Conquer Club

Who else besides Minnesota has a vote on marriage this November? I know I could google it, but it's always better to hear about it at the ground level.

A Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Amendment, Amendment 1, will appear on the November 6, 2012 ballot in Minnesota as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment.[1] The measure would define marriage in the Minnesota Constitution as between one man and one woman in the state. the 2012 measure may leave open the possibility of same-sex civil unions.

Billy Graham endorses Minnesota marriage amendment
http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/176667741.html

Graham, whose evangelistic association was based in Minneapolis over 50 years, says he “wholeheartedly” supports the amendment, up for vote Nov. 6. If approved, the measure would change the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and woman, effectively banning same-sex marriage.

Phatscotty wrote:Who else besides Minnesota has a vote on marriage this November? I know I could google it, but it's always better to hear about it at the ground level.

A Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Amendment, Amendment 1, will appear on the November 6, 2012 ballot in Minnesota as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment.[1] The measure would define marriage in the Minnesota Constitution as between one man and one woman in the state. the 2012 measure may leave open the possibility of same-sex civil unions.

Billy Graham endorses Minnesota marriage amendment
http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/176667741.html

Graham, whose evangelistic association was based in Minneapolis over 50 years, says he “wholeheartedly” supports the amendment, up for vote Nov. 6. If approved, the measure would change the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and woman, effectively banning same-sex marriage.

Why are Minnesotans so afraid of homosexuals that they feel it's necessary to put this into the Constitution, when it's already the law there?

Because pirates are sneaky, and we are aware what tyranny has been imposed on peoples in other states from a single radical judge who threw out the votes of 80 million people and changed the policy themselves. But that might only be one reason....

Phatscotty wrote:Because pirates are sneaky

"Because Pirates?" I thought the term was "BMOD CENSORED Pirates?"

Gay couple: Can we get married?

phatscottys of the world: take you tyrany elsewhere scum!

saxitoxin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Because pirates are sneaky

"Because Pirates?" I thought the term was "BMOD CENSORED Pirates?"

well, the choice of the word pirate came from the pirated tea King George tried to force on the colonies, but I guess the pirates can swing both ways.

Baron Von PWN wrote:Gay couple: Can we get married?

phatscottys of the world: take you tyrany elsewhere scum!

lmao! the question is not "can we get married", the question is "can we do something that has never been done before (until the extremely recent past in the most flammy areas) and therefore change the definition of marriage?"

Oh, btw, I just called out Chris Kluwe, punter for the Minnesota Vikings. He is running his mouth, talkin about politicians are afraid to take him on in a debate, and they kinda actually are, so I called him out on his fan page and on facebook and am writing a letter to the local newspaper that I will handle this myself.

Phatscotty wrote:

Look at those crony capitalists. Dumping the competition's tea to jack up the prices. Unbelievable.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Look at those crony capitalists. Dumping the competition's tea to jack up the prices. Unbelievable.

hahaha!

Actually, they all drank coffee, much to their dismay. member, all other tea was illegal. They just flipped over the monopoly board

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Look at those crony capitalists. Dumping the competition's tea to jack up the prices. Unbelievable.

hahaha!

Actually, they all drank coffee, much to their dismay. member, all other tea was illegal. They just flipped over the monopoly board

Look at those crony capitalists. Dumping the tea to jack up the prices, so that more tea drinkers on the margin would substitute tea for coffee. Unbelievable.

Phatscotty wrote:Oh, btw, I just called out Chris Kluwe, punter for the Minnesota Vikings. He is running his mouth, talkin about politicians are afraid to take him on in a debate, and they kinda actually are, so I called him out on his fan page and on facebook and am writing a letter to the local newspaper that I will handle this myself.

Good for Chris Kluwe

I still wonder why people that claim to be in favor of civil liberties and against government intervention are so worried about what other people do with their lives.

aad0906 wrote:I still wonder why people that claim to be in favor of civil liberties and against government intervention are so worried about what other people do with their lives.

Hypocrisy.

thegreekdog wrote:

aad0906 wrote:I still wonder why people that claim to be in favor of civil liberties and against government intervention are so worried about what other people do with their lives.

Hypocrisy.

Maybe it isn't about caring what other people do with their lives at all, and is about not wanting to see the words "mother" and "father" banned from all official documents. Maybe its a lot of other reasons too.

....ban the words “mother” and “father” from legal documents under the country's plan to legalize homosexual “marriage” and give equal adoption rights to both traditional couples and same-sex partners. Under the proposal, which is being aggressively pushed forward, the term “parents” would replace “mother” and “father” in an identical marriage ceremony that will be used for both traditional and homosexual weddings.

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

aad0906 wrote:I still wonder why people that claim to be in favor of civil liberties and against government intervention are so worried about what other people do with their lives.

Hypocrisy.

Maybe it isn't about caring what other people do with their lives at all, and is about not wanting to see the words "mother" and "father" banned from all official documents. Maybe its a lot of other reasons too.

....ban the words “mother” and “father” from legal documents under the country's plan to legalize homosexual “marriage” and give equal adoption rights to both traditional couples and same-sex partners. Under the proposal, which is being aggressively pushed forward, the term “parents” would replace “mother” and “father” in an identical marriage ceremony that will be used for both traditional and homosexual weddings.

You need the government to legitimize marriage (as between man and woman) and parenting (as between mother and father)? That's pretty sad dude.

thegreekdog wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

aad0906 wrote:I still wonder why people that claim to be in favor of civil liberties and against government intervention are so worried about what other people do with their lives.

Hypocrisy.

Maybe it isn't about caring what other people do with their lives at all, and is about not wanting to see the words "mother" and "father" banned from all official documents. Maybe its a lot of other reasons too.

....ban the words “mother” and “father” from legal documents under the country's plan to legalize homosexual “marriage” and give equal adoption rights to both traditional couples and same-sex partners. Under the proposal, which is being aggressively pushed forward, the term “parents” would replace “mother” and “father” in an identical marriage ceremony that will be used for both traditional and homosexual weddings.

You need the government to legitimize marriage (as between man and woman) and parenting (as between mother and father)? That's pretty sad dude.

I don't need anything. The only thing that is sad is you ignoring the consequences.

If the government were not so large and controlling and entrenched, this would not even be an issue. You should realize that demanding "government control" to enforce same sex marriages is obviously moving in the wrong direction. Go a little further in this direction, and people will need gov't licenses to have children.

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

aad0906 wrote:I still wonder why people that claim to be in favor of civil liberties and against government intervention are so worried about what other people do with their lives.

Hypocrisy.

Maybe it isn't about caring what other people do with their lives at all, and is about not wanting to see the words "mother" and "father" banned from all official documents. Maybe its a lot of other reasons too.

....ban the words “mother” and “father” from legal documents under the country's plan to legalize homosexual “marriage” and give equal adoption rights to both traditional couples and same-sex partners. Under the proposal, which is being aggressively pushed forward, the term “parents” would replace “mother” and “father” in an identical marriage ceremony that will be used for both traditional and homosexual weddings.

You need the government to legitimize marriage (as between man and woman) and parenting (as between mother and father)? That's pretty sad dude.

I don't need anything. The only thing that is sad is you ignoring the consequences.

If the government were not so large and controlling and entrenched, this would not even be an issue. You should realize that demanding "government control" to enforce same sex marriages is obviously moving in the wrong direction. Go a little further in this direction, and people will need gov't licenses to have children.

I don't understand how you see this as the government being more involved. The government is already involved since it handles marriage licences. LGBT people already can get married in the sense of holding a ceremony and making vows to each other. They just want to be recognized and have the same rights as far as taxes and visitations as straight couples.

Phatscotty wrote:Oh, btw, I just called out Chris Kluwe, punter for the Minnesota Vikings. He is running his mouth, talkin about politicians are afraid to take him on in a debate, and they kinda actually are, so I called him out on his fan page and on facebook and am writing a letter to the local newspaper that I will handle this myself.

Is this guy wearing pads when dressed as a civilian

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

aad0906 wrote:I still wonder why people that claim to be in favor of civil liberties and against government intervention are so worried about what other people do with their lives.

Hypocrisy.

Maybe it isn't about caring what other people do with their lives at all, and is about not wanting to see the words "mother" and "father" banned from all official documents. Maybe its a lot of other reasons too.

....ban the words “mother” and “father” from legal documents under the country's plan to legalize homosexual “marriage” and give equal adoption rights to both traditional couples and same-sex partners. Under the proposal, which is being aggressively pushed forward, the term “parents” would replace “mother” and “father” in an identical marriage ceremony that will be used for both traditional and homosexual weddings.

You need the government to legitimize marriage (as between man and woman) and parenting (as between mother and father)? That's pretty sad dude.

I don't need anything. The only thing that is sad is you ignoring the consequences.

If the government were not so large and controlling and entrenched, this would not even be an issue. You should realize that demanding "government control" to enforce same sex marriages is obviously moving in the wrong direction. Go a little further in this direction, and people will need gov't licenses to have children.

So your path forward is to create further regulation of marriage by defining the term and excluding groups of people from engaging in marriage. That seems like a statist's path forward to me.

And you do need this. You need bigger, badder government with more regulation. You need the government to tell people what your definition of marriage is. This is not difficult to understand. It's why Republicans are seen as statists when it comes to social issues (such as marriage, sexuality, and religion) and why I jumped out of that political party. Now, I expected you to come in with a "yeah, but this is a state issue, not a federal one." But a state is as much an remover of freedoms from individuals as the federal government. And you're supporting increased Minnesota control over social issues. Thus, I dub you a statist. And that is a far more accurate description of you than the word "marxist" is of our current president.

Phatscotty wrote:Oh, btw, I just called out Chris Kluwe, punter for the Minnesota Vikings. He is running his mouth, talkin about politicians are afraid to take him on in a debate, and they kinda actually are, so I called him out on his fan page and on facebook and am writing a letter to the local newspaper that I will handle this myself.

Wow he must be shitting himself....

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Look at those crony capitalists. Dumping the competition's tea to jack up the prices. Unbelievable.

hahaha!

Actually, they all drank coffee, much to their dismay. member, all other tea was illegal. They just flipped over the monopoly board

Look at those crony capitalists. Dumping the tea to jack up the prices, so that more tea drinkers on the margin would substitute tea for coffee. Unbelievable.

At that time they were all still drinking tea.

Coffee became more popular after the war started and after the war... it was more propaganda than financial or taste. Only "Torries" would drink Tea.

My position on Gay Marriage is rapidly evolving.

I used to be against it... and in retrospect I think my sole argument was "Ew, that's gross".

However... the more I think about it, the more I feel I have to be for it, given the fact that I claim to be moderately Libertarian.

The only final "concern" is that we need to come to terms with the potential financial impact on Social Security... and also on impact related to Health Care.

Re: Social Security... perhaps the numbers are so small (i.e. percentage of likely gay married couples) that the impact to the system is negligible? If not we need to address this... perhaps by changing SS payouts or age requirements. (Of course we really need to do that anyway.)

Re: Healthcare... The Gov't already (essentiallY) forces private employers to fund healthcare. If (when?) same-sex marriage gets recognized by the Federal Gov't as legal... the Gov't will then be in the business of forcing private employers to recognize a (new?) private relationship... one which they (said private employer) may be morally opposed to. I don't like this.

That all said... I think I have moved essentially to the "pro" same-sex marriage side of the debate.

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

aad0906 wrote:I still wonder why people that claim to be in favor of civil liberties and against government intervention are so worried about what other people do with their lives.

Hypocrisy.

Maybe it isn't about caring what other people do with their lives at all, and is about not wanting to see the words "mother" and "father" banned from all official documents. Maybe its a lot of other reasons too.

....ban the words “mother” and “father” from legal documents under the country's plan to legalize homosexual “marriage” and give equal adoption rights to both traditional couples and same-sex partners. Under the proposal, which is being aggressively pushed forward, the term “parents” would replace “mother” and “father” in an identical marriage ceremony that will be used for both traditional and homosexual weddings.

Are mothers and fathers not parents? Is this labeling incorrect?

BMO

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:Gay couple: Can we get married?

phatscottys of the world: take you tyrany elsewhere scum!

lmao! the question is not "can we get married", the question is "can we do something that has never been done before (until the extremely recent past in the most flammy areas) and therefore change the definition of marriage?"

Which has no effect on you.

Marriage goese from "union between a man and a woman" to "union between two persons". How does this impact anyone other than homosexual couples?

Calling the areas that have approved same sex marriage, "flammy", shows the basis of your opposition.