Bob Barr - the small government candidate - Page 3

**CingularDuality** · 05-18-2008, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirusblk

Wait there's a difference between drinking in a state and being able to get married.

Whatever your views on gay marriage are is it fair for a license granted by our constitution to only apply to male and female couples and not same sex couples?

There's nothing in our constitution against it, only the bible so why the hell do we have laws against it?

I'm sorry but states being dry does not even begin to compare to discrimination to gays.

Right, but surely you see that that is a completely different argument? The Bill of Rights (and later amendments) was written to ensure that states would not be able to trample upon certain rights, regardless of who in that state wanted to. Like it or not, marriage is not one of the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

**Razcsak** · 05-19-2008, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnaCentipede

"Communists--Socialists--Liberals--Democrats--Moderates--Republican--Conservatives--Facists--Nazis"

Nazis are socialists. That's what the slurred zi part comes from. National Socialists.

And East Germany was the Deutsche Demokratische Republik. I don't think anyone is holding it up as an example of democracy. Names mean nothing. The Nazi movement was really not socialist in any meaningful sense. They were violently anti-communist, for one.

ScratchMonkey · 05-19-2008, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Like it or not, marriage is not one of the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Rather, it's not one of the rights enumerated by the Constitution as examples of rights. There was opposition to the Bill of Rights because it was feared that some might take the list to mean that all other rights were not protected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_A...s_Constitution

So it really comes down to whether "marriage" is something covered by the 9th, and, if so, how it's defined. It's an odd thing to declare as a right, since it's a relationship between individuals. It's similar to a contract, so one might look to contract rights theory for precedent.

**CingularDuality** · 05-19-2008, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

Rather, it's not one of the rights enumerated by the Constitution as examples of rights.

Yes, I worded that poorly.

**Sirusblk** · 05-19-2008, 03:14 PM

The right to marriage is a right in my mind. Without a marriage license that hinders you from many things, adoption is one.

Imagine if you're allowed to own guns but only if you have a license (much like our system now) however only non-african americans are allowed to get a license. Is that not racist? Isn't that a right being infringed upon, allowing only a certain group of people to attain a non-religious document?!

How is that any different from gay marriage? Why does racism seem so taboo but discrimination due to sexual alignment, not?

The thing is it is a right to some but a right held with others. But for what reason? That's discrimination. This isn't some argument for rights withheld against everyone this targets a specific group.

**Razcsak** · 05-19-2008, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirusblk

How is that any different from gay marriage? Why does racism seem so taboo but discrimination due to sexual alignment, not?

Two reasons: religion and stupidity. First, the inane idea that sexual preference is a choice. Second, religious discrimination is very alive and very active in this country.

ScratchMonkey · 05-21-2008, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirusblk

The right to marriage is a right in my mind. Without a marriage license that hinders you from many things, adoption is one.

It sounds like you're saying that adoption is a right?

Marriage only hinders you from adoption if the adoption agency makes it so. Smack the agency and make it use a different criterion (like requiring at least two parents of any combination of genders) and you eliminate marriage as an issue.

**CingularDuality** · 05-21-2008, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirusblk

The right to marriage is a right in my mind.

Sure, but it's not one of the rights specifically protected by the US Constitution (unlike the right to bear arms, which makes your post a bit nonsensical...). And since it's not in the Bill of Rights, it's subject to debate by the states and by the people.

Let me ask you a question. What if you felt it was the right of every woman to decide to get married and have children once she's sexually mature? Is that a right in your mind? Why or why not?

**Sirusblk** · 05-21-2008, 04:21 AM

You guys are missing my point though. If this was a race issue it would have infinitely more attention.

What if gays didn't have the right to vote? They'd be disenfranchised. Is that right? The thing is this isn't a case of where a law is hindering everyone in a state. Only a select few which is clear cut discrimination.

Whether you like it or not marriage is considered a master status it's up there right under race (which is infinitely more ambiguous) and age.

Kerostasis · 05-21-2008, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirusblk

What if gays didn't have the right to vote? They'd be disenfranchised. Is that right? The thing is this isn't a case of where a law is hindering everyone in a state. Only a select few which is clear cut discrimination.

Its not clear cut at all. This isn't a law that says "group 1 may do this, but group 2 may not". It's a law that says "groups 1 and 2 may both do action A (which happens to make group 1 happy), but neither of them may do action B (which happens to make group 2 happy)." Being married to someone of the same gender is equally prohibited to both gays and straights, its just that only gays consider it desirable so they're the only ones that care.

Yes, it sucks that the thing that makes them most happy is illegal. But there's other people for whom the thing that makes them most happy is toking up on pot, and that's illegal too. Are we discriminating against the pot smokers?

ScratchMonkey · 05-21-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Being married to someone of the same gender is equally prohibited to both gays and straights, its just that only gays consider it desirable so they're the only ones that care.

Not just gays.

I can see value in being "married" platonically to someone I don't have a romantic interest in. For example, it would be useful to get employer health coverage for a very close friend. It could also provide tax advantages and simplify some inheritance setup.

Then there's the immigration marriage angle with green card marriages. (Which I've only encountered through sitcoms and movies where it was used as a plot device, so I have no idea what the real situation is.)

Kerostasis · 05-21-2008, 07:57 PM

>.>

Ok, Gays are the primary member of a relatively small group of people who care. Doesn't change the point really. Even if it was a really big group of people who care, its still prohibited to all of them, caring or not.

ScratchMonkey · 05-21-2008, 10:44 PM

I'm curious to hear from those familiar with INS issues: Is this going to create more "green card marriages" from guys marrying "Russian husbands" for the money? Should anyone care?

**Sirusblk** · 05-21-2008, 11:21 PM

Wait you're saying same sex marriage is different from opposite sex marriages? I disagree, it's the same marriage license.

That's like saying it's ok for whites votes but black voting is a problem...

Kerostasis · 05-22-2008, 01:52 AM

Its not like saying that at all. It would be more like saying the whites and blacks can both vote, but none of them are allowed to vote for Bob Barr. Still a terrible analogy though.

But the basic point I'm trying to get across to you is that the law does not care who they are, or what their orientation is, or anything like that. The law asks only what they want to do, and some actions are allowed and some actions are not allowed. That's not discrimination. It could still be a bad law, but its not discrimination.

05-19-2008, 03:14 PM	#35 (permalink)
Sirusblk Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Orange County Age: 19 Posts: 1,111	Re: Bob Barr - the small government candidate The right to marriage is a right in my mind. Without a marriage license that hinders you from many things, adoption is one. Imagine if you're allowed to own guns but only if you have a license (much like our system now) however only non-african americans are allowed to get a license. Is that not racist? Isn't that a right being infringed upon, allowing only a certain group of people to attain a non-religious document?! How is that any different from gay marriage? Why does racism seem so taboo but discrimination due to sexual alignment, not? The thing is it is a right to some but a right held with others. But for what reason? That's discrimination. This isn't some argument for rights withheld against everyone this targets a specific group. __________________

05-21-2008, 04:21 AM	#39 (permalink)
Sirusblk Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Orange County Age: 19 Posts: 1,111	Re: Bob Barr - the small government candidate You guys are missing my point though. If this was a race issue it would have infinitely more attention. What if gays didn't have the right to vote? They'd be disenfranchised. Is that right? The thing is this isn't a case of where a law is hindering everyone in a state. Only a select few which is clear cut discrimination. Whether you like it or not marriage is considered a master status it's up there right under race (which is infinitely more ambiguous) and age. __________________

05-21-2008, 10:44 PM	#43 (permalink)
ScratchMonkey Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Pablo, California Posts: 4,565	Re: Bob Barr - the small government candidate I'm curious to hear from those familiar with INS issues: Is this going to create more "green card marriages" from guys marrying "Russian husbands" for the money? Should anyone care? __________________

05-21-2008, 11:21 PM	#44 (permalink)
Sirusblk Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Orange County Age: 19 Posts: 1,111	Re: Bob Barr - the small government candidate Wait you're saying same sex marriage is different from opposite sex marriages? I disagree, it's the same marriage license. That's like saying it's ok for whites votes but black voting is a problem... __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links