Solution to Gay Marriage issue

[thebishopp]

I have totally out there and groundbreaking suggestion!



How about we operate on the theory of rightful liberty being "unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." Such unobstructed actions being those that neither "pick my pocket nor break my leg" (that unjustly injure or steal from me) and let the invisible man in the sky handle "sin".

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I have totally out there and groundbreaking suggestion!



How about we operate on the theory of rightful liberty being "unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." Such unobstructed actions being those that neither "pick my pocket nor break my leg" (that unjustly injure or steal from me) and let the invisible man in the sky handle "sin".

Such a theory does not compel a state to condone any behavior the people of their own free will agree to mutually refrain.

 

[hornadylnl]

So you think these things aren't happening in society today?

That's my point. Why are so many people hung up on the meaning of a damn word when all the sinful activity is already occuring? Is legalizing homosexual unions and calling it marriage going to increase homosexual activity?

 

[Yup!]

That's my point. Why are so many people hung up on the meaning of a damn word when all the sinful activity is already occuring? Is legalizing homosexual unions and calling it marriage going to increase homosexual activity?

Not at all.

The meaning of the word doesn't bother me at all. It's just a word. Literally, just a word. Since I don't speak spanish, I don't know the Spanish word for Marriage, so does that mean when I visit Spain, I'm not legally married to my wife?

The beliefs that I hold on this topic have nothing to do with the definition, nor do they have to do with the "Sanctity of Marriage"

 

[hornadylnl]

Not at all.

The meaning of the word doesn't bother me at all. It's just a word. Literally, just a word. Since I don't speak spanish, I don't know the Spanish word for Marriage, so does that mean when I visit Spain, I'm not legally married to my wife?

The beliefs that I hold on this topic have nothing to do with the definition, nor do they have to do with the "Sanctity of Marriage"

There are several here who are hung up on the definition. I'm almost 36 and I'm still wildly fascinated by the female body. I've never had the urge to go the other way but my views on the subject have drastically changed over the last few years. I used to be a died in the wool republican who voted straight ticket republican and listened to Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc. Largely due to many of the libertarians here, I've gone to the dark side of libertarian beliefs. I've since learned that it was the height of hypocrisy for me to demand my liberty while actively seeking to limit the liberty of others.

I personally believe homosexuality is wrong but it's no business of mine what others do. I don't need to be their mommies and intervene in their lives. I also have come to the belief that preaching an all or nothing stance to others will only drive them further away from where I think they should be. By preaching love, they become more interested in where your beliefs come from. Trying not to cross a line here with my words. There's the old military saying "Kill em all and let God sort em out". I think we should "Love em all, and let God take care of it".

 

[Roadie]

There are several here who are hung up on the definition. I'm almost 36 and I'm still wildly fascinated by the female body. I've never had the urge to go the other way but my views on the subject have drastically changed over the last few years. I used to be a died in the wool republican who voted straight ticket republican and listened to Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc. Largely due to many of the libertarians here, I've gone to the dark side of libertarian beliefs. I've since learned that it was the height of hypocrisy for me to demand my liberty while actively seeking to limit the liberty of others.

I personally believe homosexuality is wrong but it's no business of mine what others do. I don't need to be their mommies and intervene in their lives. I also have come to the belief that preaching an all or nothing stance to others will only drive them further away from where I think they should be. By preaching love, they become more interested in where your beliefs come from. Trying not to cross a line here with my words. There's the old military saying "Kill em all and let God sort em out". I think we should "Love em all, and let God take care of it".

this might be the first time in the history of INGO I have said this hornadylnl.. I agree with you on all of the above!

 

[Grelber]

Yeah I know, if us crazy gays are allowed to marry, then people will start marrying goats, stop signs, and their bathtubs.

If I could be pronounced as legally married to a goat or an inanimate object and that would help with my finances, I'd go for it. I think it would be more crazy to be single and pay more than not to.

 

[hornadylnl]

this might be the first time in the history of INGO I have said this hornadylnl.. I agree with you on all of the above!

Welcome to the dark side. It's not all that bad over here.

 

[hornadylnl]

If I could be pronounced as legally married to a goat or an inanimate object and that would help with my finances, I'd go for it. I think it would be more crazy to be single and pay more than not to.

I think they should do away with all tax advantages of marriage. Why should a single woman who moved a widowed parent into her house be treated any differently than a married couple? They're both sharing a household.

The tax advantages can be nice but as with anything else the government "provides", there are drawbacks. Here's my personal situation. Been married almost 15 years to my first wife. We didn't have much of anything when we got married. Over the first 10 years, we struggled and lived within our means and had net assets of about $50k including 401k, equity in the house, etc. My parents died and I got some inheritance. My wife had nothing to do with that money but she could decide she doesn't like my graying hair and take me for at least half of everything we have. Many have turned marriage into nothing more than a lottery to get rich.

I've had few girlfriends, only had sex with my wife and never cheated on any of them. I believe in the biblical definition of marriage. But should something happen that I'd ever be single again, you won't see me within 10 miles of a marriage license. Ain't going to happen.

 

[thebishopp]

Such a theory does not compel a state to condone any behavior the people of their own free will agree to mutually refrain.

What, do you mean a "majority" opinion on what behavior shall be accepted? or perhaps the opinion of the "most vocal"? Your argument is used quite often in justifying the infringements of our constitutionally protected rights.

Sounds something like:

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

As long as an action does not infringe upon the equal rights of an other then there should be no law restricting it. Period.

Now if YOU choose not to perform a behavior YOU do not approve of, well, that's just fine.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What, do you mean a "majority" opinion on what behavior shall be accepted? or perhaps the opinion of the "most vocal"? Your argument is used quite often in justifying the infringements of our constitutionally protected rights.

Sounds something like:

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

As long as an action does not infringe upon the equal rights of an other then there should be no law restricting it. Period.

Now if YOU choose not to perform a behavior YOU do not approve of, well, that's just fine.

You're confusing the rights guaranteed by the constituion with those retained by the states and the people.

By its omission, the constitution, places the decision to embrace the right to homosexual, polygamy, beastiality, or whatever marriage you support to the states and the people. What you state as fact, period, is not the way the country was set up. There was latitude given to the states to govern themselves as they see fit, as long as the rights outlined in the constitution weren't infringed, treated equally under their laws, etc.

(as I understand it).

 

[level.eleven]

What, do you mean a "majority" opinion on what behavior shall be accepted? or perhaps the opinion of the "most vocal"? Your argument is used quite often in justifying the infringements of our constitutionally protected rights.

Sounds something like:

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

As long as an action does not infringe upon the equal rights of an other then there should be no law restricting it. Period.

Now if YOU choose not to perform a behavior YOU do not approve of, well, that's just fine.

Dominionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[IndyDave1776]

I see that the discussion got really interesting while I was gone. In the end, I would say that the concept of individual liberty defaults to affording others the right to be wrong so long as they aren't harming others in the process. I will, however, hold to the notion that this does not include the right to redefine language.

As for the immediate issue at hand, I feel that the burden is on those who want to bring change to make it workable. If you can find a way to get legally united without introducing a raft of unintended consequences, that strikes me as good enough. Unfortunately, the argument seems to break down along lines other than constitutional governance.

I will stand by my redefinition argument. The .gov already created a great deal of havoc with creative reinterpretation of words. If we afford it the authority to arbitrarily change the meaning of language, then any written law or contract is subject to nullification by redefinition. This includes the Constitution. Imagine any of the following: The First Amendment with redefinition of 'religion' 'speech' 'peaceful assembly' 'press' or 'prohibit'. You will notice that in practice 'peaceful assembly' has come to mean any assembly that does not draw an objection from others. Think 'free speech zones'. How would this go if we allow the .gov the overt power to redefine language as opposed to merely getting away with it in practice? There have already been attempts to redefine the Second Amendment in terms of 'militia'. Frankly, I am surprised that there has been no significant attempt to redefine 'arms' other than arguing that modern weapons are beyond the imaginations of the founders. How about 'troops' in the Third Amendment. Not really much of a stretch given that most .gov gunslingers are not considered troops anyway. 'Unreasonable' in the Fourth Amendment already takes a hell of a beating. Now what happens when 'warrants' are redefined to be so little as verbal permission from a supervisor? I could go on, but I would think that by now, regardless of whether one agrees or not, even the most obtuse among us would have the point.

The other form of unintended consequences (i.e., adding sanctioned arrangements other than 2 consenting adult homosexuals) has been beaten half to death without any significant progress toward a workable solution. The present situation rests in the overlap between religion and cultural tradition. If you discard it in part, you have necessarily discarded it in whole, much in the same way you can't be partially pregnant. Not only do you have to define the new arrangement(s) that you intend to sanction, but you also have to have a defensible reason for allowing those and only those arrangement. Once again, if traditional marriage is thrown out Warren Jeffs is going to be all ears. Ditto for NAMBLA. Same for those who shop for dates at the zoo (NOT with the staff). We will necessarily have to base the answer on something other than our arbitrary preferences. At this point the challenge becomes that of opening Pandora's Box without letting the contents escape. Let me emphasize again that the answer must pass legal/constitutional muster and not be based on personal or cultural preferences. Remember, to get to this point, we have already declared those to be an invalid foundation for law.

In my reckoning, it is difficult enough to balance conservative religious beliefs with strict constitutional beliefs. I am finding a viable solution to give equal rights in this arena without creating unacceptable unintended consequences even more difficult, compounded with the argument being dominated between those who are absolutely opposed, period, and those who want it and want it now, consequences be damned.

A wise supervisor at a facility I frequented before it was shut down had a plaque on his desk with the letters DBMAP on the top line and W/O APS on the bottom line. I once asked him what that meant. The answer was "Don't Bring Me a Problem Without A Possible Solution." Under the circumstances, I don't feel that it is unreasonable to expect of those demanding change a reasonable proposition for a solution that will not bring unintended consequences in form of opening the door to far more than they are focused on receiving and that will not undermine the definitive nature of language so far as rigidly defined terms are concerned (as opposed to indefinite/vague terms like horn's example of 'few').

 

[hornadylnl]

I see that the discussion got really interesting while I was gone. In the end, I would say that the concept of individual liberty defaults to affording others the right to be wrong so long as they aren't harming others in the process. I will, however, hold to the notion that this does not include the right to redefine language.

As for the immediate issue at hand, I feel that the burden is on those who want to bring change to make it workable. If you can find a way to get legally united without introducing a raft of unintended consequences, that strikes me as good enough. Unfortunately, the argument seems to break down along lines other than constitutional governance.

I will stand by my redefinition argument. The .gov already created a great deal of havoc with creative reinterpretation of words. If we afford it the authority to arbitrarily change the meaning of language, then any written law or contract is subject to nullification by redefinition. This includes the Constitution. Imagine any of the following: The First Amendment with redefinition of 'religion' 'speech' 'peaceful assembly' 'press' or 'prohibit'. You will notice that in practice 'peaceful assembly' has come to mean any assembly that does not draw an objection from others. Think 'free speech zones'. How would this go if we allow the .gov the overt power to redefine language as opposed to merely getting away with it in practice? There have already been attempts to redefine the Second Amendment in terms of 'militia'. Frankly, I am surprised that there has been no significant attempt to redefine 'arms' other than arguing that modern weapons are beyond the imaginations of the founders. How about 'troops' in the Third Amendment. Not really much of a stretch given that most .gov gunslingers are not considered troops anyway. 'Unreasonable' in the Fourth Amendment already takes a hell of a beating. Now what happens when 'warrants' are redefined to be so little as verbal permission from a supervisor? I could go on, but I would think that by now, regardless of whether one agrees or not, even the most obtuse among us would have the point.

The other form of unintended consequences (i.e., adding sanctioned arrangements other than 2 consenting adult homosexuals) has been beaten half to death without any significant progress toward a workable solution. The present situation rests in the overlap between religion and cultural tradition. If you discard it in part, you have necessarily discarded it in whole, much in the same way you can't be partially pregnant. Not only do you have to define the new arrangement(s) that you intend to sanction, but you also have to have a defensible reason for allowing those and only those arrangement. Once again, if traditional marriage is thrown out Warren Jeffs is going to be all ears. Ditto for NAMBLA. Same for those who shop for dates at the zoo (NOT with the staff). We will necessarily have to base the answer on something other than our arbitrary preferences. At this point the challenge becomes that of opening Pandora's Box without letting the contents escape. Let me emphasize again that the answer must pass legal/constitutional muster and not be based on personal or cultural preferences. Remember, to get to this point, we have already declared those to be an invalid foundation for law.

In my reckoning, it is difficult enough to balance conservative religious beliefs with strict constitutional beliefs. I am finding a viable solution to give equal rights in this arena without creating unacceptable unintended consequences even more difficult, compounded with the argument being dominated between those who are absolutely opposed, period, and those who want it and want it now, consequences be damned.

A wise supervisor at a facility I frequented before it was shut down had a plaque on his desk with the letters DBMAP on the top line and W/O APS on the bottom line. I once asked him what that meant. The answer was "Don't Bring Me a Problem Without A Possible Solution." Under the circumstances, I don't feel that it is unreasonable to expect of those demanding change a reasonable proposition for a solution that will not bring unintended consequences in form of opening the door to far more than they are focused on receiving and that will not undermine the definitive nature of language so far as rigidly defined terms are concerned (as opposed to indefinite/vague terms like horn's example of 'few').

Again, the best solution is to get the government out of marriage altogether. How many repubs are onboard with that vs demanding the government be in the marriage business?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Again, the best solution is to get the government out of marriage altogether. How many repubs are onboard with that vs demanding the government be in the marriage business?

I stand by the constitution.

 

[hornadylnl]

I stand by the constitution.

And the majority of the repub party doesn't on this issue. There are over 200 people in my church. If I stood tomorrow and asked how many are voting Romney and how many want to ban gay marriage, I bet 90% of the hands would go up and they'd all be the same hands.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Again, the best solution is to get the government out of marriage altogether. How many repubs are onboard with that vs demanding the government be in the marriage business?

Find a way to put feet on it, and I am with you.

 

[hornadylnl]

Find a way to put feet on it, and I am with you.

The majority finds any excuse necessary to avoid liberty. Tell me how to fix that?

 

[IndyDave1776]

The majority finds any excuse necessary to avoid liberty. Tell me how to fix that?

You mean without sharing the kind of wisdom which is imparted with a pick handle?

 

[hornadylnl]

You mean without sharing the kind of wisdom which is imparted with a pick handle?

A clue bat won't fix these people. They're so comfortable in their majority positions, they don't realize they're building he weapons that will one day be used on them.