MN Republicans to our community: Fuck off.

[thermodynamics]

I just don't get it.

Perhaps those of you who are smarter and more informed can enlighten me...

If we wanted to "protect" "traditional" marriage, why would we want to ban gay marriage? Wouldn't we want to ban divorces instead?

 

[palemale]

I don't know why the right-wingers are so opposed to gay marriage. I think it was Bill Maher who said, "if you want to stop gays from having sex, allow them to marry."

I agree with Donny, Republicans are loathsome, miserable, scum sucking pieces of shit.

 

[TheFireGod]

Surprise surprise, get ready for a hate filled campaign by that cesspit called NOM.

And yet, if you and a partner split, you won't have to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees like straights do, you'll have to just work it out amongst yourselves.

I say make it higher!!

All this bitchyness in the GOP about the 'sanctity' of marriage they put so high on the to-do list during this economy situation, and they never look at divorce instead.

High cost has been used as a way to discourage 'immoral' behaviors' like smoking, why not this? Might as well be this because the government has so much say on religious marriages.

 

[CowboyBob]

And yet, if you and a partner split, you won't have to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees like straights do, you'll have to just work it out amongst yourselves.

That is not a good reason to ban gays from marriage rights.

 

[BostonPirate]

so the gay conservative rationale for letting the GOP treat them bad as members is basically, who wants to get married anyway, its too complicated and divorce is too expensive.

Thats so sad for so many reasons.

 

[MoltenRock III]

I can completely understand a gay man or woman agreeing with republican policies on economics, foreign policy and the immigration issue. But to not condemn these hateful bigoted republicans across this country, to appear indifferent to these horrendous ideas being considered for laws in various states just smacks of self-loathing.

This is why I'd never ever date a gay republican. Never ever. I liked to think I was open minded enough. But after all the excuses I've heard from gay republicans to shield hateful legislatures, I've just checked off another box on my list for potential partners when single.

I don't date people with cognitive dissonance, hence Republicans are off my list of people I am interested in spending time with.

 

[Kulindahr]

I just don't get it.

Perhaps those of you who are smarter and more informed can enlighten me...

If we wanted to "protect" "traditional" marriage, why would we want to ban gay marriage? Wouldn't we want to ban divorces instead?

It would be interesting to get some Democrats to introduce bills proposing things like requiring a two-year college-level certificate on how to keep your marriage together before you can get a marriage license. Wouldn't that protect traditional marriage? Or how about this one: banning anyone who is married to a wife other than the first, and any former wives are still living, from running for public office? While we're at it, enforce the same rules on lobbyists; we wouldn't want people with the wrong kind of marriage influencing our congresscritters. But if we require lobbyists to meet that standard, it definitely has to apply to all congressional staff, and campaign staff, too.

Wrap it all together and call it the "comprehensive traditional marriage protection act". And include a provision that any current members of Congress who do not meet the standards will not be allowed to run again until they fix the matter.

 

[NineOfClubs]

You're missing the point entirely.

I was not speaking to the main argument, or responding to the rants of others, I was responding to this:

Originally Posted by Ninja108

I'm sick of having to pay thousands of dollars for things straight people get for free when they marry.

To which I said:

And yet, if you and a partner split, you won't have to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees like straights do, you'll have to just work it out amongst yourselves.

I was trying to offer a "glass half full" sentiment and going against the CE&P prevailing "glass half empty" attitude.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I was trying to offer a "glass half full" sentiment and going against the CE&P prevailing "glass half empty" attitude.

You left out the "there's too much glass" crowd.

 

[Kulindahr]

. . .

I'm sitting here thinking that if a straight couple invested the thousands a gay couple has to spend to get the same things straights get free with the marriage license, if it came to a divorce they'd probably have earned enough to pay for that mess.

So they win on both ends....

 

[NineOfClubs]

Isn't there still a "marriage penalty" in our tax system?

Maybe not anymore. Doesn't apply to me, so I'm not in the know.

But I can remember hearing of elderly couples divorcing to save money by filing as individuals.

Surely, unmarried gays do gain, in some ways....

 

[NineOfClubs]

You left out the "there's too much glass" crowd.

Then there's that "ass, glass or cash, no one rides for free" crowd.

 

[NineOfClubs]

I'd happily vote for gay marriage, if it were on the ballot.

I'd support those who want it for themselves.

But, for myself, I think marriage is an outmoded relic of a time when ownership and control over another was its chief motivation.

There's little need for marriage in today's world.

 

[Kulindahr]

But when two people of the same sex want to get married, what difference does that make to you? You should support them to do so as it is their right (well should be their right!).

You had it right without the parenthesis -- it is their right.

A common misconception in the matter of fighting for one's rights is the notion that the fight is to get the rights. That's false: if it's a right, you already have it; the fight is to get other people to get out of the way and let you enjoy the right.

If you reword your first sentence above just a bit.... "But when two people of the same sex want to get married, what difference does that make to the government?

That states it as it should be: marriage was a religious matter, and so shouldn't have been a concern of the government -- at least as far as defining the institution. The entire fight for "traditional marriage" is a religious fight, which government has no business being involved in. So the proper way to go would be to eliminate "marriage" from the government vocabulary, replace that term with something neutral (I like "registered union"), and make that neutral thing what you get from government. Want to get married, go to someone who does that -- but from henceforth, all such unions would be equal in government sight: people who want to unite their lives would go to the government and declare that they are united, the government would obediently record it, and that would be that.

 

[thermodynamics]

That states it as it should be: marriage was a religious matter, and so shouldn't have been a concern of the government -- at least as far as defining the institution. The entire fight for "traditional marriage" is a religious fight, which government has no business being involved in. So the proper way to go would be to eliminate "marriage" from the government vocabulary, replace that term with something neutral (I like "registered union"), and make that neutral thing what you get from government. Want to get married, go to someone who does that -- but from henceforth, all such unions would be equal in government sight: people who want to unite their lives would go to the government and declare that they are united, the government would obediently record it, and that would be that.

I think we need a complete overhaul of marriage--splitting it up between Cesar and God, the way it was meant to be split. Then government wouldn't have a say in what the church does, and the church doesn't have a say in what government does. Both straights and gays should have to go to a judge to be legally recognized (call it a civil union for everyone), and if they desire a blessing from God, they can be married by someone of the clergy. But judges should not be standing in for God, and clergy should not be standing in for the state.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
I like "registered union" because it includes the concept that it's people who decide and make the union. Do away with "licenses", putting the people in charge -- we own ourselves, so we own our relationships, and the government can just shut up and write down what we've decided to do.

 

[Kulindahr]

The government is involved, like it or not. This is called civil marriage. No, you don't have the right because many states have laws on the books saying you don't have that right.

You don't understand rights. They come with being sentient. They can be restricted, or penalized, but you still have them.

The only way that governments could grant rights is if they own us. They don't. Rights are inherent and inalienable. The only thing a law on the book saying you don't have a right does is lie and punish you if you don't believe the lie.

No. Marriage was long a political thing to join families, and often the government was involved. I don't like replacing anything. I find that to be setting a "separate yet [un]equal standard". Marriage is NOT a religious matter... my parents, obviously heterosexual, got married simply by sending in documents to the state.

Why can't we call these things marriage? Out of fear of offending religious authorities? Excuse me?

To shut them up!

Take the word marriage from the law to basically say, "You want it? Fine; here, go play with it, and let us get on with being civilized". Replace it with something neutral to tell them, "This is Caesar's business, secular business, not God's business."


edit: how can it be "separate yet [un]equal standard" when it's the same for everyone?

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh but I do understand rights. You have it backwards my friend. Rights are not granted until the law allows it. Why the need for various amendments, including the 14th amendment, if your logic was right?

The idea that rights are inherent and inalienable is a good one, but it's not realistic.

Then you should be perfectly happy if the Kochs manage to take over Congress completely and then the presidency and they pass DOMA as a constitutional amendment and undo all the civil rights legislation ever passed. After all, you don't actually have rights, you only have the privileges the government grants you, so you should be content either way.

Your approach reduces to might makes right -- exactly what the neo-Nazis preach. You believe we're property, at root, that there's actually nothing wrong with burning gays for having sex or hanging them for kissing; it just matters what the law is. So if the law says skinheads can beat up on gays and there will be no punishment, by your philosophy there's nothing wrong with that.

It's a very weak stance to take. No, I don't want to change the word. I'd rather fight for marriage for same sex couples. Why should we replace anything to please religious authorities? Who said that marriage was the business of religion in the first place? Times change.

To please who? To please liberty. Changing the word in the law would serve to tell the religious freaks to STFU and go the fuck away. It would serve to slam their faces in what their little brains don't get: people deciding to commit their lives to each other isn't your business. And it would also serve to make plain that government doesn't get to make up rules about who can and who can't associate with whoever: we own ourselves, and we decide who to associate with.

 

[Kulindahr]

It depends on how you view rights. Technically, you're both correct.

But it's silly to be so concerned with the type of "rights" that Kuli is when they're rendered totally meaningless by oppressive laws.

But from Giancarlo's stance, the only thing that drives a fight for things like gay marriage is because we feel like it, and the only thing that makes it acceptable is to have more power than the other guy. It concedes that we are basically property under the control of whatever faction holds the cards.

That's barbarism. It reduces the gay rights fight to one of personal preference and desire, totally stripping away any dignity from the battle.

If one starts from the observable fact of self-ownership, then we fight because in reality the majority with their laws as they are, are engaging in oppression and theft. They are keeping us from exercising something that is in actuality ours. That's tyranny -- but in Giancarlo's lexicon, tyranny is a meaningless term.

 

[JB3]

Oh but I do understand rights. You have it backwards my friend. Rights are not granted until the law allows it. Why the need for various amendments, including the 14th amendment, if your logic was right?

The idea that rights are inherent and inalienable is a good one, but it's not realistic.

You have no understanding of rights whatsoever. The bolded part proves that. Rights exist with or without the law. The purpose of the law is not to grant them, it is to protect them. Laws cannot grant rights; they exist without law or government. It is a basic misunderstanding of the concept of rights and law to think that the government or law grants us anythings. It usually betrays the thinking of someone that believes in large all-encompassing government, and someone that thinks government is some omniscient entity that has the power to grant and take away rights whenever they please.

That thinking is wrong. It is against everything that this nation was founded on.