3
1

Why Should I Vote?


41,534 views  127 comments             share        

by freak80     💰tip   follow   2012 Aug 7, 12:30am  

Why should I vote?

One party says I "hate" just because I believe that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. If they had their way, I'd be prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws and put in jail.

The other party wants me enslaved to a permanent aristocracy.

For me, a vote for either party is a vote to slit my own throat.

How did we get to this point in America?

Maybe Trey Parker and Matt Stone will save us.

#crime

« First    « Previous    Comments 107 - 127 of 127   

107   bdrasin   2012 Aug 10, 8:54am  

freak80 says

One party says I "hate" just because I believe that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. If they had their way, I'd be prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws and put in jail.

No one on the left is going to prosecute you or anyone else for holding any views on marriage, or from stating those views, as long as you aren't assaulting or injuring (actually, not figuratively) anyone. What will happen, and what I think you don't want (based on your comments on other threads), is that they will bring about changes which will make it more difficult for you to pretend that gays don't exist.

For example: in 37 states, you can fire someone just for being gay. I'd like that to change.

108   MB   2012 Aug 10, 9:38am  

Silly arguments.
Those looking for the supposed equal protection under the law please tell me why I am not able to officially enter into marriage with more than one individual? Who is the state, you , or anyone else to detemine who I can love or who I can commit myself to? Go ahead and throw out the argument that you are just looking to be equal as society and laws are today, but that does not address your very argument that would be just as applicable to the question I ask above. The acronym that defines much of the groups fighting for this equality, GLBT, incorporates "bisexual" which should defintely include an additional argument for multiple marriages. Why isn't that part of the agenda? Too much too early? Someone please help define logically why I shouldn't assume that the efforts to legalize gay marriage are just a farce, since it really isn't including equal protection for so many that have existed for so long in societies even before this country was formed? What about our bisexual friends?
Help me understand?

109   curious2   2012 Aug 10, 9:43am  

MB says

Silly arguments.

Yes, it is silly of certain people to keep returning to the polygamy non-argument as if it were somehow an argument against same-sex marriage. It has been addressed earlier in the thread, but instead you troll by repeating it ad nauseam. The short answer to your "questions," as if they were really questions, is that 2=2 but 3>2. Equal means equal, equal protection means equal protection, 2=2, 3>2.

110   MB   2012 Aug 10, 10:02am  

Wrong. Not returning, just confirming. Your bisexual friend could only have one marriage at a time then? Or, based on your short answer and to be clear, they don't fall under equal protection? Since 3>2, that is of course if they only had one person they loved of each gender and wanted to commit themself to both and not more.
It isn't an argument against same-sex marriage, it is an argument against goverment dictating anything related to your own morals. It appears that it is indeed not part of the agenda, because the basis of your response to my inquiry is "don't worry about that, it isn't an issue." I argue that it is indeed part of the issue and in the same sense the bisexuals have the same rights as all should have, which includes a 1=1 relationship with man and man, as well as the 1=1 relationship with where it is a man and woman.
Its the old nature discussion, where animals aren't meant to have one mate. Why are humans different? If religion didn't promote marriage for life, your fight would be the greater fight of the government controlling any of our morality. All the same rights are given, but until all are forced to change beliefs there is no end. Don't worry, I understand, I have studied cultures and histories. Nothing new here...please move on.

111   Dan8267   2012 Aug 10, 11:02am  

michaelsch says

First of civil unions of the same sex couples are fully recognizes and in terms of taxes treated in the same exact way as married couples.

Buster says

Actually, civil unions did not eliminate the harmful effects of discrimination. Actually, I am legally married, but paid over $5,000 more in taxes this year because my marriage is not recognized by the federal government. I also do not have the 1,100+ civil rights that are bestowed upon straight married couples. Civil Unions may have given token lip service and a few token rights to gay people. I don't want special rights as the christianists shout about. I simply want equal rights. Until I do I will not stop bitching so expect more. Simply put, if you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one.

Since Buster actually lives this shit, I'm more likely to have confidence in his correctness. What I've heard on NPR also collaborates what Buster said.

112   Buster   2012 Aug 10, 1:58pm  

MB says

Those looking for the supposed equal protection under the law please tell me why I am not able to officially enter into marriage with more than one individual?

As with the current laws of the US, NO ONE is allowed to enter into marriages of more than two people. Gay people are not fighting for rights that NO ONE has. We simply wish to have the same rights and privileges that straight people currently have.

If you wish to enter into 3 way or more marriages, you will have to join the Mormons with this battle.

There are thousands of reasons why this is not allowed as the entire English case law would have to be rewritten to accommodate such multiple, more than 2 adult, relationships, e.g. who, upon the death of a spouse, gets to inherit, who gets custody of the kids, the cash, the house, how is social security and medicare benefits apportioned. There are no easy answers . As for same sex marriage, all the laws currently on the books would simply transfer over to couples married who are gay.

Using these examples alone it is very clear that this is a bullshit argument against same sex marriage. Of course, like I said before, if this is what you wish, you are entitled to take your case to the courts.

113   CL   2012 Aug 13, 2:47am  

Further, why do these "slippery slope" type arguments persist? We can allow citizens to own guns but not missiles, right?

Therefore, we can allow gay marriage without polygamy and bestiality. It stops there. That is it. We do it all the time.

114   michaelsch   2012 Aug 13, 2:59am  

CL says

Further, why do these "slippery slope" type arguments persist? We can allow citizens to own guns but not missiles, right?

Therefore, we can allow gay marriage without polygamy and bestiality. It stops there. That is it. We do it all the time.

Do you compare polygamy to owning missiles?
I would say we can allow polygamy without gay marriage and bestiality.

115   michaelsch   2012 Aug 13, 3:34am  

Well, the idea of state defining, registering, and enforcing marriage is all non-sense. It did not exist before the 16th century when Protestants invented it.

Prior to this there were all kind of recognized and honored marriages including Jewish (blessing of the woman to belong to a male), Christian (blessed by the Church, but never required) etc. In general, the Church considered marriage a natural sacrament valid without any ceremony or registration.

Unfortunately, modern marriage mostly follows the Calvinist approach, which required state registration. It is based on the idea of completely fallen human nature, which has to be fully controled by authorities. All we need is just to get rid of this crazy idea.

Governments should not be involved in this business at all. If necessary, tax or whatever social benefits should be linked to raising family or maintaining a household. If any society (religious, or local, or any other is interested in blessing, celebrating and recording marriages, it's up to their rules. )

116   freak80   2012 Aug 13, 3:38am  

Ah Calvinism. And the periodic reactions against it.

The dynamic at the heart and soul of American religion/culture/philosophy for the last 400 years.

117   michaelsch   2012 Aug 13, 3:49am  

Buster says

There are thousands of reasons why this is not allowed as the entire English case law would have to be rewritten to accommodate such multiple, more than 2 adult, relationships, e.g. who, upon the death of a spouse, gets to inherit, who gets custody of the kids, the cash, the house, how is social security and medicare benefits apportioned. There are no easy answers . As for same sex marriage, all the laws currently on the books would simply transfer over to couples married who are gay.

In other words it isn't about justice or equal personal rights but about legal convenience.
Well, even this does not work well. Look at all legal cases, in which two former wifes (or a real wife and an officially registered one) are fighting for inheritance. One hears about such cases every day. Just look at today news:
http://www.loansafe.org/legal-tussle-over-thomas-kinkades-multi-million-estate-heads-back-to-court

118   Tenpoundbass   2012 Aug 13, 3:58am  

Funny the only party even using the word hate are the Liberals.

119   Dan8267   2012 Aug 13, 4:00am  

CL says

Further, why do these "slippery slope" type arguments persist? We can allow citizens to own guns but not missiles, right?

Therefore, we can allow gay marriage without polygamy and bestiality. It stops there. That is it. We do it all the time.

I agree that such slippery slopes arguments are dumb as they have been empirically disproved by interracial marriages and other instances.

However, why should polygamy be illegal? I'm not in favor of it, but then again, I'm not in favor of traditional marriage. Why should marriage be a legal institution at all? And if it is, why should polygamy be illegal?

All objections to polygamy and gay marriage are based on religious beliefs. Last time I checked, America wasn't a theocracy.

Now obviously bestiality can't be recognized because as far as the state is concern, marriage is simply a contract and a legal structure. You can't enter a contract with a horse. You can enter a contract with multiple adult humans.

120   michaelsch   2012 Aug 13, 4:04am  

MB says

It isn't an argument against same-sex marriage, it is an argument against goverment dictating anything related to your own morals.

Exactly!!! The ugly thing about all this same-sex marriage fight is that it's not about what's right (get rid of government envolvement where is does not belong) but about twisting the all fallen system to be (or just to look) a bit more equal to those who are considered more equal.

121   OW   2012 Aug 13, 4:23am  

No religion involved in this comment. I was taught evolution in school especially as a science major. Polygamy actually helps to propagate our species and gives us more chances of positive mutations. Homosexual acts from species hinders or eliminates it's propagation and is eventually selected out. Always find it interesting why this is considered a "religious" topic.

122   michaelsch   2012 Aug 13, 6:13am  

OW says

I was taught evolution in school especially as a science major. Polygamy actually helps to propagate our species and gives us more chances of positive mutations.

They forgot to tell you that human biological evolution ended with the elimination of neanderthals. (Somewhat 50000 years ago) Since than humans had only social evolution. Interestingly enough, the resulting human genom allows for about 2% of strictly homosexual males, and up to 10% of essentially bi-sectual, who may become or not homosexual based on various social conditions.

Maybe whoever created human race (be this evolution or whatever) has consired certain percent of homosexuals beneficial for our social evolution. Indeed the percentage of homosexual "intelectuals" is very high throughout human history from greek philosophers through great european artists and composers to modern American universities professors.

BTW, all this has nothing to do with the same sex marriages. I don't think having a registered marriage with that guy would stop Van Gogh from cutting off his ear after breaking out. :) or (:

123   Dan8267   2012 Aug 13, 6:26am  

OW says

Homosexual acts from species hinders or eliminates it's propagation and is eventually selected out.

Only pure homosexuality prevents reproduction. Bisexuality, which includes frequent homosexual acts, does not as evident throughout nature.

Furthermore, chastity and abstinence prevents reproduction. Yet, no one has ever proposed outlawing abstinence.

In any case, even pure homosexuality does have a selective advantage in terms of kin benefits. Gay uncles can funnel their resources to nieces and nephews.

But even if nature selected against homosexuality, which clearly it doesn't given the prevalence of homosexual relations in nature, why should government outlaw it? Nature selects against "nice guys". Does that mean government should mandate that all men be assholes?

124   Dan8267   2012 Aug 13, 6:28am  

OW says

Homosexual acts from species hinders or eliminates it's propagation and is eventually selected out.

Well you have a point. Homo erectus, the gayest of all species, is extinct.

125   bdrasin   2012 Aug 13, 6:33am  

OW says

No religion involved in this comment. I was taught evolution in school especially as a science major. Polygamy actually helps to propagate our species and gives us more chances of positive mutations. Homosexual acts from species hinders or eliminates it's propagation and is eventually selected out. Always find it interesting why this is considered a "religious" topic.

I really have to question your knowledge and experience here. Lots of gay people have children; among my friends and family I know more gay people with children than without. How many homosexuals do you even know?

126   CL   2012 Aug 13, 9:56am  

Dan8267 says

However, why should polygamy be illegal? I'm not in favor of it, but then again, I'm not in favor of traditional marriage.

I don't care either. My point is just that we can and do draw lines all the time. Even the NRA doesn't condone individuals owning Nukes (I think---could be!).

"Free speech" has limits. We can draw the line at gay marriage and still be fair to all citizens who want to join in the bilateral contract.

127   Dan8267   2012 Aug 13, 11:31am  

true

« First    « Previous    Comments 107 - 127 of 127   

Please register to comment:

about   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions