Poll on Marriage (Fed vs State vs. Church)

[Haggis_McMutton]

I only pointed out the differences between a man and a woman as an analogy if why it's incorrect to compare the gay marriage issue to interracial marriage. It's apples and oranges.Just do us all a favor, and please, if you are able to, leave race out of this discussion. Race has absolutely nothing to do with this. The anatomical comment was in debunking of your interracial comment, and not a point about what should be voted on.

And I've explained in what way the interracial issue is usefull. Namely as a yard stick. If your argument can't pass the interracial test it's no good.

Race has absolutely nothing to do with it?
In the past people arbitrarily decided that race should play a factor in what people are and aren't allowed to do. Now people arbitrarily decided that sexual orientation should play a factor in what people are and aren't allowed to do.

As for your point about why humans shouldn't marry dogs. If all it takes is consent, then what is wrong with consenting polygamists?

Nothing. I've already said in this thread that I have nothing against polygamy.

The reason I believe this should be up for a vote is because society is the entity that decides what is acceptable and what isn't. People can still get married in whatever way and in whatever church or court that want to, but society decides what kind of institutions society is going to recognize.

Society decides what is acceptable?
So then, we could, for instance, put up for popular vote if the state should confiscate any personal fortune over $10 mil. and redistribute the wealth to the rest.

que you saying: No, I don't believe in pure democracy on that issue, only on this issue

You seem to basically resort to a pure democracy argument when it suits you and then say "No, no, I don't believe in a pure democracy, I just believe in a pure democracy on this one issue", without actually explaining why you only believe in a pure democracy regarding certain issues.

[Phatscotty]

You're not even on point anymore. Just yappin on about me, the usual lbullshit. Doesn't change anything about how our system works or your lack of understand on the issue.

pure democracy...lol

How easily you discard the other half of the argument, the ecclesiastical tradition.

We have decided that we will decide. Deal with it. We are a Republic, and you should know that I know this more than anyone.

When the Founding Fathers created this nation, they designated it a republic rather than a democracy. They did so because a republic is fixed and tends toward stability over time, whereas a democracy, which is always in flux, is prone to violent dissolution at any moment. In fact, many of them referred to democracy as “mob rule,” and wanted to avoid it like the plague for fear that it could provide a faction the opportunity to access to the levers of political power and change the course of the nation for the worse in a relatively short period of time.

Although we have all but abolished the Constitution the Founders left us and moved closer to a democracy with each passing generation, we have still managed to remain a republic foundationally. Yet somewhere along the way, between 1776 and now, we opened the door to a rabid political correctness that has actually nurtured the very faction-like atmosphere which tends to undo a republic.

But it’s not the kind of faction our Founders feared: not one where a majority of voters unite for a cause and force their will upon the citizenry as a whole. Instead, it’s a perverted use of the court system and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that allow a person to claim that he’s been offended and then to levy the charge against those who gave offense in order to control their actions.

In other words, we’re not dealing with the tyranny of the majority, but the tyranny of the minority.

[Night Strike]

I only pointed out the differences between a man and a woman as an analogy if why it's incorrect to compare the gay marriage issue to interracial marriage. It's apples and oranges.Just do us all a favor, and please, if you are able to, leave race out of this discussion. Race has absolutely nothing to do with this. The anatomical comment was in debunking of your interracial comment, and not a point about what should be voted on.

And I've explained in what way the interracial issue is usefull. Namely as a yard stick. If your argument can't pass the interracial test it's no good.

Race has absolutely nothing to do with it?
In the past people arbitrarily decided that race should play a factor in what people are and aren't allowed to do. Now people arbitrarily decided that sexual orientation should play a factor in what people are and aren't allowed to do.

Considering that most black people feel that same-sex marriage has nothing in common with civil rights for blacks, I think your comparison is off-base.

[GreecePwns]

A government of a truly free people is one that does not legislate in order to impose morality on its citizens. A government exists to protect the rights of its people, not to limit them in any way. I see where the sentiment comes from, but "leave it to the states" allows states to impose morality on their citizens. The marriage issue, as well as all purely moral issues, should be left to the individual. Government should not be involved with marriage nor give incentives for getting married, economic or otherwise.

To that end, I do not believe a federal law must be passed to force states to allow marriage from above. The proper, pro-freedom (for lack of a better word) method is to remove bans in place at the state level.

On the other hand, one can look at the states as operating in a "free market for citizens". A state which does not allow homosexual marriage will simply lose its citizens to those that allow it, while attracting a population that does not wish to encounter a homosexual married couple in their lifetime.

But is the goal of a state to gain as many citizens as possible? Of course not. The goal of the state government, like any other government, It is to defend the rights of its citizens and to not limit them. If you take this mindset and prefer "smaller government," the state bans on gay marriage should outrage you.

But if you believe that states should be allowed to ban gay marriage, then you cannot call yourself a champion of smaller government.

I was hoping this would get a response from Phatscotty or Nightstrike, I feel there is basis for agreement here.

[Phatscotty]

I already responded. You can take my name off that

[Night Strike]

A government of a truly free people is one that does not legislate in order to impose morality on its citizens. A government exists to protect the rights of its people, not to limit them in any way. I see where the sentiment comes from, but "leave it to the states" allows states to impose morality on their citizens. The marriage issue, as well as all purely moral issues, should be left to the individual. Government should not be involved with marriage nor give incentives for getting married, economic or otherwise.

To that end, I do not believe a federal law must be passed to force states to allow marriage from above. The proper, pro-freedom (for lack of a better word) method is to remove bans in place at the state level.

On the other hand, one can look at the states as operating in a "free market for citizens". A state which does not allow homosexual marriage will simply lose its citizens to those that allow it, while attracting a population that does not wish to encounter a homosexual married couple in their lifetime.

But is the goal of a state to gain as many citizens as possible? Of course not. The goal of the state government, like any other government, It is to defend the rights of its citizens and to not limit them. If you take this mindset and prefer "smaller government," the state bans on gay marriage should outrage you.

But if you believe that states should be allowed to ban gay marriage, then you cannot call yourself a champion of smaller government.

I was hoping this would get a response from Phatscotty or Nightstrike, I feel there is basis for agreement here.

You said Phatscotty OR Night Strike, not AND. And Phatscotty already addressed you.

And the government currently gives tax incentives (and punishments) for all kinds of choices, including marriage. And actually, the states should be enacting policies that bring people to their states because that's how competition works. States should be passing policies that make their state a great environment to do business, which helps people prosper.

[GreecePwns]

Well again Scotty, if you believe that this decision is something to be decided on democratically by a society, why at the state level and not at the county level or town level?

Night Strike, I understand the government gives tax incentives for all kinds of choices, but why purely moral choices? Are the states in competition with each other for citizens? It is their job to set the conditions for greatest prosperity for its current citizens, not to compete for more citizens.

[Night Strike]

Well again Scotty, if you believe that this decision is something to be decided on democratically by a society, why at the state level and not at the county level or town level?

What's the point?

Night Strike, I understand the government gives tax incentives for all kinds of choices, but why purely moral choices? Are the states in competition with each other for citizens? It is their job to set the conditions for greatest prosperity for its current citizens, not to compete for more citizens.

Because every governmental policy is based on a moral position, and it has been demonstrated that the best family for the future of the nation is one man married to one woman in a committed relationship. And our government should encourage the things that will make our country great. A better economy in a state will naturally draw more people to that state. States should always be in competition with each other because that's how the best policies are formed.

[Phatscotty]

What is the big frikkin problem with letting people choose? Where is yalls compromise? That really doesn't sound like that bad of a deal.

[GreecePwns]

Well again Scotty, if you believe that this decision is something to be decided on democratically by a society, why at the state level and not at the county level or town level?

What's the point?

Given both of the following positions:
1. Government should be limited as much as possible in its ability to limit the rights of its citizens ("small government")
2. On issues of morality, the government shall reflect the majority view of its citizens ("let the people decide")

The only way to consolidate them is to limit the ability of moral legislation in its ability to be imposed on people. And to do that, one must accept that legislation of this type should come from a lower level of government than the states.

Because every governmental policy is based on a moral position, and it has been demonstrated that the best family for the future of the nation is one man married to one woman in a committed relationship. And our government should encourage the things that will make our country great. A better economy in a state will naturally draw more people to that state. States should always be in competition with each other because that's how the best policies are formed.

Again, why states and not counties or towns?

[vodean]

Well again Scotty, if you believe that this decision is something to be decided on democratically by a society, why at the state level and not at the county level or town level?

What's the point?

Given both of the following positions:
1. Government should be limited as much as possible in its ability to limit the rights of its citizens ("small government")
2. On issues of morality, the government shall reflect the majority view of its citizens ("let the people decide")

The only way to consolidate them is to limit the ability of moral legislation in its ability to be imposed on people. And to do that, one must accept that legislation of this type should come from a lower level of government than the states.

Because every governmental policy is based on a moral position, and it has been demonstrated that the best family for the future of the nation is one man married to one woman in a committed relationship. And our government should encourage the things that will make our country great. A better economy in a state will naturally draw more people to that state. States should always be in competition with each other because that's how the best policies are formed.

Again, why states and not counties or towns?

not at the city level, because then anyone would just have to go one city/town over to get around their laws. at the state level, most people in a given area will be kept happy, and it will be possible to enforce laws.

that would limit federal government, and maximize the number of happy citizens.

[Night Strike]

Well again Scotty, if you believe that this decision is something to be decided on democratically by a society, why at the state level and not at the county level or town level?

What's the point?

Given both of the following positions:
1. Government should be limited as much as possible in its ability to limit the rights of its citizens ("small government")
2. On issues of morality, the government shall reflect the majority view of its citizens ("let the people decide")

The only way to consolidate them is to limit the ability of moral legislation in its ability to be imposed on people. And to do that, one must accept that legislation of this type should come from a lower level of government than the states.

Because every governmental policy is based on a moral position, and it has been demonstrated that the best family for the future of the nation is one man married to one woman in a committed relationship. And our government should encourage the things that will make our country great. A better economy in a state will naturally draw more people to that state. States should always be in competition with each other because that's how the best policies are formed.

Again, why states and not counties or towns?

Because doing it at a city or county issue is unnecessary. Counties issue marriage licenses, but that's because it's much easier to go to the county clerk then to the secretary of state's office. By the way, same-sex marriage isn't a "limitation of rights" issue.

[Phatscotty]

That is the structure of our Republic, greecepwns. I think people are pushing for enough transformation right now, we don't need to radically transform the Republic. We are the Unites States of America. Each state has certain powers as innumerated in the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment

[GreecePwns]

not at the city level, because then anyone would just have to go one city/town over to get around their laws. at the state level, most people in a given area will be kept happy, and it will be possible to enforce laws.

that would limit federal government, and maximize the number of happy citizens.

Well that's why I mentioned the whole "states in a free market for citizens" part. If they are truly to be looked at as in competition for citizens (the idea being that states being in competition produces citizen-friendly legislation), then why not change this so that the counties are in competition (therefore making it a more free market)?

Because doing it at a city or county issue is unnecessary. Counties issue marriage licenses, but that's because it's much easier to go to the county clerk then to the secretary of state's office. By the way, same-sex marriage isn't a "limitation of rights" issue.

Why is it unnecessary at the county level? What makes it necessary at the state level? If one was truly about limiting the scope of government, they would not have moral legislation imposed on citizens. And if one truly saw the states in imperfectly competition for citizens, they would want to increase the amount of competition through legislating at the county or even town level (or in my view, at the household or individual level). That would, in fact, maximize the happiness of citizens.

[Phatscotty]

Look at the breakdown in discussion this issue forces. Look at the separations in society. This is a great reason why we should not tinker with our most basic and fundamental institutions, and a great reason why the federal government should not be involved.

The biggest problem for gay people used to be just simply telling their parents or gaining acceptance. Now, families are being split up if the parents do not support the issue of gay marriage, because if mom and dad think marriage is between one man and one woman, well they are just homophobic, even after they have long accepted you for who you are.

You see what I'm getting at?

[Symmetry]

Look at the breakdown in discussion this issue forces. Look at the separations in society. This is a great reason why we should not tinker with our most basic and fundamental institutions, and a great reason why the federal government should not be involved.

The biggest problem for gay people used to be just simply telling their parents or gaining acceptance. Now, families are being split up if the parents do not support the issue of gay marriage, because if mom and dad think marriage is between one man and one woman, well they are just homophobic, even after they have long accepted you for who you are.

You see what I'm getting at?

Not really.

[rdsrds2120]

Look at the breakdown in discussion this issue forces. Look at the separations in society. This is a great reason why we should not tinker with our most basic and fundamental institutions, and a great reason why the federal government should not be involved.

The biggest problem for gay people used to be just simply telling their parents or gaining acceptance. Now, families are being split up if the parents do not support the issue of gay marriage, because if mom and dad think marriage is between one man and one woman, well they are just homophobic, even after they have long accepted you for who you are.

You see what I'm getting at?

Actually, I think I kind of see where you're going with this now, and if it's what I'm thinking, I can see why you'd think what you do.

Let me try to clarify what you're saying:
You have a problem with homophobia being anything but the total acceptance of gays, even to the point of indifference being homophobic.
So, with that as your base, you don't think it's fair to be labeled as homophobic if your ideas say marriage is between a man and a woman for religious purposes, because a religious institution shouldn't be forced to recognize something against its canon, but those people aren't necessarily homophobic for believing marriage is between a man and a woman because it's not that it's discriminatory against gays, but that it's, as the saying goes, something where "the shoe fits" when a man and woman are married.

Are those close to your views? I think you just have a problem communicating through text, and that makes it hard to really know what you're saying.

-rd

[BigBallinStalin]

Well again Scotty, if you believe that this decision is something to be decided on democratically by a society, why at the state level and not at the county level or town level?

What's the point?

Given both of the following positions:
1. Government should be limited as much as possible in its ability to limit the rights of its citizens ("small government")
2. On issues of morality, the government shall reflect the majority view of its citizens ("let the people decide")

The only way to consolidate them is to limit the ability of moral legislation in its ability to be imposed on people. And to do that, one must accept that legislation of this type should come from a lower level of government than the states.

Because every governmental policy is based on a moral position, and it has been demonstrated that the best family for the future of the nation is one man married to one woman in a committed relationship. And our government should encourage the things that will make our country great. A better economy in a state will naturally draw more people to that state. States should always be in competition with each other because that's how the best policies are formed.

Again, why states and not counties or towns?

Because the vote against gay marriage is better guaranteed with this method. Per-county/parish voting isn't as effective as State-level votes on stopping gay marriage, or gay civil unions. That's my guess as to why social conservatives support majority rule only at the state level.

(They're waffling about the county-level voting has been entertaining, GP! Haha!)

[GreecePwns]

Even if those are his views, how is that a response to what I am asking him?

Essentially his response to "why should this decision be left to the states and not counties?" is "because its left to the states," which is not a response at all.

I'm not calling anyone a homophobe for anything, I never even mentioned the word. I am simply asking how views on this issue should manifest themselves through legislation, if they should manifest themselves at all.

EDIT: Fastposted, this was directed toward rdsrds

[Night Strike]

Well again Scotty, if you believe that this decision is something to be decided on democratically by a society, why at the state level and not at the county level or town level?

What's the point?

Given both of the following positions:
1. Government should be limited as much as possible in its ability to limit the rights of its citizens ("small government")
2. On issues of morality, the government shall reflect the majority view of its citizens ("let the people decide")

The only way to consolidate them is to limit the ability of moral legislation in its ability to be imposed on people. And to do that, one must accept that legislation of this type should come from a lower level of government than the states.

Because every governmental policy is based on a moral position, and it has been demonstrated that the best family for the future of the nation is one man married to one woman in a committed relationship. And our government should encourage the things that will make our country great. A better economy in a state will naturally draw more people to that state. States should always be in competition with each other because that's how the best policies are formed.

Again, why states and not counties or towns?

Because the vote against gay marriage is better guaranteed with this method. Per-county/parish voting isn't as effective as State-level votes on stopping gay marriage, or gay civil unions. That's my guess as to why social conservatives support majority rule only at the state level.

(They're waffling about the county-level voting has been entertaining, GP! Haha!)

It's just because it's something that is rarely ever mentioned and doesn't really pertain to much of anything. County governments are typically used for land use allocation and regional law enforcement. It's rarely used for social issues (only ones I have heard of covers old alcohol prohibition laws).

[rdsrds2120]

Even if those are his views, how is that a response to what I am asking him?

Essentially his response to "why should this decision be left to the states and not counties?" is "because its left to the states," which is not a response at all.

I'm not calling anyone a homophobe for anything, I never even mentioned the word. I am simply asking how views on this issue should manifest themselves through legislation, if they should manifest themselves at all.

EDIT: Fastposted, this was directed toward rdsrds

I know, I'm just trying to give him some benefit of the doubt. I can't tell if he means every word he says, or if there's something he tries to say but is bad at communicating. I didn't take a stance on the legitimacy of his claims or how they related to your post at all ;P

-rd

[GreecePwns]

Well again Scotty, if you believe that this decision is something to be decided on democratically by a society, why at the state level and not at the county level or town level?

What's the point?

Given both of the following positions:
1. Government should be limited as much as possible in its ability to limit the rights of its citizens ("small government")
2. On issues of morality, the government shall reflect the majority view of its citizens ("let the people decide")

The only way to consolidate them is to limit the ability of moral legislation in its ability to be imposed on people. And to do that, one must accept that legislation of this type should come from a lower level of government than the states.

Because every governmental policy is based on a moral position, and it has been demonstrated that the best family for the future of the nation is one man married to one woman in a committed relationship. And our government should encourage the things that will make our country great. A better economy in a state will naturally draw more people to that state. States should always be in competition with each other because that's how the best policies are formed.

Again, why states and not counties or towns?

Because the vote against gay marriage is better guaranteed with this method. Per-county/parish voting isn't as effective as State-level votes on stopping gay marriage, or gay civil unions. That's my guess as to why social conservatives support majority rule only at the state level.

(They're waffling about the county-level voting has been entertaining, GP! Haha!)

It's just because it's something that is rarely ever mentioned and doesn't really pertain to much of anything. County governments are typically used for land use allocation and regional law enforcement. It's rarely used for social issues (only ones I have heard of covers old alcohol prohibition laws).

So your answer, like Scotty's is, "because that's just how it is?"

Why should it be like it is?

[Night Strike]

If the state wants each county to decide, I guess they could do it that way. It just seems very inefficient and unnecessary to me. Plus it would cause chaos with state taxes.

[GreecePwns]

Assuming there are no tax incentives for marriage (an easily fixable thing):

Why stop at the county level? While the degree is lessened, there is still a chance to legislate and impose morality on others. So why not at the town level, to lessen this even more? Why legislate morality at all? There is no such thing as objective morality, so why act as if there is?

[Night Strike]

Assuming there are no tax incentives for marriage (an easily fixable thing):

Why stop at the county level? While the degree is lessened, there is still a chance to legislate and impose morality on others. So why not at the town level, to lessen this even more? Why legislate morality at all? There is no such thing as objective morality, so why act as if there is?

Of course there is objective morality. If not, then you can't even claim people like Hitler or Stalin or Mao were immoral. And every single law passed at every single level is based on a moral position, so you're actually asking for us to not pass any laws and let everyone decide for himself what is moral and what is not.