Political Crossfire Forums

Melchior · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 9351 Location: Palm Beach

Protostar wrote: Would it be okay for me to come out and say that I have changed my arguement as far as gay marriage is concerned? Based on Ikari's arguement I've come to the conclusion that the gov't should have no say in marriage whatsoever. I know I'm going to get alot of flak for this considering my previous arguements but this is something I just had to say.

That just put a big smile on my face. :-D

I'm going to start a thread sometime about everyone on this forum who has had a change of heart, it seems to happen more often in recent times.

Protostar · Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:

It also angers me that I, as a single male get taxed more because I'm single. WTF? I work just as hard as married people, yet they get a break and I don't?

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Protostar wrote: It also angers me that I, as a single male get taxed more because I'm single. WTF? I work just as hard as married people, yet they get a break and I don't?

Good point ... that's discrimination! :x

Jay2014 · Joined: 31 May 2005 Posts: 1243

Protostar wrote: It also angers me that I, as a single male get taxed more because I'm single. WTF? I work just as hard as married people, yet they get a break and I don't?

i agree, this is why marrige, and in fact the family in general, needs to be completely seperated from government. the tax benefits are the result of some groups seeking to encourage marrige. by doing this, they are in fact telling us that it is desireable, for what ever reason, for one to be married as opposed to unmarried. i dont think this is a judgement the government has any right to make.

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

eXploiTeD wrote: I'm interested to see if he'll be able to name one thing that cannot be taken care of by the private sector... If he can't, he's clearly lost this debate.

Actually the question you have asked loses the debate for you. If I were to grant you that there is not one thing that couldnt be taken care of by the private sector (I wont grant you that - but lets say I did) - then your push for "same-sex marriage" becomes mute. Under your theory - homosexuals are already able to gain - thru legal contract - all of the legal benefits of marriage. So why would they want a peice of paper from the government that esentially gives them nothing that they cant already obtain themselves thru a lawyer?

ikari · Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 7090 Location: Colorado

Thus is the reason to abolish the marriage license. The states and private sector can take care of it, we don't need the federal government to interfere and infringe upon the rights of the citizens of the free and sovereign state.

eXploiTeD · Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 7914

SavannahMan wrote: eXploiTeD wrote: I'm interested to see if he'll be able to name one thing that cannot be taken care of by the private sector... If he can't, he's clearly lost this debate.

Actually the question you have asked loses the debate for you. If I were to grant you that there is not one thing that couldnt be taken care of by the private sector (I wont grant you that - but lets say I did) - then your push for "same-sex marriage" becomes mute. Under your theory - homosexuals are already able to gain - thru legal contract - all of the legal benefits of marriage. So why would they want a peice of paper from the government that esentially gives them nothing that they cant already obtain themselves thru a lawyer?

Your argument has spiralled out of control.

I personally do not believe that government should be involved in marriage... however, I can understand why homosexuals feel they should at least be allowed access to this priviledge if it should continue to exist.

From best outcome to worst, in my opinion: (1) No government involvement in marriage, (2) Government involvement in marriage, but in accordance with the principles of equality, (3) Status quo.

Your argument really isn't even an argument. It is more of a red herring. Besides, I never said that homosexuals are able to procure those benefits; in fact, they are regularly denied thousands of them! I simply said that they should be able to pursue those benefits, privately, just like everyone else.

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

Protostar wrote: Would it be okay for me to come out and say that I have changed my arguement as far as gay marriage is concerned? Based on Ikari's arguement I've come to the conclusion that the gov't should have no say in marriage whatsoever. I know I'm going to get alot of flak for this considering my previous arguements but this is something I just had to say.

I have no idea what your previous arguments were and I certainly wont give you any flak - hold whatever opinion you like it won't change squat.

IMHO you have not done much thought on the subject if you are so easily swayed by such a silly argument.

"The government shouldnt be involved in marriage" - So now that the homosexual lobby has come to grips with the fact that their partnerships will never be sanctioned by this government they decide to switch gears and argue that no one's marriage should be.

Face facts - the homosexual community fought this political fight like a bunch of buffons and they have killed any chances of getting what they want on this. They tried to rush things along and it backfired on them. I would like to personally thank the mayor of San Fran - as soon as he pulled his little publicity stunt I knew that the gay marriage issue was a dead one. Instead of going for incremental change they decided to try to force Americans to swallow their whole load at once - gag reflex kicked in and America spat their issue out.

eXploiTeD · Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 7914

SavannahMan wrote: Protostar wrote: Would it be okay for me to come out and say that I have changed my arguement as far as gay marriage is concerned? Based on Ikari's arguement I've come to the conclusion that the gov't should have no say in marriage whatsoever. I know I'm going to get alot of flak for this considering my previous arguements but this is something I just had to say.

I have no idea what your previous arguments were and I certainly wont give you any flak - hold whatever opinion you like it won't change squat.

IMHO you have not done much thought on the subject if you are so easily swayed by such a silly argument.

"The government shouldnt be involved in marriage" - So now that the homosexual lobby has come to grips with the fact that their partnerships will never be sanctioned by this government they decide to switch gears and argue that no one's marriage should be.

Face facts - the homosexual community fought this political fight like a bunch of buffons and they have killed any chances of getting what they want on this. They tried to rush things along and it backfired on them. I would like to personally thank the mayor of San Fran - as soon as he pulled his little publicity stunt I knew that the gay marriage issue was a dead one. Instead of going for incremental change they decided to try to force Americans to swallow their whole load at once - gag reflex kicked in and America spat their issue out.

I'm not a homosexual, by the way. It is you that are being swayed by silly arguments. Have you managed to prove a single point in this debate so far? No. It just goes to show how unprincipled the anti-homosexual lobby really is.

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

Libertarians are a funny lot - when Canadian - even more so.

My arguments are still as solid as when I began - you have failed to even broach them - so you want the government out of marriage - put it on the ballot. Better yet wait until there is a Libertarian in the White House to do it. :lol:

As for your sexuality - what makes you think I care? :?

What makes you feel like you have to state that you arent?

Are you sure? :lol:

eXploiTeD · Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 7914

SavannahMan wrote: Libertarians are a funny lot - when Canadian - even more so.

My arguments are still as solid as when I began - you have failed to even broach them - so you want the government out of marriage - put it on the ballot. Better yet wait until there is a Libertarian in the White House to do it. :lol:

That's true. I do not expect the US government to begin acknowledging the inalienable rights of its citizens until a party other then the Republicans or Democrats are in control. In any case, your disregard for libertarianism spawns from the inferiority of your own political philosophy.

Quote: As for your sexuality - what makes you think I care? :?

What makes you feel like you have to state that you arent?

Are you sure? :lol:

When you starting using "homosexual community" to describe people who support "gay marriage" (actually, just marriage in general), thats when I felt the need to clarify myself.

Oh, and yes, I'm quite sure.

ikari · Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 7090 Location: Colorado

I am not part of the "Homosexual lobby", I don't really care what their arguments are. I want the government to obey the Constitution, and that's it. Your arguments have been nothing close to solid, you have thrown up weak and absurd hypotheticals and have argued nothing from the basis of the Constitution. But it's ok, it's hard to debate Libertarians. Our beliefs and party platform is well rooted in rights, liberties, freedoms, and responsibilities; in short the very founding's of this country.

Israel · Joined: 13 Jan 2005 Posts: 2188

dkong911 wrote: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/national/main601828.shtml

%59 of Americans support amendment banning gay marriage.
In a stronger wording of the poll, support slipped down to %51.

How cool is that?

No where in the article does it give a number of people that were surveyed. Completely useless. They could have asked 50 people.

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

Israel wrote: dkong911 wrote: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/national/main601828.shtml

%59 of Americans support amendment banning gay marriage.
In a stronger wording of the poll, support slipped down to %51.

How cool is that?

No where in the article does it give a number of people that were surveyed. Completely useless. They could have asked 50 people.

True I dont dont find the poll to be especially useful - and the numbers seem low. Election results show how people really feel and those have involved millions upon millions of people and put the number at roughly 70% opposed to homosexual marriage.

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

Melchior wrote: Protostar wrote: Would it be okay for me to come out and say that I have changed my arguement as far as gay marriage is concerned? Based on Ikari's arguement I've come to the conclusion that the gov't should have no say in marriage whatsoever. I know I'm going to get alot of flak for this considering my previous arguements but this is something I just had to say.

That just put a big smile on my face. :-D

I'm going to start a thread sometime about everyone on this forum who has had a change of heart, it seems to happen more often in recent times.

Before you start patting Protostar on the back you might consider what he posted one month ago

Protostar wrote: I'm not talking about how AIDS started in Africa I'm talking about how AIDS was spread from the homosexual community to the heterosexual community through "bi-sexual" males. I'm also speaking about how disgusting and wrong homosexuality is and how it should never be considered an accpeted lifestyle. And how am I ignorant? Because I refuse to accept that two men being together is tolerable? Just the other day a thread was started by a "supposedly" 13 yr old boy about sneaking out and skinny dipping with another 12 yr old boy. Am I the only one who finds that utterly repulsive? The thread quickly degenerated into things which I will not retype here. Homosexuality will never be tolerated as an acceptable lifestyle. And the day comes that it ever is, I hope I'm not here to see it

:shock:

Protostar · Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:30 pm Post subject:

And I stand by my words. But what I said had nothing to do with marriage,
it had to do with homosexuality itself, which I still feel is wrong and immoral. I feel the way I do because even though I'm not a homosexual I still am discriminated against as married men pay less taxes than I do. I don't feel that is fair. I work as hard if not harder than alot of married men I work with so I don't understand why I pay more taxes than they do.
The government should stop rewarding people who are married but penalizing people who aren't.

StrangerWitCandy · Joined: 02 Feb 2005 Posts: 5061 Location: Fairfax, VA

eXploiTeD wrote: I'm not a homosexual, by the way. It is you that are being swayed by silly arguments. Have you managed to prove a single point in this debate so far? No. It just goes to show how unprincipled the anti-homosexual lobby really is.

a lot of bullsh*t with very little substance. which may be why more and more countries are passing laws allowing for gay marriages. and despite the fact that many in the US approve of banning gay marriages (as they did interracial marriages just decades before), the fact remains that gay marriages or civil unions for same-sex couples are more abundant now than ever before in history. people say "look at all these states that ban gay marriage," while ignoring the fact that just having civil unions and gay marriage in only a few states means progress. it wasn't long ago that gays didn't even have that. interracial marriages were also only allowed in a few states at first; its like taking baby steps. and no matter how many people cling to the fact that the ever-decreasing majority opinion is against same sex marriages, the fact is the process has already begun for history to be made and you can see it taking shape around the world