marriage.  Only by diluting the special privileges of certain groups, can we get those groups to consider ending the whole mess.  Previously, conservative Christian groups have been the strongest supporters of government marriage licensing.  Now that civil unions, and then gay marriage have passed in NH, some of those same groups are willing to come to the table and talk about getting the State out of the marriage business, altogether.

I'd like to at least get things to a proper common-law marriage situation, where you get married in whatever way you see fit, and then the most the government does is recognize the fact that you did so, if it comes up (inheritance, child custody, whatever).  There doesn't even have to be any sexual component - if two sisters who live together want to have community property and consider each other next of kin, that's fine by me - all the government should be concerned with, at most, is the contractual part, not the spiritual/emotional/sexual parts.  And their sole involvement in the contractual part should be recognizing that it exists, not granting permission, or condoning or opposing it.

Joe

[ONLYWAY]

exactly the govt loves to stack the cards so it is impossible to really win....it's like they give you a crossword puzzle but fill in a couple of wrong words and say here you go finsih the puzzle but dont change our words.  Stop playing their games and erase their words or better yet just throw the stupid thing away.

Then, you cant exclude it from anybody. Period. And however one wants to define marriage must have access to this so-called state privilege. So if a 50 year old wants to marry a 13 yr old, they cant be denied. If a father wants to marry his daughter, ditto.

Repeat after me: "consenting adults."

If you want 20 wives or husbands...

Why not?  I wouldn't mind having 20 wives...

And on and on. Im sure there are some wackojobs out there that would wanna extend this 'privilege' to marrying animals too, beastiality is quite the popular hobby.

Good for them.  Does it harm me, if they do so?

Getting the State out of marriage is the only solution. Giving them MORE power, no matter how 'fair' it might seem on the surface, is never a good thing. It only creates more problems down the road.

The only way to get the State out of marriage is to eliminate the special privilege that heterosexual couples have.  So long as they have a special privilege that no one else can get, most of them will fight tooth-and-nail to keep it all for themselves.  No one should have "special rights," be that heterosexuals who get to marry, to the exclusion of all others, or minorities who are protected by "hate crime" laws.  Every person has the same rights as every other person, and the government needs to recognize that.  When no one gets special benefits that others can't have, then we can actually  get the State out of marriage and other things.

Joe

This is the same flawed and inconsistent stance the anarcho-communists take.....temporarily increase the scope and power of the State in the name of 'fairness' until we get our eutopian society. Since the State is already involved with A, B and C....lets manipulate it to do D, E and F. Those are all excuses to pursue your flavor of Statism. I take a much more black and white stance, either you are with or against it.

Sorry-- but being pro State sanctioned gay marriage is NOT the libertarian view, despite what these hypocrites might say.

[rossby]

Why don't you grace us with your definition of "bigot"...it should sure would be nice to see an actual definition written into the rules and regs here.

Consenting adults¹ <shrug>.

¹For reasonable definitions of consent and adult.

i like this comment.

Reminds me of an article I wanted to write once that was just an interpretation of the first amendment.

"Congress¹ shall make no law² respecting³ an establishment⁴ of religion⁵, or prohibiting⁶ the free exercise⁷ thereof; or abridging⁸ the freedom of speech⁹, or of the press¹⁰; or the right¹¹ of the people peaceably¹² to assemble¹³, and to petition¹⁴ the Government for a redress of grievances¹⁵."

Since I've done that several times already, makes me think you're just trolling here. Measure your next post carefully.

[ONLYWAY]

I agree but you need to remember that most "christian types" would fall under the catholic or protestant headers...these groups think that "the church" (aka "their church") should be in charge of the govt and think that others should be forced to obey their specifics.

It is really great that you and your wife chose to keep the state out of your marriage...not many people get that. 

It is not hypothetical theory...It is simple scripture.  The Bible clearly teaches that the 2 marriages God seals is the marriage of the Church with Christ and the marriage of a woman and a man.  When you have the state involved in the process you have replaced God wth the state.  ANY churich that gets a 501c3 is wrong!   They have made the state their lord.  I have several articles on the unregisterd churches on my site if yoiu are interested.

I hope NH does get the state out of marriage!

The methodology of achieving that is what is "hypothetical theory" to some, but practical reality to others.

Laws that would define marriage at "one man and one woman" will only help to keep the State involved in marriage.  Only by diluting the special privileges of certain groups, can we get those groups to consider ending the whole mess.  Previously, conservative Christian groups have been the strongest supporters of government marriage licensing.  Now that civil unions, and then gay marriage have passed in NH, some of those same groups are willing to come to the table and talk about getting the State out of the marriage business, altogether.

I'd like to at least get things to a proper common-law marriage situation, where you get married in whatever way you see fit, and then the most the government does is recognize the fact that you did so, if it comes up (inheritance, child custody, whatever).  There doesn't even have to be any sexual component - if two sisters who live together want to have community property and consider each other next of kin, that's fine by me - all the government should be concerned with, at most, is the contractual part, not the spiritual/emotional/sexual parts.  And their sole involvement in the contractual part should be recognizing that it exists, not granting permission, or condoning or opposing it.

Joe

[ONLYWAY]

I have read every one of these posts in this entire thread so you can go ahaed and apologize fo ryour false accusation.  Maybe you could point to some of those definitions?  a link will do. 

"Measure my next post carefully" what exactly does that mean?  are you threatening me because i asked you for a hard definition of the word "bigot".  If it is used in the rules and regs there should be a definition...you are lawyer you should know that.

Why don't you grace us with your definition of "bigot"...it should sure would be nice to see an actual definition written into the rules and regs here.

Consenting adults¹ <shrug>.

¹For reasonable definitions of consent and adult.

i like this comment.

Reminds me of an article I wanted to write once that was just an interpretation of the first amendment.

"Congress¹ shall make no law² respecting³ an establishment⁴ of religion⁵, or prohibiting⁶ the free exercise⁷ thereof; or abridging⁸ the freedom of speech⁹, or of the press¹⁰; or the right¹¹ of the people peaceably¹² to assemble¹³, and to petition¹⁴ the Government for a redress of grievances¹⁵."

Since I've done that several times already, makes me think you're just trolling here. Measure your next post carefully.