User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 12:47:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Federal judges imposing gay marriage are not defending liberty. They are imposing federal power onto the states, and violating the rights of people like the baker in CO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The will of the people only matters so far as it doesn't deprive someone else of liberty. Federal judges imposing gay marriage are not defending liberty. They are imposing federal power onto the states, and violating the rights of people like the baker in CO. Did someone force that baker to get married to a man or something? Or are you talking about something totally different? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 12:49:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Federal judges imposing gay marriage are not defending liberty. They are imposing federal power onto the states, and violating the rights of people like the baker in CO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The will of the people only matters so far as it doesn't deprive someone else of liberty. Federal judges imposing gay marriage are not defending liberty. They are imposing federal power onto the states, and violating the rights of people like the baker in CO. A lot of people hate religion more than they hate big government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 12:50:04 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Federal judges imposing gay marriage are not defending liberty. They are imposing federal power onto the states, and violating the rights of people like the baker in CO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The will of the people only matters so far as it doesn't deprive someone else of liberty. Federal judges imposing gay marriage are not defending liberty. They are imposing federal power onto the states, and violating the rights of people like the baker in CO. So you're ok with states infringing on people's liberty as long as it's the will of the people. Got it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 12:51:36 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you're ok with states infringing on people's liberty as long as it's the will of the people. Got it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The will of the people only matters so far as it doesn't deprive someone else of liberty. Federal judges imposing gay marriage are not defending liberty. They are imposing federal power onto the states, and violating the rights of people like the baker in CO. So you're ok with states infringing on people's liberty as long as it's the will of the people. Got it. Why do you insist on putting words in other people's mouths? Is that the only way you can argue? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 12:52:10 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you're ok with states infringing on people's liberty as long as it's the will of the people. Got it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The will of the people only matters so far as it doesn't deprive someone else of liberty. Federal judges imposing gay marriage are not defending liberty. They are imposing federal power onto the states, and violating the rights of people like the baker in CO. So you're ok with states infringing on people's liberty as long as it's the will of the people. Got it. I think we should have a referendum on whether he should be forced to get a vasectomy. If the courts intervene and stop it, then they're being all activist and suppressing the will of the people! Stupid big government! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 12:52:45 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. "I want the .gov out of the marriage business, so I'm going to vote to get them even more involved in it!" No, you're right that's a perfectly consistent position. Also, claiming that not recognizing dissimilar things means that something is "being banned" shows what exactly? Answer the question. If refusing to recognize a gay couple (or a incestuous couple, or a polyamorous group, or a couple of friends who just want to scam insurance companies) means that something is "banned" then does refusing to recognize adult children as dependents mean that the .gov is "banning" children? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's not the anti-thesis, and to claim it is shows a severe lack of critical thinking skills. Lol. "I want the .gov out of the marriage business, so I'm going to vote to get them even more involved in it!" No, you're right that's a perfectly consistent position. Also, claiming that not recognizing dissimilar things means that something is "being banned" shows what exactly? Answer the question. If refusing to recognize a gay couple (or a incestuous couple, or a polyamorous group, or a couple of friends who just want to scam insurance companies) means that something is "banned" then does refusing to recognize adult children as dependents mean that the .gov is "banning" children? That's a retarded question, and in no way has any bearing on marriage. Is your position that a hetero couple couldn't get married in order to scam the government? Only gays? I've seen a few sham marriages to scam the military in my day. The government telling the states to not discriminate isn't advocating more involvement it's advocating equal application of the law, until a time comes when the gov isn't involved at all. It's not that complicated, but that doesn't fit your little narrative does it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 12:53:42 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A lot of people hate religion more than they hate big government. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The will of the people only matters so far as it doesn't deprive someone else of liberty. Federal judges imposing gay marriage are not defending liberty. They are imposing federal power onto the states, and violating the rights of people like the baker in CO. A lot of people hate religion more than they hate big government. Besides my liberal use of the F-bomb (military does that to you) why on earth would you think I hate religion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 12:54:23 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do you insist on putting words in other people's mouths? Is that the only way you can argue? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The will of the people only matters so far as it doesn't deprive someone else of liberty. Federal judges imposing gay marriage are not defending liberty. They are imposing federal power onto the states, and violating the rights of people like the baker in CO. So you're ok with states infringing on people's liberty as long as it's the will of the people. Got it. Why do you insist on putting words in other people's mouths? Is that the only way you can argue? It's a natural extension of what he said. Again, not that complicated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 12:54:58 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think we should have a referendum on whether he should be forced to get a vasectomy. If the courts intervene and stop it, then they're being all activist and suppressing the will of the people! Stupid big government! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The will of the people only matters so far as it doesn't deprive someone else of liberty. Federal judges imposing gay marriage are not defending liberty. They are imposing federal power onto the states, and violating the rights of people like the baker in CO. So you're ok with states infringing on people's liberty as long as it's the will of the people. Got it. I think we should have a referendum on whether he should be forced to get a vasectomy. If the courts intervene and stop it, then they're being all activist and suppressing the will of the people! Stupid big government! Exactly. I'm out for a while, got work to do. Ya'll have fun being all statist in here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 12:56:08 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then there's this gem from '09. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
First I heard the term as well! LOL! uh huh. sure, honey. 
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's my "Black Bush" picture from a few years ago. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=28124 I actually think I made one even earlier (late 2009 or early 2010), but can't find that one. I've heard the term, but it's not used by but a few. I doubt anyone but a few people have heard it or know what it means. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Then there's this gem from '09.
Hmmm.... Nice find. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 12:58:54 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not even sort of equivalent to saying that. It's equivalent to saying "I don't support any welfare, but if it's going to be done anyway, gays shouldn't be excluded from it just for being gay". Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not even sort of equivalent to saying that. It's equivalent to saying "I don't support any welfare, but if it's going to be done anyway, gays shouldn't be excluded from it just for being gay". No one is being excluded from anything because they're gay, unless your definition of discrimination includes any legal definitions or limits whatsoever. Saying "Your relationship is only recognized as a marriage if you are of opposite genders" is literally no different than saying "Your relationship is only recognized as parent child if you are the kid's biological parent or have formally adopted them" or "You are only an adult if you have reached the age of maturity." No, the government should be using a more uniform tax. Fuck this being paid to have kids thing. If you say that there should not be a tax break for having kids, but then support redefining "dependent child" to include nieces, nephews, cousins, and close friends of the family that do sleepovers frequently: are you really opposed to that tax break? You didn't answer me. Do you think adultery should be illegal? If not, do you support adultery? Are we talking about not redefining marriage, or are we talking about anti-sodomy laws? Cause if it's the first that's a silly question, and if it's the second then that's actually relevant. That being said, marriage is a contract and adultery violates it. It is also fraudulent as (unless it is an "open" marriage) there is an expectation of exclusivity and the protection from disease that entails. Seems like we already have laws governing breach of contract and fraud, and I support enforcing them. Although it is interesting to consider why this particular type of breach of contract and fraud gets a free pass from so many. Also, fucking quote trees are a pain in the ass to parse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:01:06 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If your belief in the institution of marriage is so fragile that the government no longer forcing your views on everyone else is that undesirable to you then maybe you should really stop and think about what you believe. Tell that to the baker in CO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:01:43 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. No, it's the equivalent of saying I don't support welfare, but I will support lowing it, or a more fair application of it until it can be completely abolished. 2. Why do you need the government to define things for you? I seem to do ok without them defining things. 3. Again. Let's end tax benefits for having kids and this problem goes away. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
1. Your position is the equivalent of saying "I don't support ANY welfare, but in the meantime I'm going to vote for increasing welfare because fairness." 2. What relationships are you ok with the feds defining? 3. You realize the difference between a fundamental right, and a set of laws governing benefits right? Implementing a one child policy would be an infringement on freedom. Saying "You can't claim your 30 year old step child as a dependent" is a legal definition of a relationship, and does not. 1. No, it's the equivalent of saying I don't support welfare, but I will support lowing it, or a more fair application of it until it can be completely abolished. 2. Why do you need the government to define things for you? I seem to do ok without them defining things. 3. Again. Let's end tax benefits for having kids and this problem goes away. 1. Expanding whose relationship the .gov can be involved in is reducing it how again? 2. That's a silly attempt at ad hom, but to answer there are a lot of reasons. Survivor benefits for vets killed in the line of duty for example. 3. If you say "I want to end benefits for having kids" but then vote to expand the definition of dependent child to include nieces nephews and cousins, do you really support ending benefits to have kids? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:02:40 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would you support a fed law that said states couldn't ban concealed carry? I would!!! Federalism. How does it work? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:03:03 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Aside from his spying on US citizens, I would think libertarians would be pretty happy with Obama: * legalize pot (check) Not True on Fed level / Not Obama / Only some states * legalize gay marriage (check) Not a specific interest or goal, removing the gov from Marriage and consenting adult relationships would have been the acceptable way * legalize abortion (check) Not an Obama issue, Its been legal for deacads * open US borders (check) Not in national interest, not in interest of citizens, not a goal, not pleased Aren't those things that libertarians swoon over? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:03:12 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think we should have a referendum on whether he should be forced to get a vasectomy. If the courts intervene and stop it, then they're being all activist and suppressing the will of the people! Stupid big government! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The will of the people only matters so far as it doesn't deprive someone else of liberty. Federal judges imposing gay marriage are not defending liberty. They are imposing federal power onto the states, and violating the rights of people like the baker in CO. So you're ok with states infringing on people's liberty as long as it's the will of the people. Got it. I think we should have a referendum on whether he should be forced to get a vasectomy. If the courts intervene and stop it, then they're being all activist and suppressing the will of the people! Stupid big government! Honest question. Are you an anarchist? because your line of reasoning here would invalidate any constraint on human behaviour. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:03:30 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
No one is being excluded from anything because they're gay, unless your definition of discrimination includes any legal definitions or limits whatsoever. Saying "Your relationship is only recognized as a marriage if you are of opposite genders" is literally no different than saying "Your relationship is only recognized as parent child if you are the kid's biological parent or have formally adopted them" or "You are only an adult if you have reached the age of maturity." This well-worn argument has always bordered on the absurd. "Oh yeah you can observe whatever religion you want, as long as it's monotheistic" Quoted:
If you say that there should not be a tax break for having kids, but then support redefining "dependent child" to include nieces, nephews, cousins, and close friends of the family that do sleepovers frequently: are you really opposed to that tax break? I'm not sure how this sentence applies to anything I've said. Quoted:
Are we talking about not redefining marriage, or are we talking about anti-sodomy laws? Cause if it's the first that's a silly question, and if it's the second then that's actually relevant. That being said, marriage is a contract and adultery violates it. It is also fraudulent as (unless it is an "open" marriage) there is an expectation of exclusivity and the protection from disease that entails. Seems like we already have laws governing breach of contract and fraud, and I support enforcing them. Although it is interesting to consider why this particular type of breach of contract and fraud gets a free pass from so many. Also, fucking quote trees are a pain in the ass to parse. So do you support making it illegal to have sex with someone you're not licensed to have sex with? It sounds like you're leaning towards yes. Quoted:
Honest question. Are you an anarchist? because your line of reasoning here would invalidate any constraint on human behaviour. My line of reasoning simply supports that courts have the power to step in and strike down legislation that violates equal protection or other human rights, even if it's the "will of the people". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:04:28 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a retarded question, and in no way has any bearing on marriage. Is your position that a hetero couple couldn't get married in order to scam the government? Only gays? I've seen a few sham marriages to scam the military in my day. The government telling the states to not discriminate isn't advocating more involvement it's advocating equal application of the law, until a time comes when the gov isn't involved at all. It's not that complicated, but that doesn't fit your little narrative does it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not the anti-thesis, and to claim it is shows a severe lack of critical thinking skills. Lol. "I want the .gov out of the marriage business, so I'm going to vote to get them even more involved in it!" No, you're right that's a perfectly consistent position. Also, claiming that not recognizing dissimilar things means that something is "being banned" shows what exactly? Answer the question. If refusing to recognize a gay couple (or a incestuous couple, or a polyamorous group, or a couple of friends who just want to scam insurance companies) means that something is "banned" then does refusing to recognize adult children as dependents mean that the .gov is "banning" children? That's a retarded question, and in no way has any bearing on marriage. Is your position that a hetero couple couldn't get married in order to scam the government? Only gays? I've seen a few sham marriages to scam the military in my day. The government telling the states to not discriminate isn't advocating more involvement it's advocating equal application of the law, until a time comes when the gov isn't involved at all. It's not that complicated, but that doesn't fit your little narrative does it? So any restriction on what relationships can be considered marriage for tax and benefit purposes is discriminatory and not applying the law equally? Is that your argument? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:05:17 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you're ok with states infringing on people's liberty as long as it's the will of the people. Got it. So you are fine with the state forcing bakers to bake for gays, right? That's what you support, and it isn't freedom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:05:46 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you are fine with the state forcing bakers to bake for gays, right? That's what you support, and it isn't freedom. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So you're ok with states infringing on people's liberty as long as it's the will of the people. Got it. So you are fine with the state forcing bakers to bake for gays, right? That's what you support, and it isn't freedom. You're right, it's not freedom. What does this have to do with gay marriage? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:06:14 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did someone force that baker to get married to a man or something? Or are you talking about something totally different? Forcing him to bake a cake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:07:09 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Forcing him to bake a cake. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Did someone force that baker to get married to a man or something? Or are you talking about something totally different? Forcing him to bake a cake. So you're not talking about gay marriage? Then maybe you should have that discussion elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:07:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Forcing him to bake a cake. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Did someone force that baker to get married to a man or something? Or are you talking about something totally different? Forcing him to bake a cake. Which is not what is being discussed here. No one is advocating the forcing of a preacher to marry a gay couple. All anyone is talking about is removing any government restrictions that may be preventing said preacher from voluntarily doing so if he chooses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:09:14 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My line of reasoning simply supports that courts have the power to step in and strike down legislation that violates equal protection or other human rights, even if it's the "will of the people". Equal protection. More like the government boot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:11:46 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This well-worn argument has always bordered on the absurd. "Oh yeah you can observe whatever religion you want, as long as it's monotheistic" Quote HistoryQuoted:
This well-worn argument has always bordered on the absurd. "Oh yeah you can observe whatever religion you want, as long as it's monotheistic" Do you recognize the difference between "It is illegal to do X" and "We have a tax break for people who do Y, and X is not Y so the tax break does not apply to them" because it really seems like you don't grok that. I'm not sure how this sentence applies to anything I've said. Not recognizing gay marriage doesn't ban anything or make anything illegal, it merely doesn't provide access to certain tax breaks and benefits. Just like not recognizing your cousins as a dependent child doesn't provide them access to certain benefits. So do you support making it illegal to have sex with someone you're not licensed to have sex with? It sounds like you're leaning towards yes. You're hilarious. This is entering "Romney wants to ban tampons" territory. I don't want to change the legal definition of marriage and use the force of the federal government to force people to recognize gay relationships as equivalent to heterosexual marriage, and I am therefore probably wanting to make it illegal to have sex without a .gov permission slip. That's real retarded sir. My line of reasoning simply supports that courts have the power to step in and strike down legislation that violates equal protection or other human rights, even if it's the "will of the people". Your understanding of "equal protection" is laughable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:11:50 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Equal protection. More like the government boot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My line of reasoning simply supports that courts have the power to step in and strike down legislation that violates equal protection or other human rights, even if it's the "will of the people". Equal protection. More like the government boot. Yes, the government may have to force other branches of government to respect the equal protection clause of the United States constitution. That's by design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:12:12 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which is not what is being discussed here. No one is advocating the forcing of a preacher to marry a gay couple. All anyone is talking about is removing any government restrictions that may be preventing said preacher from voluntarily doing so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did someone force that baker to get married to a man or something? Or are you talking about something totally different? Forcing him to bake a cake. Which is not what is being discussed here. No one is advocating the forcing of a preacher to marry a gay couple. All anyone is talking about is removing any government restrictions that may be preventing said preacher from voluntarily doing so. In fact, some of the "libertarians" here support using government force against small buisness. And they also have no respect for the limits on federal powers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:13:27 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which is not what is being discussed here. No one is advocating the forcing of a preacher to marry a gay couple. All anyone is talking about is removing any government restrictions that may be preventing said preacher from voluntarily doing so if he chooses. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did someone force that baker to get married to a man or something? Or are you talking about something totally different? Forcing him to bake a cake. Which is not what is being discussed here. No one is advocating the forcing of a preacher to marry a gay couple. All anyone is talking about is removing any government restrictions that may be preventing said preacher from voluntarily doing so if he chooses. Preachers ahve been marrying gay couples for decades if not longer. Legal recognition of that won't change it. You are supporting using the threat of .gov to force companies to recognize this type of relationship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:13:30 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, the government may have to force other branches of government to respect the equal protection clause of the United States constitution. That's by design. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My line of reasoning simply supports that courts have the power to step in and strike down legislation that violates equal protection or other human rights, even if it's the "will of the people". Equal protection. More like the government boot. Yes, the government may have to force other branches of government to respect the equal protection clause of the United States constitution. That's by design. But by "respect the equal protection clause" what you mean is force local individuals who are not part of the government to do what you wish. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:13:31 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In fact, some of the "libertarians" here support using government force against small buisness. And they also have no respect for the limits on federal powers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did someone force that baker to get married to a man or something? Or are you talking about something totally different? Forcing him to bake a cake. Which is not what is being discussed here. No one is advocating the forcing of a preacher to marry a gay couple. All anyone is talking about is removing any government restrictions that may be preventing said preacher from voluntarily doing so. In fact, some of the "libertarians" here support using government force against small buisness. And they also have no respect for the limits on federal powers. OK? Still not what was being discussed at this point in this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:15:04 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you're not talking about gay marriage? Then maybe you should have that discussion elsewhere. Why is it that Sammy "libertarians" like big government so much? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:15:26 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Do you recognize the difference between "It is illegal to do X" and "We have a tax break for people who do Y, and X is not Y so the tax break does not apply to them" because it really seems like you don't grok that. I do recognize the difference. Would you be okay with just making polytheistic places of worship tax-exempt, and then telling the Catholics "well just worship something else and you'll get the tax break"? That seem kosher? Quoted:
Not recognizing gay marriage doesn't ban anything or make anything illegal, it merely doesn't provide access to certain tax breaks and benefits. Just like not recognizing your cousins as a dependent child doesn't provide them access to certain benefits. So you're not advocating making it illegal for gay people to legally marry each other? I'm confused, because this seems the premise of your entire argument. Quoted:
You're hilarious. This is entering "Romney wants to ban tampons" territory. I don't want to change the legal definition of marriage and use the force of the federal government to force people to recognize gay relationships as equivalent to heterosexual marriage, and I am therefore probably wanting to make it illegal to have sex without a .gov permission slip. That's real retarded sir. I am hilarious, but I'm not being comical now. I asked you a question. Do you think it should be illegal to have sex with someone you're not licensed to have sex with? I'm not being dense, I know why you're dodging the question. I'm just not going to let you bully me away from making this obvious point. Quoted:
Your understanding of "equal protection" is laughable. Okay. Why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:15:32 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Preachers ahve been marrying gay couples for decades if not longer. Legal recognition of that won't change it. You are supporting using the threat of .gov to force companies to recognize this type of relationship. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did someone force that baker to get married to a man or something? Or are you talking about something totally different? Forcing him to bake a cake. Which is not what is being discussed here. No one is advocating the forcing of a preacher to marry a gay couple. All anyone is talking about is removing any government restrictions that may be preventing said preacher from voluntarily doing so if he chooses. Preachers ahve been marrying gay couples for decades if not longer. Legal recognition of that won't change it. You are supporting using the threat of .gov to force companies to recognize this type of relationship. Gay couples have been able to be legally recognized as married for decades? And receiving all legal benefits thereof? Please clarify. Don't put words in my mouth. I have not made any statements supporting anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:16:11 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In fact, some of the "libertarians" here support using government force against small buisness. And they also have no respect for the limits on federal powers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did someone force that baker to get married to a man or something? Or are you talking about something totally different? Forcing him to bake a cake. Which is not what is being discussed here. No one is advocating the forcing of a preacher to marry a gay couple. All anyone is talking about is removing any government restrictions that may be preventing said preacher from voluntarily doing so. In fact, some of the "libertarians" here support using government force against small buisness. And they also have no respect for the limits on federal powers. Do you have any other points you'd like to make that have nothing to do with what we're discussing? Get them all out there in one post instead of dragging it out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:17:22 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK? Still not what was being discussed at this point in this thread. It is exactly what we are discussing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:20:00 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have any other points you'd like to make that have nothing to do with what we're discussing? Get them all out there in one post instead of dragging it out. It goes exactly to the core point. The "libertarians" here (at least those from SOM) don't defend liberty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:20:13 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you are fine with the state forcing bakers to bake for gays, right? Fuck no. Freedom of association goes both ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:20:33 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is exactly what we are discussing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OK? Still not what was being discussed at this point in this thread. It is exactly what we are discussing. We are discussing gay marriage performed by the government. You are talking about whether businesses should be able to refuse to serve gay people, a transaction that does not involve an agency bound by the 14th amendment. You perhaps don't understand what the discussion is about, but you are talking about something the rest of us aren't discussing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:20:59 PM EDT
[#39]
I've read the first page and the last page. I guess the answer to OP went from derp to BO is not doing a bad job.
Good job OP. That is how it's done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:21:55 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We are discussing gay marriage performed by the government. You are talking about whether businesses should be able to refuse to serve gay people, a transaction that does not involve an agency bound by the 14th amendment. You perhaps don't understand what the discussion is about, but you are talking about something the rest of us aren't discussing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OK? Still not what was being discussed at this point in this thread. It is exactly what we are discussing. We are discussing gay marriage performed by the government. You are talking about whether businesses should be able to refuse to serve gay people, a transaction that does not involve an agency bound by the 14th amendment. You perhaps don't understand what the discussion is about, but you are talking about something the rest of us aren't discussing. Take another look at the OP and find out what you are supposed to be discussing. What you've done is hijack a thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:22:40 PM EDT
[#41]
I know people like to attribute a desire for wide open borders as a widely held libertarian belief, but I have a hard time believing that. It's like assuming all republicans are deeply religious. It's a very ignorant assumption. People read a list of issues and the libertarian party platform's stance on those issues and think it automatically applies to all libertarians. It blows my mind how illogical people are with this stuff and shows the weird sort of bias and disdain people have for somebody who agrees with them on probably 90% of the issues because they identify better with a different "team."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:23:05 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Take another look at the OP and find out what you are supposed to be discussing. What you've done is hijack a thread. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OK? Still not what was being discussed at this point in this thread. It is exactly what we are discussing. We are discussing gay marriage performed by the government. You are talking about whether businesses should be able to refuse to serve gay people, a transaction that does not involve an agency bound by the 14th amendment. You perhaps don't understand what the discussion is about, but you are talking about something the rest of us aren't discussing. Take another look at the OP and find out what you are supposed to be discussing. What you've done is hijack a thread. Gay marriage is in the OP. Gays being treated by businesses as a protected class is not. Did you read the OP? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:25:32 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In fact, some of the "libertarians" here support using government force against small buisness. And they also have no respect for the limits on federal powers. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Did someone force that baker to get married to a man or something? Or are you talking about something totally different? Forcing him to bake a cake. Which is not what is being discussed here. No one is advocating the forcing of a preacher to marry a gay couple. All anyone is talking about is removing any government restrictions that may be preventing said preacher from voluntarily doing so. In fact, some of the "libertarians" here support using government force against small buisness. And they also have no respect for the limits on federal powers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:25:56 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gay marriage is in the OP. Gays being treated by businesses as a protected class is not. Did you read the OP? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OK? Still not what was being discussed at this point in this thread. It is exactly what we are discussing. We are discussing gay marriage performed by the government. You are talking about whether businesses should be able to refuse to serve gay people, a transaction that does not involve an agency bound by the 14th amendment. You perhaps don't understand what the discussion is about, but you are talking about something the rest of us aren't discussing. Take another look at the OP and find out what you are supposed to be discussing. What you've done is hijack a thread. Gay marriage is in the OP. Gays being treated by businesses as a protected class is not. Did you read the OP? So, he can put you in the 'BHO is doing a good job column?' |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:27:23 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know people like to attribute a desire for wide open borders as a widely held libertarian belief, but I have a hard time believing that. It's like assuming all republicans are deeply religious. It's a very ignorant assumption. People read a list of issues and the libertarian party platform's stance on those issues and think it automatically applies to all libertarians. It blows my mind how illogical people are with this stuff and shows the weird sort of bias and disdain people have for somebody who agrees with them on probably 90% of the issues because they identify better with a different "team." Its ignorance or willful intellectual dishonesty to criticize opposition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:28:31 PM EDT
[#46]
Those silly libertarians, when will they learn
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:31:59 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, he can put you in the 'BHO is doing a good job column?' Because Obama legalized gay marriage? Yeah, way to go Obama! You did it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:33:58 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do recognize the difference. Would you be okay with just making polytheistic places of worship tax-exempt, and then telling the Catholics "well just worship something else and you'll get the tax break"? That seem kosher? Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do recognize the difference. Would you be okay with just making polytheistic places of worship tax-exempt, and then telling the Catholics "well just worship something else and you'll get the tax break"? That seem kosher? That's an absurd non-sequitor, and not even analogous here. So you're not advocating making it illegal for gay people to legally marry each other? I'm confused, because this seems the premise of your entire argument. Not providing .gov recognition of a relationship is not the same as banning it. I am hilarious, but I'm not being comical now. I asked you a question. Do you think it should be illegal to have sex with someone you're not licensed to have sex with? I'm not being dense, I know why you're dodging the question. I'm just not going to let you bully me away from making this obvious point. "Bully" you?  It's like arguing with a liberal. I'm so sorry if I've hurt your feels. Are you going to be reporting me to the FBI for cyber bullying?
I do not support laws banning any activities between consenting adults. I do oppose using the threat of .gov to force individuals and companies to recognize all relationships as equivalent and/or violate their conscience. Okay. Why? If the .gov says "People who have kids get a tax break, people who don't have kids will not get that tax break, and here is the definition of a dependent child" would that violate equal protection? If you changed it to say "Anyone who claims to have a dependent child gets a tax break, and we have no limits on who is counted as a dependent child" would that be preferable and less of a violation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:35:19 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gay couples have been able to be legally recognized as married for decades? And receiving all legal benefits thereof? Please clarify. Don't put words in my mouth. I have not made any statements supporting anything. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did someone force that baker to get married to a man or something? Or are you talking about something totally different? Forcing him to bake a cake. Which is not what is being discussed here. No one is advocating the forcing of a preacher to marry a gay couple. All anyone is talking about is removing any government restrictions that may be preventing said preacher from voluntarily doing so if he chooses. Preachers ahve been marrying gay couples for decades if not longer. Legal recognition of that won't change it. You are supporting using the threat of .gov to force companies to recognize this type of relationship. Gay couples have been able to be legally recognized as married for decades? And receiving all legal benefits thereof? Please clarify. Don't put words in my mouth. I have not made any statements supporting anything. No, the .gov forcing people to recognize the status of gays who are married is a new development. Which you know, obviously. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 1:38:10 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's an absurd non-sequitor, and not even analogous here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I do recognize the difference. Would you be okay with just making polytheistic places of worship tax-exempt, and then telling the Catholics "well just worship something else and you'll get the tax break"? That seem kosher? That's an absurd non-sequitor, and not even analogous here. Sure it is. You're saying "oh you can still get married, just not to the consenting adult you want to marry". The analogy is "oh you can still practice religion, just not the religion you believe in." I know you don't like the analogy, but there's nothing wrong with it. Quoted:
Not providing .gov recognition of a relationship is not the same as banning it. If government recognition is in fact what is referred to as "marriage" (and it is in this case, unfortunately), then yes, it is. Quoted:
"Bully" you? It's like arguing with a liberal. I'm so sorry if I've hurt your feels. Are you going to be supporting me to the FBI for cyber bullying?
I do not support laws banning any activities between consenting adults. I do oppose using the threat of .gov to force individuals and companies to recognize all relationships as equivalent and/or violate their conscience. Okay, so you don't support banning adultery. Why do you support women cheating on their husbands? Quoted:
If the .gov says "People who have kids get a tax break, people who don't have kids will not get that tax break, and here is the definition of a dependent child" would that violate equal protection? If you changed it to say "Anyone who claims to have a dependent child gets a tax break, and we have no limits on who is counted as a dependent child" would that be preferable and less of a violation? If the government decided to arbitrarily define "dependent child" as a child that is not gay, then yes, I think it would. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
