If this doesn't make republicans jump ship

[steveh_131]

This is a red herring. Everyone already has equal standing before the law.

Are you suggesting that the government can define marriage?

Does your overuse/misuse of the terms 'straw man' and 'red herring' make you feel like you're bringing something intellectual to the table?

 

[Bunnykid68]

This is a red herring. Everyone already has equal standing before the law.

Are you suggesting that the government can define marriage?

Are you saying government does not define marriage? It is even a question on tax returns.

 

[CarmelHP]

This is one of the things that has always baffled me about the Republican party. They preach small government, but consistently try to regulate the institution of marriage by denying gays the right to be married.

One of the small government principles is that some things, most things, are best left to the states. Marriage is a traditional area of sole state law control. How is it "small government" to demand that the federal government impose on Indiana the marriage laws of California and Massachusetts?

 

[avboiler11]

This is one of the things that has always baffled me about the Republican party. They preach small government, but consistently try to regulate the institution of marriage by denying gays the right to be married.

 

[Liberty1911]

Does your overuse/misuse of the terms 'straw man' and 'red herring' make you feel like you're bringing something intellectual to the table?

Coming from the guy that can rarely grasp a logical point, that means next to nothing. I'll make my point below, again, and we'll see if you can grasp it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

One of the small government principles is that some things, most things, are best left to the states. Marriage is a traditional area of sole state law control. How is it "small government" to demand that the federal government impose on Indiana the marriage laws of California and Massachusetts?

I'm not sure. But I'm betting it has something to do with "non-aggression" principle or property rights or Gary Johnson or Ron Paul.

 

[steveh_131]

Coming from the guy that can rarely grasp a logical point, that means next to nothing. I'll make my point below, again, and we'll see if you can grasp it.

I await, with bated breath. Also, have you heard of a straw herring? What about a red man? You should give those a shot, too.

I'm not sure. But I'm betting it has something to do with "non-aggression" principle or property rights or Gary Johnson or Ron Paul.

I have not supported the feds forcing this on the states. I didn't see that in the article, either.

State issue, in my opinion.

 

[Liberty1911]

Are you saying government does not define marriage? It is even a question on tax returns.

I'm saying this:

Either we are recognizing that government can define marriage or we are not.

If we're not, then the discussion is moot, there's no need for "homosexual marriage". Any homosexual couple can get "married" without a government certificate.

If we're saying that government can define marriage, well then, they already have. It's between a man and a woman, or in several states, they extend that to same sex couples.

As to the red herring, pay attention Steve,no state government is denying equal protection under current laws as they have defined marriage in each state. Therefore, the argument that equal protection under the law is being violated is a red herring.

I think what "homosexual marriage" proponents really mean, is that they don't think current law is "fair", so they want government to REDEFINE marriage, rather than equally apply existing law, which they are already doing. Hopefully (Steve) will be able to grasp this distinction since I've explained it now 2 or 3 times.

Additionally, the ironic part is that in asking government to redefine marriage, as homosexual proponents are doing, you are implicitly acknowledging that government can define marriage.

Which leads to the hypocrisy of "homosexual marriage" proponents claiming that "government should stay out of our bedrooms!". Oh except, please jump in here for a second and legally sanction our "marriage" so that we have the force of government behind us.

If people were intellectually honest, and wanted the government "out of our bedroom", then they would be advocating to remove government licensing of marriage, NOT seeking to expand the governments definition and licensing of it even further.

That's way too much to ask though. The homosexual "marriage" proponents have an agenda, and it has nothing to do with freedom to marry, and everything to do with using the force of government against people who disagree with them.

The height of hypocrisy is that so-called Libertarians who abhor government licensing and government force, have no problem using the force of government to shove their morality down everyone else's throat.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I have not supported the feds forcing this on the states. I didn't see that in the article, either.

State issue, in my opinion.

Others on this site have.

 

[steveh_131]

Others on this site have.

Fair 'nuf. Just sayin.

blah blah blah

Dang, thems was a whole lotta big words...I just can't keep up wit yer mental gymnastics there, chief. Instead I'm just gonna say "hey, quit it with the strawberry herring arguments and learn to grasp some logic already, will ya!" cuz if i call it a strawberry herring argument then I win 2 internets.

 

[Hohn]

As to the red herring, pay attention Steve,no state government is denying equal protection under current laws as they have defined marriage in each state. Therefore, the argument that equal protection under the law is being violated is a red herring.

I think what "homosexual marriage" proponents really mean, is that they don't think current law is "fair", so they want government to REDEFINE marriage, rather than equally apply existing law, which they are already doing. Hopefully (Steve) will be able to grasp this distinction since I've explained it now 2 or 3 times.

Additionally, the ironic part is that in asking government to redefine marriage, as homosexual proponents are doing, you are implicitly acknowledging that government can define marriage.

ON the equal protection thing, since apparently Steve used to live in Rio Linda:

A law against gay marriage applies to all, equally. A straight man can't marry a gay man just like two gay men cannot marry. Just because the law prohibits something only one party WANTS to do doesn't make it an equal protection violation.

The argument being raised by the gay lobby would also force us to conclude that "blue laws' are illegal because some people don't want to drink.

 

[steveh_131]

A law against gay marriage applies to all, equally. A straight man can't marry a gay man just like two gay men cannot marry. Just because the law prohibits something only one party WANTS to do doesn't make it an equal protection violation.

Only heterosexuals are allowed to enter into a contractual agreement that offers them government goodies. Homosexuals are not. I don't think that's equal. It bothers me that the government is being used to discriminate based on the morality of someone's choices. I think it is a dangerous slippery slope.

It bothers me far more that the government is offering government goodies in exchange for marriage. I'd rather abolish it all.

Barring that, I'd rather it was equal, keeping the government out of determining morality. But you won't find me on a picket line for either side of the debate. I vote for the guys who would abolish it. You vote for the ones who perpetuate it.

 

[steveh_131]

Steve used to live in Rio Linda

Please clarify this statement.

 

[cobber]

Apparently the primary isn't either. Romney won.

The primary would be. Clearly there is not a consensus in the GOP.

The Dems seem able to subjugate squabbles in the interest of power.

Please clarify this statement.

Rush Limbaugh allusion?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Only heterosexuals are allowed to enter into a contractual agreement that offers them government goodies. Homosexuals are not. I don't think that's equal. It bothers me that the government is being used to discriminate based on the morality of someone's choices. I think it is a dangerous slippery slope.

It bothers me far more that the government is offering government goodies in exchange for marriage. I'd rather abolish it all.

Barring that, I'd rather it was equal, keeping the government out of determining morality. But you won't find me on a picket line for either side of the debate. I vote for the guys who would abolish it. You vote for the ones who perpetuate it.

If you voted for Gary Johnson last year, you didn't.

 

[tatertot]

One of the small government principles is that some things, most things, are best left to the states. Marriage is a traditional area of sole state law control. How is it "small government" to demand that the federal government impose on Indiana the marriage laws of California and Massachusetts?

I don't care if its federal government, state government, local ordinance, or some bigoted statement Billy-Bob down the street says, the government has no business to say who can be married to who.

 

[Sticks]

:shrug:

The line between Democrat, Reublican, and Libertarian just blurred a little more.

We don't need a third political party, we need a second one.

 

[Liberty1911]

Please clarify this statement.

He means you are unable to grasp basic logical points. They sound like blah, bah, blah, to you when people make them.

 

[Liberty1911]

Only heterosexuals are allowed to enter into a contractual agreement that offers them government goodies. Homosexuals are not. I don't think that's equal. It bothers me that the government is being used to discriminate based on the morality of someone's choices. I think it is a dangerous slippery slope.

It bothers me far more that the government is offering government goodies in exchange for marriage. I'd rather abolish it all.

Barring that, I'd rather it was equal, keeping the government out of determining morality. But you won't find me on a picket line for either side of the debate. I vote for the guys who would abolish it. You vote for the ones who perpetuate it.

I keep hearing the term "government goodies" from the pro homosexual crowd. Would you care to tell us what "goodies" are given to married people that others are not getting? Or is that a red herring?

 

[steveh_131]

Rush Limbaugh allusion?

People still listen to that guy?

If you voted for Gary Johnson last year, you didn't.

Gary Johnson - Gay Marriage

n 2011, Governor Johnson was interviewed by Washington Unplugged and CSPAN. In those interviews, he asserted that marriage was not something that the federal government should be involved in, stating that removing the government from the institute of marriage represented the freedom and liberty that the Republicans should be espousing. He also stated that government should get out of the marriage business and into the civil union business and leave marriage to the churches.

I keep hearing the term "government goodies" from the pro homosexual crowd. Would you care to tell us what "goodies" are given to married people that others are not getting? Or is that a red herring?

Tax breaks, depending on income levels. Especially with kids. Taxes on inheritance. Etc.

Also, I am not 'pro homosexual'.