Brief Thought on Gay Marriage

SDR May 21, 2012 at 04:17 pm

Every man is free to marry a woman, every woman is free to marry a man. That reads pretty much like equal application. The purpose of marriage is to provide a stable basis for progeny. Homosexuality is not concerned with procreation.

Jonathan Edwards May 21, 2012 at 05:16 pm

You're just mimicking the disingenuous and intellectually dishonest semantics of Justice Scalia. That logic is pseudo-intellectual hogwash. A child can distinguish between the class of hererosexuals and homosexuals that are really at issue here. If you think what you just said "reads pretty much like equal application," then you must not have read what you said.
Your personal feelings regarding the purpose of marriage are for you to enjoy in your pursuit of Liberty, not for you to impose on others. If my wife and I don't want to have kids, should we not be allowed to enjoy the benefits which accompany marriage.? Of course not, but you failed to realize the flaw in your logic because it was prejudice that guided its formation rather than sincerity.

Greg Hambrick May 21, 2012 at 05:24 pm

SDR, I would challenge your assumptions about "a stable basis for progeny." But the more important point is that the benefit of a civil marriage are available to straight couples, regardless of progeny. It may be the religious intent of marriage to promote procreation, but a civil marriage is about the government recognizing a couple's responsibility to each other.

SDR May 21, 2012 at 06:04 pm

JE, you are the one with the psuedo-ethics that pretend to be a deliverer of justice. Liberals cry about clean water and dump mud in it to further cry for a government solution. Your claims of failed logic apply only to your misinformed opinions and perverted bias.

SDR May 21, 2012 at 06:05 pm

OK, Show me the progeny.

Lindsay Street (Editor) May 21, 2012 at 06:55 pm

Marriage (from the government) is a legal contract between two consenting adults for advocacy, property rights and more. The government should not tell its citizens who they can and cannot enter into a legal contract with, so long as it is another consenting adult.
This is not a government issue. This is like prohibiting blue-eyed home owners from selling to other blue-eyed people. It doesn't matter if it is against your personal belief that a blue-eyed home owner should not be able to enter into a contract for sale of a home to another blue-eyed person. On the topic of progeny, I'm a married heterosexual and do not have children. Why should the government prevent marriage if there will not be children as a result of that marriage? Should infertile women and men be stopped from marriage? Will they have to submit to a test before marriage? If I don't have a child in 10 years of marriage, does the government force my divorce? We need smart government, not interfering government acting on behalf of a few. If you want the government to tell you how many children you should have and who you should marry, move to a communist or fascist country.

SDR May 21, 2012 at 07:12 pm

Ok I get that you dont like my opposing homosexual marriage. Where do you get that I want government regulation on children.
You are an editor?

stanley seigler May 21, 2012 at 08:38 pm

amazed at how we make issues out of non issues...mountains out of molehills...manufacture points to meet manufactured counter points...
there are no religious, moral, practical, common sense, reasons one shouldn't marry anyone they love. ditto with emphasis re serving in the military...the similar (same type) manufactured arguments were presented re interracial marriages and blacks fighting along side whites in WWI and II...will we ever learn... that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness," perhaps we are not the christian nation we profess to be.

SDR May 21, 2012 at 08:51 pm

Sure there are reasons Stanley.
Marriage is a stable bassis for progeny. It has other inherent properties bu thats its primary function. Those that wish to undercut and void marriage have pretty much succeeded(check the out of wedlock birth rate and accompaying child poverty rate) and this would pretty much wipe it out progressively. Progressives would be most pleased with a rabble populous that would need a ruling class, preferably progressively trained lawyers. Oh, yeah, SS, we have not been a Christian nation in a long time. All you witness is the echoes and ripples from a time long gone.

reg May 22, 2012 at 02:29 am

What happened to the "small government" proponents? It's the same group using that slogan that want BIG government on social issues, like this is some 1984 society. Make up your minds, folks. If you want small government, then stay out the decision of who can marry and who can't marry. If two women or two men marry, it doesn't take away anyone else's rights; it doesn't create any type of cost upon anyone else or the government; thus, there is no valid argument against it. Don't like it? Tough. I don't like your ugly shirt, but you don't see me trying to make a law that would prevent you from wearing it.

stanley seigler May 22, 2012 at 03:27 am

@SDR: "Sure there are reasons ...Marriage is a stable bassis for progeny...have not been a Christian nation in a long time. All you witness is the echoes and ripples from a time long gone."
weel guess we have a difference of opinion... agree 'not been a Christian nation in a long time'...never have been...founders proclaimed separation of church and state... all i witness is the hypocrisy of the religious right...who mouth christianity and practice greed, pride and prejudice... marriage should be the stable for a loving relationship...if its just to multiply...then 'brave new world' hatchery would be much more efficient...

SDR May 22, 2012 at 12:25 pm

I'm all for small government. This isnt much of a starting point.

JoSCh May 22, 2012 at 01:22 pm

What would you know, you can't even pick out an attractive shirt.

reg May 22, 2012 at 03:46 pm

So what is the necessary starting point, SDR? I've got one for you - how about repealing the recently passed law that says you no longer have internet privacy (which Tea Party folks like Tim Scott actually voted for), and that you are legally required to give your password to sites if your boss asks your for them, and that your failure to comply makes it okay for you to be fired? So much for Tim "small government" Scott, huh?

SDR May 22, 2012 at 08:08 pm

Dont think small, think smaller.
DOEd, DOEn,DOL...you get the drift Your thinking is just what Tip did with Ronnie in the 1982 deal, but thats just how you guys work. And a little commonsense on the Password at work thing...dont shoot where you eat, capeche?

reg May 22, 2012 at 08:15 pm

Yeah, I get the drift, all right, SDR. You want small government when it comes to business, but Big Brother government when it comes to individual liberty and human rights. And that comes straight from Marxist Economics. If that's what you like, why not move to China or North Korea, which is where you'll find the exact same circumstances you're promoting here?

JoSCh May 22, 2012 at 08:22 pm

I don't trust the "free market" to give the best education for the money. See radically increased current college cost and lower quality of education.
I don't trust the "free market" to provide energy fairly, see Enron and the rolling blackouts and 800% wholesale price increase as soon as electricity was "deregulated" in California in 2000/1 and again in 2005. Why do you? Business, particularly large business, doesn't care about anything but shareholders profits. Which is fine, I guess, but America isn't a corporation, America is a society. A little common sense on the password at work thing... don't let your job dictate your entire life. Again, America is founded on freedom, not profits. Giving out a password is tantamount to allowing them to look through you personal property. Are you willing to allow your employer to look through your underwear drawer any time they like? How about order a colonoscopy? You don't have anything to hide up there from your boss, let him have a look amirite?

reg May 22, 2012 at 08:36 pm

...not giving out your password is tantamount to losing your job, though - thanks to the redefinition of terms that the GOP put in. They even blocked an amendment to that bill, called the "Mind Your Business Amendment" - only 1 Republican in the House voted to protect your privacy.

SDR May 22, 2012 at 09:00 pm

Reg- you are just goofy....or maybe its a condition:
www.libertymind.com

SDR May 22, 2012 at 09:03 pm

JoSCh thanks for the good advice, hope you will take it. Do your googling at home.

reg May 22, 2012 at 09:41 pm

There you go again; when challenged with fact, you resort to "goofy." You (and other commenter, Joe, too) only solidify my arguments when you can only resort to responses like that. Then you resort to referring to Rossiter - the guy who claims to be forensic psych, but who includes absolutely no terms related to forensic psych (or even pscyh in general) in his "books."

Jonathan Edwards May 23, 2012 at 12:12 am

Wow. I was only trying to stand up for the equal treatment of gay people. Interesting to see the sparks it ignites.
www.jonathanpedwards.com

JoSCh May 23, 2012 at 12:12 pm

It won't matter where or when you do your googling, the law says they can use your google + password and check your google history. I guess we see where you stand on the freedom of Americans to be Americans vs. the corporatocracy. You're the textbook definition of a "useful idiot."

Tom Musolf May 27, 2012 at 06:13 pm

Forget about it....I am getting pretty tired of this subject getting stuffed into my brain. I remember when GAY meant: Showing or characterized by exuberance or mirthful excitement; merry. I do not see this anymore....way down the line of interpretations is : SLANG: homosexuals. Get a new word, if I must be called straight, you may be called crooked!

JoSCh May 28, 2012 at 01:56 pm

If they're called gay, you must be called miserable?