The Dogma of the left.

[Rob Roy]

The supreme court is a separation of power. Being appointed by the President, their appointments are the direct result of election results. Hence Sotomayor.

What is marriage? A contract between two people, or, a contract between two people, and government? If it is the latter, the privileges granted by this contract need to be stipulated. Who better to stipulate the benefits, and the requirements required to extract those benefits, than the electorate of each state, individually. Or would you prefer that the government negotiate directly with the affected parties, the "couple" to be married, and form the contract on a case by case basis? Or that the feds make one rule for all states?

On the surface the Supreme court is a separate power. By being appointed by a President they are not likely to be a separate power...more likely an extension of that particular President's idelogy. Besides unelected Supreme Court justices don't go away quickly enough, but Presidents can and do.

Who better to intervene in marriage than a state? How about nobody?
Governments are not supposed to intervene in private contracts, I'm pretty sure it's in the Constitution.

There are countless private contracts made everyday without government intervening, as it should be. Marriage should be no different.

A license to get married ? Permission to get divorced? How is that not Government intervening and violating the Constitution?

 

[hanimmal]

Although I think you have a point RobRoy, there is something to be said about people having a nonpartial third party in disputes like those. And with a court system in place it is something that fills that role.

I don't really care about marriage one way or another, and look at it more as a contract for people to be able to get special services like being on others insurance, otherwise you could have 8 random roommates on 1 persons health coverage.

Or when someone dies, without a documented third party contract, anyone could claim they were married to them and take all their belongings. So I think there are very good reasons to have the government deal with this.

But at the same time, there should not be these moral attachments to laws to say who can enter into the contract or not. If there are going to have it be a contractual obligation, they should not be able to discriminate.

 

[Illegal Smile]

Civil unions are contracts and the government should not be involved in them. Marriage involves a contract but is much more, resting on 10k years of human history. I fail to see why gays are not satisfied with civil unions that give them ALL the rights of marriage. Seems like they just want to get in the face of those who think marriage should be what it has always been.

 

[CrackerJax]

Alito kicked Obama's arse and he didn't even say anything.....

Obama was an epic fail with his State Of The Union address. You'd think a law graduate from Harvard would do a fact check before embarrassing himself in front of the entire nation.

 

[hanimmal]

Because civil unions do not give all the benefits of marriage. I could care less what it is called, but the contractual obligation and all the benefits should be the same. If religious folks feel so strongly about this, then they should lobby to get marriage only a thing churches can do, and leave the contract part up to the courts.

But if it is up to churches, people will have to understand that the ceremony may well be given to gay people if that church wants to. Or do you think that churches should not be allowed to have the right to do what they want too?

 

[Illegal Smile]

Because civil unions do not give all the benefits of marriage. I could care less what it is called, but the contractual obligation and all the benefits should be the same. If religious folks feel so strongly about this, then they should lobby to get marriage only a thing churches can do, and leave the contract part up to the courts.

But if it is up to churches, people will have to understand that the ceremony may well be given to gay people if that church wants to. Or do you think that churches should not be allowed to have the right to do what they want too?

First, civil unions SHOULD and could have allthe benefits of marriage. Second, churches and religion need have nothing to do with marriage and it is a red herring to suggest they do.

 

[RickWhite]

I must agree with most of what you say, however ..
When I think of liberals, I'm not talking about someone with a democrat point of view, but one that blindly follows ideology, and this goes for the right as well. For indoctrination, the left has the educational system, the right has the religious system. Both are extreme and not particularly useful in solving real-world problems.

I don't think that liberals are the only group that uses these tactics to silence legitimate debate, for example :

----
To be a right-winger one needs only start with a few simple dogmas. Faith, is perhaps the largest and blaming society is another ( for not being religious enough ). From these two dogmas, the right-winger can derive an answer for any question in life.

Right-wingers have no need for insight into life, the human condition, other complex social dynamics, or nuance. The only insight they require is the ability to link, however loosely, every problem to their religious social dogma.

It is very simple - think only about how to link every issue to the standard christian dogma and obfuscate all legitimate discussion with the claim that nothing can be true unless it can be supported by scripture.
----

Some of the attacks on the thread starter are perfect example of what was said about liberals and debate, unfortunately, proving his point.

My point, and I believe many others as well, are tired of the extremes dominating the conversation, and believe in something that is not left or right, but libertarian or anarchist instead. That we have one huge problem right now : the size and scope of government. This puts us at odds with the liberals currently in power, but does not make us republicans, conservatives, or religious right.

The constitution is a remarkable document, the first amendment being as important as any foundation we have. The right should respect this. In a similar way, the left should respect the tenth amendment.

I'm convinced that the liberal or progressive ideology of the current federal government is taking us on the wrong path, but that doesn't mean I like the republicans. It's only because the liberals are the ones making the stupid decisions right now.

Finally an intelligent rebuttal. Have a good look at this post kids, this is how intelligent people learn things and advance understanding through discussion. Well done.

You are absolutely correct. I do believe both the Left and the right have their intellectual robots and the Religious Right are the Conservative version. I agree that the modified sentences you posted are accurate of that group.

Liberals have only a few tools of debate and painting all non-Left thinkers as religious zealots, racists, bigots and homophobes is one of them.

If you look at most of the posts on this board, you will be hard pressed to find any that make reference to scripture - yet you will find a great deal that accuse people of being a religious zealot.

I often speak about the importance of the traditional nuclear family because I believe it is the backbone of the healthy individual. Is this because I am religious - no. It is primarily because I have seen so many examples of what is produced by the opposite.

But see the Liberal has a mental block when it comes to seeing life for what it is. Maybe, they just assume that because they can only perceive the world through dogma, I too must be viewing things through dogma. Maybe that is why they always assume that anyone who advocates a cohesive family unit, must be a religious zealot. I guess, to one who sees only dogma, the assumption that every issue is either their dogma or the other side's dogma is the natural conclusion. Perhaps, their knee jerk accusations of racism, bigotry, misogynist, xenophobe and homophobe are projection more so than attacks.

 

[RickWhite]

Guys, please do not turn this thread into a gay marriage debate.

Illegal Smile is spot on. Gays are not pushing for equal rights. Civil unions could guarantee equal rights - problem solved. Gays are trying to dictate and control how everyone else defines and thinks about marriage. Change the definition and the tradition itself is gone forever. They are not only trying to ram their lifestyle down the throats of others but forever erase an entire concept from the consciousness of humanity. I for one am not having that.

Reminds me of an old Russian proverb: "The future is known, it is history that is always changing."

Now please, if you want to continue this debate copy my post and start another thread. I want to keep this one on track.

 

[hanimmal]

First, civil unions SHOULD and could have allthe benefits of marriage. Second, churches and religion need have nothing to do with marriage and it is a red herring to suggest they do.

That's cool, I could care less what it is named contractually. And I guess that I don't know or care enough about the institution of marriage to know it was not a religious thing, it is just that normally they have the church do it so I just assumed.

That and I don't agree that we started out being 'married' in our species, I would think that it was more the pairing that happened and later as we developed more as a species we started to have celebrations, and this was one of them. It must have been pretty boring back then, and any reason for everyone to come together at night when they were not able to hunt/farm or a reason to take a day off was likely to be very welcome.

If anything it is tradition, and not some kind of natural state. But that is just my opinion.

 

[Illegal Smile]

That's cool, I could care less what it is named contractually. And I guess that I don't know or care enough about the institution of marriage to know it was not a religious thing, it is just that normally they have the church do it so I just assumed.

That and I don't agree that we started out being 'married' in our species, I would think that it was more the pairing that happened and later as we developed more as a species we started to have celebrations, and this was one of them. It must have been pretty boring back then, and any reason for everyone to come together at night when they were not able to hunt/farm or a reason to take a day off was likely to be very welcome.

If anything it is tradition, and not some kind of natural state. But that is just my opinion.

Of course it is a tradition, an ancient tradition. Changing the nature of marriage is a definitional thing that people are prepared to fight over. There is no need to go there. Perhaps those in same sex unions need to begin their own tradition and their own name for it. Like Kwanza, make it distinctive.

 

[hanimmal]

Now please, if you want to continue this debate copy my post and start another thread. I want to keep this one on track.

Really and what point is that, I am rubber your glue?

Look at the title, you are trying to make something into what it is not. If you would peek your head out, you would realize that the 'left' is a huge specrum, and to lump everyone into some sweeping generalization is just ignorant.

You say things like 'few tools' and everything else, like somehow we are not on the same evolutionary level, but you're dead wrong.

And you don't even care to learn that, you just keep on tossing out insults, and trying to degrade us, but you don't realize your as narrow minded as what you believe the people you try to demonize are.

So when we try to talk with you and over and over you sit back and mock us, and we finally come at you, all of a sudden you are some kind of angel and the only one that knows the 'truth'.

And instead if you would look at what you're saying in a different light, maybe you would see that the studies almost exclusively look at single parents vs traditional men and women. And that everything could simply be a numbers game.

Could it not be that 2 people offer the kid two different perspectives? Two different set of eyes looking out for their needs, two people that can openly debate what is best for the child, over just one person trying to do it all alone?

And in reality you can then think about larger families, couldn't having grandparents living close by mean that there are now 4 sets of people trying to look out for the best interests of the child, and when everyone is talking to them and showing the child the different perspectives that they are even better off?

See you demonize us as somehow not being able to see reality, but it is not the case. It is just there is so much out there, that coming to different conclusions is just a matter of life.

 

[hanimmal]

Of course it is a tradition, an ancient tradition. Changing the nature of marriage is a definitional thing that people are prepared to fight over. There is no need to go there. Perhaps those in same sex unions need to begin their own tradition and their own name for it. Like Kwanza, make it distinctive.

How is it changing the nature of marriage? I am saying take marriage off the law books, have everyone register as a contractual obligation to make sure nobody get figuratively screwed, and leave it up to society whether or not they are 'married'. And as far as a contracts name goes civil union sounds as good as anything to me.

You don't think it is even a little bigotted that there would have to be two different names for these? That strait couples can be called 'married' but anything else is deemed something different. You don't think that would be a rally point of bigots? That is something that our history has shown over and over again, as soon as people can become classified as something else, it is used to demonize and make the one class feel superior to the other?

There is just no real good reason other than tradition to call it something for one group and something else for a second group. But all that aside, if they all have the same benefits (completely the same benefits) then that would be such a huge step forward that the name thing could be forgiven, but just understand eventually it may become an issue again.

 

[Illegal Smile]

How is it changing the nature of marriage? I am saying take marriage off the law books, have everyone register as a contractual obligation to make sure nobody get figuratively screwed, and leave it up to society whether or not they are 'married'. And as far as a contracts name goes civil union sounds as good as anything to me.

You don't think it is even a little bigotted that there would have to be two different names for these? That strait couples can be called 'married' but anything else is deemed something different. You don't think that would be a rally point of bigots? That is something that our history has shown over and over again, as soon as people can become classified as something else, it is used to demonize and make the one class feel superior to the other?

There is just no real good reason other than tradition to call it something for one group and something else for a second group. But all that aside, if they all have the same benefits (completely the same benefits) then that would be such a huge step forward that the name thing could be forgiven, but just understand eventually it may become an issue again.

How is it changing the nature of marriage? You can't be serious. Is it bigotted to have different names for male and female? Do you think men should have the right to call themselves women and women the right to call themselves men? (of course this is done but it can get you into trouble). Perhaps I should have the right to proclaim myself a dog and thereby escape taxes!

You act as if tradition is unimportant, and no wars have been fought over traditions. I think 5 or 6 years ago there was an opening where full rights civil unions could have become nearly universal. But no, politics prevailed and it had to be same sex marriage. Where ever it was on the ballot it was soundly defeated. many political scientists believe John Kerry might have been elected if not for the gay marriage issue. In Ohio, a constitutional amendment was passed by a huge majority that not only outlawed gay marriage, but anything approximating it - meaning civil union. That failure is right at the feet of the extremists who had to have in your face gay marriage. A shame.

 

[natrone23]

Fuck just call it narriage

gay people can't get narried and straight people can get married

 

[RickWhite]

That's cool, I could care less what it is named contractually. And I guess that I don't know or care enough about the institution of marriage to know it was not a religious thing, it is just that normally they have the church do it so I just assumed.

That and I don't agree that we started out being 'married' in our species, I would think that it was more the pairing that happened and later as we developed more as a species we started to have celebrations, and this was one of them. It must have been pretty boring back then, and any reason for everyone to come together at night when they were not able to hunt/farm or a reason to take a day off was likely to be very welcome.

If anything it is tradition, and not some kind of natural state. But that is just my opinion.

Fuck - I wrote a lengthy response and then it got deleted. Oh well.

This proves everything I said about not being able to see the nuances of social dynamics.

Think about what life was like 10,000 years ago. Back then, women without mates had little chance of survival and even less chance of raising offspring successfully. Humans take years to become self sufficient and it was therefore in the best interest of females to choose a mate that was a good protector and provider and more importantly one who would stick around for 15 years until the kid was able to fend for himself or to be married off.

Want proof? That is why women are attracted to tall men - it is a product of evolutionary hard wiring. That is also why they are attracted to socially and financially successful men. It isn't just that they want what they have, it is that their brain is hard wired to find these things attractive. Remember, 10,000 years ago a woman with out a mate was essentially tiger food. The wife of the Chief however probably out produced the other women by a wide margin when the entire family was counted.

And, 10,000 years ago messing with the Chief's female was probably not a good idea.

Anyway, these were the roots of marriage. And I'm sure as we all grew in our intellectual abilities, so did the way we viewed the concept of marriage. But in the end, marriage is about ensuring an environment that is most conducive to the raising of children.

Now, people can debate what makes the best environment and so man other aspects of marriage. But, the one thing that is clear is that if we change the definition of marriage, the old definition will eventually be gone forever - that is irrefutable. So in essence, we would be taking away the ability of some people to view marriage the way they want; as a holy union and a divine institution that exists between a man and a woman.

So, while secular people will have the right to view marriage the way they want, religious people will no longer have the right to view it the way they want.

Do you see the distinction here?

 

[yellowrain53]

gotta love a good troll thread.

 

[jeff f]

Although I think you have a point RobRoy, there is something to be said about people having a nonpartial third party in disputes like those. And with a court system in place it is something that fills that role.

I don't really care about marriage one way or another, and look at it more as a contract for people to be able to get special services like being on others insurance, otherwise you could have 8 random roommates on 1 persons health coverage.

Or when someone dies, without a documented third party contract, anyone could claim they were married to them and take all their belongings. So I think there are very good reasons to have the government deal with this.

But at the same time, there should not be these moral attachments to laws to say who can enter into the contract or not. If there are going to have it be a contractual obligation, they should not be able to discriminate.

so what is the big deal with gay marriage then? if you want to marry a person, make a contract with them.

take that person on as a dependent and put them on your insurance if the company allows you to. if they dont, find another company.

personally i dont care about the gay marriage thing either way. but i do believe that the radical gays are pushing for it for alterior motives like undermining religion and bilking the govt.

i also think that the rank and file gay will be really pissed off when they have to go through a divorce and watch some numbnut judge divide your property amongst the parties. gays will then be saying "what the fuck were we thinking"?

 

[ViRedd]

Its not about what Gay people want. Its about what Progressives want in order to further their agenda of total control over the individual. Make Gay marriage legal and churches will be FORCED to provide for Gay marriages in spite of thousands of years of religious history and belief.

 

[jeff f]

Its not about what Gay people want. Its about what Progressives want in order to further their agenda of total control over the individual. Make Gay marriage legal and churches will be FORCED to provide for Gay marriages in spite of thousands of years of religious history and belief.

as you do, i also think it is really that incidious. that sickens me but it is typical tyranical action. they want to bring down the church. what ever happened to "dont tread on me"?

if you are gay and want to get married, start your own church. dont force the rest of the religious world to swallow your crap....pun intended

 

[hanimmal]

Its not about what Gay people want. Its about what Progressives want in order to further their agenda of total control over the individual. Make Gay marriage legal and churches will be FORCED to provide for Gay marriages in spite of thousands of years of religious history and belief.

wait, wait.... Seriously?

The 'progressives' are trying to force their agenda on the churches? The churches that were the ones that demonized homosexuality for a couple thousand years, saying they are hell bound, lobbying millions of dollars everytime to defeat legislation that would allow them to have the same human rights that everyother strait couple has. That has set up 'camps' to try to force homosexuals into being strait.

And somehow they are trying to have some agenda to take over the church!!

Wow, yeah I feel really bad that the poor church is being forced to, well to do nothing.

Churches don't have to marry people, I can get married and a church never enters into the equation! Churches won't be forced to marry people bud. That is lunacy.

How is it changing the nature of marriage? You can't be serious. Is it bigotted to have different names for male and female? Do you think men should have the right to call themselves women and women the right to call themselves men? (of course this is done but it can get you into trouble). Perhaps I should have the right to proclaim myself a dog and thereby escape taxes!

You act as if tradition is unimportant, and no wars have been fought over traditions. I think 5 or 6 years ago there was an opening where full rights civil unions could have become nearly universal. But no, politics prevailed and it had to be same sex marriage.

Isn't the nature of marriage two people coming together and entering into a institution that says they will devote their lives to functioning as a team? Or are you somehow under the belief that we wait to have sex until we are married? And that somehow getting married allows for strait sex to happen, and somehow that is the only way we procreate as a species.

And also, you seem to be fine if they have all the same rights, but have to use a different name right? Ok, call it civil union, or whatever, as long as it is identical contractually and there are no loopholes that say they cannot do something that strait couples that are married can, then I could care less too.

But, isn't the term "Same Sex Marriage" already a better description, than "Civil Union", and isn't SSM different than "Marriage", so they already have called it by a different name.

Why does the term Marriage being apart of this ignite such fear?