Let's Revoke The Rights and Protections Awarded to Heterosexual Married Couples

Originally posted by freemarketsocialist

Old Man Waterfall: That's right, I'm a polygamist. Yet I would gladly eat a flag myself, had I not used my intestine as a rope to hoist a flag made of my own skin, if it would protect the freedoms of the proud people who salute that flag. Freedom such as polygamy.

Crowd: Boo!

Judge: Also, in a rare double whammy decision, the court finds polygamy constitutional.

Crowd: Boo!

Old Man Waterfall: I can't wait to tell my husband!

Crowd: BOOO!!!

Old Man Waterfall: I request a Satanic funeral! Crowd: BOOO!!!

theinfosphere.org...

Do the rights of polygamist count?

What about a satanist?

Go Misoir

Yes and yes.

I see no reason why polygamy can't be legal. The only barrier I see to marriage is consent.

As long as two people can consent to the contract, who is the state to tel them otherwise?

As for satanist funderal...As long as that doesn't involve anything where somebody gets hurt ( I doub it does), or there's consent again..I see no problem.

People should not have to ASK for permission to do things that do not effect others.

~Tenth

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Praetorius

 

but I don't think government should be involved with it one way or another.

But the government is involved, the federal government awards marriage between a man and woman with Rights and Privileges that no one else has. Either that needs to stop or it needs to include any two adults that wish to tie their lives together in such a way. You sort of sidestepped the point of the thread.

No, actually I pretty much agreed with the question you posted in the bit I quoted from you there

I don't think anyone should need to ask the government's position, so I'm fine with your original post in taking away the marriage rights of heterosexuals as well - just get government out of the damned thing already, dear.

Take care.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Because the Federal Government has no business creating legal contracts between anybody but itself and the state.

Well that is how things stand today. EQUAL as things stand right now.

Things would operate much smoother if the states were left to make their own decisions, as was the intent

And when were states given these state rights? 100's of years ago when there were how many states - - and a lot less people.

We'd still have slavery if left to states making all their own decisions.

State rights of citizens was purely for discriminatory purposes. They were given marriage rights - - purely to keep undesirables out of their community.

reply to post by ConspiracyBuff


Excuse you. Marriage is not a religious institution and certainly not a Christian institution. Marriage has existed almost as long as we have, it is a legal contract... one which began rather misogynist (my daughter for your land etc...). Different religions around the world adopted marriage into their beliefs that does not mean they own it, no one does.

ETA and also as I said in my OP if this nation is going to insist that marriage is in fact a religious institution than my title is extremely justified as the federal government is very specifically bound to not make any laws respecting religion therefor has zero business granting a damn thing to married couples. In fact that very blatantly violates the US Constitution.

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
reply to post by tamusan

 

I'm not against gay marriage what so ever, I'm just sick of people acting like there on some moral high ground fighting for peoples rights to love each other, when in truth it's all about money and kick backs.

Its about Equality.

Everyone - - getting that money and kick backs.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

So what if I favor discrimination? Is discrimination on the same playing field as murder now? All society is based upon discrimination as is all our choices. It is to what extant and who/what we choose to collectively discriminate against that makes the difference.

Discrimination is a broad terminology that can be applied in positive or negative constructs.

However, specifically in reference to the conversational topic at hand, discrimination is a result of prejudice or frustration.

Here is the truth about history for you:

For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

Marriage license wiki

Marriage is entirely religious, and government has no place involved in forming joint contracts or regulating the practices thereof.

In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license. The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism, however it is rare for the licensing process to be used in this manner today.

Used entirely by the government to prevent mixed racial marriages, and used today to discriminate against and prevent same sex marriages or what have you. There are even a few cases of racial discrimination that pop up every year, albeit rare.

The "mid-19th century", this infers in relation to the USA, the Civil War.
Now why would they create this system of religious, racial, etc, discrimination right after the Civil War occurred? Could it be yet another methodology of suppression/oppression?

reply to post by Kali74


OK but then we get to legalize automatics and silencers for organized shooting sports.

Which is just as likely to happen.

reply to post by watchesfromwall

Unfortunately, this plan of revocation, if implemented, will take the U.S. (if that is where you're from) down a path of severe negative social and economic consequences as almost the bulk of children reside with heterosexual married/divorced couples. In many other instances, we see the problems faced by kids in unmarried single homes.

Some (many) children have been neglected, since the dawn of time, and religious marriage has only had a limited effect to change this.

I don't need religion or the government to tell me that I have to take care of my children and woman. I do it because I know it is the right thing to do.

My wife knows I love her. She doesn't need marriage to prove this. The proof was shown by how I feed, clothe and shelter her, by my own free will.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
reply to post by tamusan

 

I'm not against gay marriage what so ever, I'm just sick of people acting like there on some moral high ground fighting for peoples rights to love each other, when in truth it's all about money and kick backs.

Its about Equality.

Everyone - - getting that money and kick backs.

You are discriminating against people who don't make much money.

Also you are discriminating against single parents as they would not get those kick backs.
Plus consider that married couples with no kids would be getting the kick backs that the single parent should be getting.

So no you cannot make equality by licensing and regulating human rights, because that leads to one single conclusion - discrimination and oppression.

Marriage licensing must be abolished entirely if we are serious about equal protections for human rights.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Misoir

 

This is true from a civil standpoint, but entirely false from a legal one.

Even the Founders of the United States could comprehend what I am saying and understand it as true. They had instituted legal discrimination against many people because they knew for a society to function there must be particular people treated as equals and others not so. For them it was White Christian men; women, racial and ethnic minorities, and certain religious minorities were not afforded the same rights they established for this country. People look back on them, seeing them either as bigots who failed to achieve the utopia or as a group of men who did great things for progress but failed on others.

Sorry, but I do. Nothing is more important than having EQUAL treatment of individuals under the law. That's kind why we created republics, so that TYRANTS like kings and queens could not make themselves above the law.

What you are suggesting is feudalism.

Obedience, is more important than fairness under the law? That's quite the perspective you have there.

Kings and Queens were not generally tyrants; that is a republican myth like the Queen of France saying, "let them eat cake". Any helpless fool will believe it, which is good for the republicans because they need those helpless fools to remain helpless fools. A King or Queen could not overstep their traditionally established boundaries first because the lands were owned by the Lords and at any time the Lord could ally himself with another Kingdom. A King would not threaten private property because that was the foundation of his entire regime. Laws applied differently to different people and rightfully so; a Lord had more to lose than a peasant so the word of a peasant against the Lord needs more proof than the reverse. I could go on and on but I will not.

Where is it stated that we 'must' supress certani elements of people? Who is this higher good you speak of? What determines what is considered high good? Are you going to throw a religious argument at me?

IF you are, then, well you will fail to win this debate, because your argument is religious and emotional, therefore un-rational and moot.

So only science can be reasonable; what one smells, touches, sees, tastes, etc...? That is an absurdity in itself; science alone cannot judge the philosophical issues to either prove or disprove them. If science can do so, then philosophy (and by extension theology) can logically assess scientific questions to proof or disprove them. Philosophy cannot prove/disprove inquiry into natural sciences just as science cannot prove/disprove inquiry into philosophical/theological subjects. This is not irrational it is the foundation of all rational concepts.

My argument is that of fairness under the law. Which is actually the MOST important value ANY society can have. It's actually the founding idea for The United States and any other republic/democracy on the planet worth calling itself a nation.

Taking moral high ground in order to deny some, what others have is nonsense. This concept is only applicate to things that are actually harmful to society, like murder or rape.

Same sex marriage has absolutely 0 effect upon anybody, except for those who choose to make it an issue within themselves.

~Tenth

First of all I disagree with your main argument; obviously. Second, taking moral high ground to deny others particular things is not nonsense, it is the foundation of every stable, working society that is properly ordered, not towards the precepts of the French Revolution, but towards the higher good. All nations are founded upon a particular culture and each culture which stems from the Latin word for cult which meant religion. Culture derives from a religion and a nation from a culture. Brought to its logical conclusion all nations have, by default, an official religion. We have one even now in America and it is called Atheistic-Utilitarianism.

Same-sex marriage does have an effect upon everyone. For one it expands the definition of marriage, thus altering our understanding of the word and thus changing our language. Second it solidifies the acceptance of sodomite lifestyles as equal to that of heterosexuals, which are not equal; sodomy is unnatural and immoral - period. And third it allows for the legal right of sodomites to raise children, which is to inflict the acknowledgement of perversion and degeneracy at a young age; forever corrupting innocent people who should not even be exposed to such concepts.

By the end of this post you should probably strongly dislike me, be calling me a bigot, and other similar things. Do not bother responding to this post because I am not going to respond to yours. I have said what needed to be said and am done with the debate.

reply to post by tamusan


I don't see anyone being maliciously discriminated against. They don't meet the current criteria so they aren't eligible, plain and simple to a reasonable adult with a non biased non entitled mind.

reply to post by Kali74




Until the current generation of retards fall off their perches and brighter forward thinking people take their place, i think you may not see same sex marriages.
But it will happen, and it is very hard to remove peoples rights once they have them, removing the rights to marry from hetrosexual couples just seems to be a little spiteful.
Just because the government spites you with their actions, you shouldn't want to encroach on other peoples happiness (if they have it).

reply to post by Annee

Well that is how things stand today. EQUAL as things stand right now.

So you would rather break something further, than fix it properly?

And when were states given these state rights? 100's of years ago when there were how many states - - and a lot less people.

We'd still have slavery if left to states making all their own decisions.

State rights of citizens was purely for discriminatory purposes. They were given marriage rights - - purely to keep undesirables out of their community.

IT doesn't matter when they were given states rights. The point is that the federal government should not have it's nose in your personal business. Ever. Unless you are violating the rights of others. And even then, the state government shoudl be the one to prosecute you.

The federal government should do essential services only. Period. I understand that you think we should just continue on this broken path of over reaching government, but we should not.

Gay marriage is not the problem it's a symptom of a disease, the disease is what we should treat, then the rest would sort itself out.

And mind you in all honesty, same sex marriage is a relatively small issue in comparison to the rest of the countrie's problems.

~Tenth

or there's consent again..I see no problem. People should not have to ASK for permission to do things that do not effect others.

You require consent?
People should not have to ask for permission?
hmm

Originally posted by freemarketsocialist

Do the rights of a polygamist count?

What about a satanist?

Of course they do.

The system is set up to handle a 2 person marriage - - - gender makes no difference at all.

Polygamy marriage would require some significant change in the system. So that is a bit more complicated.

Polygamy should never have been outlawed - - under religious freedom. But who was the major force in American politics at the time Utah became a state? Christians. Christians forced their will and belief of "one man - one woman" on Mormons. Just like they are trying to do today to LGBT.

reply to post by freemarketsocialist


Consent between two parties and asking a government for permission to do something are two very different things.

But you can argue semantics all you want.

I was actually agreeing with you, so your reply is a bit puzzling.

~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

It doesn't matter when they were given states rights.

Absolutely it matters and why states were given marriage rights.

It's stupid - - archaic and outdated - - and does not fit today's world.

Exactly the same as denying blacks and women Equal Rights.

Gay marriage is not the problem it's a symptom of a disease, the disease is what we should treat, then the rest would sort itself out.

NO - - the problem is EQUALITY. Once EVERYONE has equality - - - then go for it. But not until.

reply to post by ConspiracyBuff and Others

I hope you don't mind my using your post as an example, it points out two issues that I think are important.

Obviously you are aware that a ‘marriage’ is a religious institution (first line). Yet, you wish to ban something because it is unavailable to people who decide to live their lives outside this belief system. . . . however the Constitution does not guarantee anyone’s right to any religious sacrament; as this is why we have a separation of ‘church and state’.

Why, now that we have the terms "civil union" and others, do we still use "gay marriage?" Is it laziness, or an attempt to mislead? You call marriage a religious institution, but you seem to think that some want to "ban" something from those who are outside the belief system. If it's, say, part of the Presbyterian belief system, and you don't believe in Presbyterianism, why shouldn't they keep you from their ceremonies? Each church decides it's own policies on marriage, nobody is trying to dictate policy to the churches. Can we agree that we'll use the term "marriage" to mean the religious ceremony?

What do you mean when you say the Constitution does not guarantee anyone's right to any religious sacrament? For what other reason does the "Free Exercise" clause exist?

The LBGTQ community deserves the same legal and financial rights as every other citizen –

Financial rights? "Rights??" What rights could we possibly be talking about? They don't exist. The government grants benefits and subsidies at it's whim. It gives financial benefits to bus riders, that it doesn't give to autos or trucks, because they want to encourage bus ridership. The government gives financial incentives to electric cars which they don't give to gas cars, because they want to increase electric car purchases. They put extra taxes on cigarettes with the desire to discourage smoking. None of these are rights.

At some point, and you may condemn the decision from now until whenever your universe ends, the government decided to give financial benefits to married couples. The purpose, not surprisingly, was to help support and encourage marriage as it was known at the time. Marriage was seen as a benefit to the country, a good thing. A gay couple was seen as different from a straight couple, so the decision was made to treat them differently.

Gays can say that they should get more benefits, but I can't see that it's a question of "rights." Gays should be able to show that civil unions should be encouraged and supported by the government because the benefit to the country of civil unions is the same, or similar, to the benefits of marriage.

reply to post by Annee


Annie, your argument isn't logical.

The state of the economy, foreign affairs, wealth enequality, education..etc..

Are all FAR more important topics than gay marriage. Don't try and argue they aren't.

Those problems, which were created by our need to have overreaching government and bureaucracy should be solved first, because then the other issues liek the government being in your bedroom, would disspear.

~Tenth

Typical hate speak..."if I cannot have my way, I'll destroy it all"....nice.

I think folks should marry whoever they want. if you want to marry your f'ing mailbox...I could personally care less. But to seek to tear down something is childish, irresponsible and arrogant. The system is changing...there are more "like me" than the others....I really and truly do not care...you should be able to marry any sentient being able and willing to agree....it's that simple.

Tearing down the establishment because it does not suit you is stupid and moronic....then everyone loses...is that the plan?..."I cannot have my way so I will ruin it for everyone".?...sounds pretty arrogant and plain stupid to me...