This Valentine's Day, millions of americans will be treated unequally by their government, denied such basic liberties such as the freedom to get married, or adopt children.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-14 16:51
>>1 Ah yes, this is one of the big reasons I don't call myself a conservative, but rather a libertarian. And yeah, I agree, it is complete bullshit that certain people are arbitrarilly denied the freedom to get married. Vote libertarian!
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-14 17:28
As a straight man, I fortunately don't have to care at all! And I don't!
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-14 17:50
>>3
let me get this straight, you don't care that your government is stuck in the savage morality of the biblical times?
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-14 18:01
>>4
I am not >>3, but I agree. As long as I continue to gain vast amounts of hard cash, such things are of no concern. I don't see why you did not realise this before.
Perhaps you should get your priorities straight also?
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-14 18:57
>>3
"As an asshole, I fortunately don't have to care at all! And I don't!"
Fixed.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-14 19:07
They should just get rid of state controlled marriage, its fucking ridiculous.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-14 20:01
>>7
um, no, it serves a purpose. though it seems a child wouldn't know about it
Equal rights for homos and heteros are fine... but let those rights MAKE SENSE. Marriage does not work and does not make sense.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-14 21:39
Why is 4chan for mansex?
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-14 21:51
>>9
And in the interim, I think it is fair to say that homosexuals should be just as able to enter into marriage (a private contract between two people) as should anyone else. The proper functions of government don't include sticking their nose into the private business dealings of individuals - and that includes getting married.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 1:06
Tsk tsk, secular progressives trying to force their own ideas about what equality should be to the majority of society.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 1:22
I'm gay and I don't think gays or lesbians should have rights to adopt children. Possible exception would be case in which other partner is somehow transsexual and thus can make ideal father(in case of lesbian) or mother(in case of gays) figure. If both partners are clearly men or women child will be missing father or mother figure and that will possibly lead to abnormal development.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 3:22
>>11
"The proper functions of government don't include sticking their nose into the private business dealings of individuals"
Well, actually, it does
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 3:23
>>13
I completely agree, single mothers and fathers should be forced to give up their children for adoption to REAL families as well.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 6:29
>>15
You're stupid. Being single mother/father isn't even comparable to situation where you two fathers or mothers. I've got nothing against gays being gay myself, but seriously do you think children growing up in such environment are going be normal? I have nothing against children being different, but you know they're just children and their mind is still developing thus it might hurt them. I know it's not very likely, but you never know. Children typically absorb every influence from their parents, unless that relation is broken and they start hating their parents which is relatively common with teenagers and not so serious, but if it happens in childhood then it can be real bad.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 8:36
Libertarians support fags? I was actually thinking of looking into what this party supports....
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 9:12
>>12
right, let's all just give up our ideals because the majority of the society is patently stupid and would force outdated biblical morality on everyone
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 9:12
>>17
Libertarians neither support or not suppoer homosexuals. What they do is not place their petty foibles above the core values of liberty. A fundamentalist christian libertarian for instance would express his opinion, but not force it on others. The only way for the fundamentalist christian libertarian to stop gays from getting married would be through the merits of his argument, not totalitarianism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 14:23
>>16
You're the stupid one here; how is having only one parent any more normal compared to having two parents of the same sex? If you knew any Anthropology, you'd know the nuclear family is by no means the only way to raise children. Having two fathers or mothers doesn't mean the child is missing influence from the other sex any more than having only one father or mother. In fact, having two parents would, if anything, create a family stabler than one composed of only one parent.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 14:29
>>6
No. What do I stand to gain if fags can get married? Absolutely nothing. What do I stand to lose if they can't? Absolutely nothing. Either way, I don't care what happens. Don't get pissed because I'm not enough of a fag to care about fags, fag.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 14:38
>>21
You gain pride in knowing that you live in a society that cherishes liberty and progressiveness. That should be reason alone.
Not if those business dealings don't cause serious demonstrable physical harm or injury to another person.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 15:03
>>22
The way I see it every society is imperfect and we're just about beyond repair.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 15:05
>>
"Tsk tsk, secular progressives trying to force their own ideas about what equality should be to the majority of society."
I'm not a progressive, I'm a libertarian (http://www.lp.org/). 'Progressive' tends to refer to those of a slightly leftist slant, if I'm not mistaken.
Also, it is not me who is coercing you into accepting my ideals, it is you who are coercing other people into accepting yours. In my favored society, you are generally free to do as you please as long as you aren't harming others. In your society, you apparently think people should be penalized by their government for being gay. I don't.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 16:06
>>25
Marriage is a priviledge created by society, not a right.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 16:09
Libertarians are socially left, compared to conservatives.
>>No. What do I stand to gain if fags can get married? Absolutely nothing. What do I stand to lose if they can't? The pride of being able to oppress people different from myself.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 18:16
>>27
No pride from that. My perspective is one of completely apathy. Ideally, I'd like this left up to the individual state legislatures so I can stop hearing about all this crap on the news.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 18:22
Americans are GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bunch of HOMOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fucking white Niggers!!!!!!!!!!
Fuckin fat bastards childeren of Europe!!!!!!!!!!!!
The only situation in which you could claim it is not a right would be one in which you would say individuals don't have the right to form their own private contracts and business dealings.
There is also the Bill of Rights to consider. The 10th amendment does not state that the Federal Government has the authority to ban gay marriage. As amendment 10 states, those powers not delegated to the Federal Government by the constitution are reserved for the states, or for the people. Thus, states can ban it or not ban it if they choose - this would be constitutional. A FEDERAL BAN, like the one proposed recently by the republicans, would be in direct opposition to the ideals held in the 9th and 10th amendments of our Bill of Rights.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-16 2:39
>>one in which you would say individuals don't have the right to form their own private contracts and business dealings.
Then why dont the gays make some contract up to be a "proto"-marriage thus allowing them to visit one who is sick in a hospital as a married couple can and such?
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-16 15:07
>>31
In the USA, individuals are supposed to be able to form their own private business dealings, within reason, so long as they aren't injuring other people. Gay marriage bans are non-individualistic, and thus contrary to certain closely held American values.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-16 15:28
WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS? WHY DON'T THEY JUST KILL THEMSELVES?
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-16 16:08
Gay marriage has less AIDS than gay bathhouses.
Not that marriage is worth shit in our culture anymore. Someone kill all the celebs since they give such a fine example to the droolers of the world.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-16 17:15
>>34
CELEBRITIES MAKE TV INTERESTING ,H OMOS JUST FAG IT UP WITH THEIR WHINING THEY SHOULD KILL THEMSELVES
Not famous homosexuals though.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-17 14:33
Nobody knowed de trouble I seen.
nobody knowed but Jesus.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-17 16:54
>>34
Yep, always makes me laugh when politicians claim they need to defend the "sanctity" of marriage. With a 60% divorce rate and the ludicrous ability of any coked-up bubblegum-pop celebrity whore to get married by Elvis in a seedy Vegas chapel, I think they should take a look at the world in which they live and shut the fuck up.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-17 21:26
>>37
Hey, celebrities which have to be stupid spoilt whores who act like their are coked up all the time in order to be famous aren't real celebrities.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-17 21:38
>>33
LALALALALA IF I IGNORE IT IT GOES AWAY I CANT HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALALALA
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-21 15:43 ID:g0/dimam
Swing low, sweet chariot
Coming for to carry me home.
Libertarian is on a totally different scale than Liberal and Conservative.
The opposite is Authoritarian.
Unless you were refering to Left-Libertarian, or Libertarian Socialism.
Name:
Ton Phanan2007-02-22 22:27 ID:O8AUQKdM
As far as I have been able to ascertain, the main reason for gays to marry is to gain full spouse status for a variety of economic and security issues, such as insurance rights, and for purposes of adoption.
Personally, I don't care if you call it marriage or a social contract or whatever, the semantics doesn't affect me. What I do think is that at no point should any gay wedding take place in any church, as the blatant hypocrisy would likely desanctify the area and Republicans another issue to piledrive into the ground. I believe that gays should otherwise be offered the same rights as other married couples, with the exception of a heightened scrutiny for being eligible for adoption.
Marriage itself is a weakened institution thanks to people being fools with regards to what it entails. Las Vegas doesn't help either. However, people still believe that marriage is some immaculate concept that should not be sullied. Personally, that should be the issue at hand.
"As an American, I don't worry about politics. The entire world can go down the shitter and I'll still sit here complacently eating my lard and doughnut pizzas. I don't have to worry about politics, my government does that for me."
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-23 1:04 ID:PpUFPpmJ
>>43
The problem with "Civil Unions" is that if you are giving homosexuals equality, why call it something else? This goes back to the Brown v. Board of Education decision, which is that separate is inherently unequal. I'm not saying that's an adequate legal precedent, I'm saying it's true no matter what variables you substitute in. There are lots of religious homosexuals, and if a church wants to marry them then I see nothing wrong with that. Who cares if it's hypocritical or not? Christianity is already pretty hypocritical.
There is no reason gay couples shouldn't be able to adopt. The sooner we realize it's fine to have two moms or two dads the better.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-23 2:23 ID:hvraBPcV
>>44
I like your attitude. The less you care about what these demagogues say the less likely you are going to waste time on stupid bullshit. Just get your vote in once every 4 years and shoot anyone who threatens your liberty.
Name:
Ton Phanan2007-02-23 3:29 ID:HLsFKWTo
>>45
Personally, Brown v. Topeka is an apt case to site. Save for whatever states are currently allowing gay marriages, the best homosexuals can achieve is a civil union, where they are allowed some but not all of the privileges and protections as spouses under the law. Not quite trying to be separate and equal, but close enough to fall under the auspices thereof.
Like I said, marriage is a concept that people do not want sullied by homosexuality, despite how moronic that appears. I was raised Catholic for 16 years, it didn't stick. However, I have grown up with the idea that being married in the church was a privilege, and that one should abide by the rules the church has set for that procedure. What the church itself does is a separate matter of discussion, for anyone thinking about the irony of them disparaging gays whilst the priests molest boys.
Just as I do not take Communion because I am not a faithful Catholic, I feel it would be wrong for gays to wed in the church against the doctrines the church has put forth. Not just for Catholicism, by the way, essentially all of Judeo-Christianity has some mention of frowning upon homosexuality.
Regardless, as long as the bulk of American society believes that marriage is still sacrosanct to the point that homosexuals would ruin the very foundations of the institution, nothing will be done.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-23 22:27 ID:bax6UkE2
Camp town ladies sing this song
Do Dah, Do Dah
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-24 8:42 ID:OXF2nOfh
>>45
>The problem with "Civil Unions" is that if you are giving homosexuals equality, why call it something else?
I don't get this. Why bother with the semantics? Besides, not everyone is advocating equal rights for gays: some advocate a subset of rights. For example, as >>43 said, they could get "couple" status to receive certain benefits, but not be allowed to adopt children. That's what I am for. But I am completely against adoption as it is anyway.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-24 23:00 ID:eska+UIY
>>49
Because, as I said right after that, separate but equal is never equal. There is no reason to create a separation if they are supposedly equal. And I am for full equality, though churches shouldn't be forced to marry them.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-25 8:12 ID:A78k44iY
Everything's fine. The US is a safe place to work and live.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-25 8:24 ID:TmjKx8eF
>>50
>separate but equal is never equal.
And that's why I said: we are not advocating equality. Nobody is equal.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-25 10:49 ID:VRq0SZ8R
>>52
All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-25 11:52 ID:A78k44iY
Kill all the gay people and forget they existed.
Problem solved.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-25 12:32 ID:TmjKx8eF
>>53
No, seriously, nobody is equal. How can I demand equal treatment as, for example, my niece who is an invalid? So I should get the same support she does? Or should it be the other way around, and she should get as little support as I do (seeing as I don't need any)?
Seriously, treating people all the same is one of the dumbest ideas that society has thought of.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-25 13:25 ID:A78k44iY
>>55
In that case I should be given absolute power as I am noble and can be trusted with it unlike the filthy peasants.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-25 14:43 ID:VRq0SZ8R
>>55
I get what you're saying
I'm just quoting Animal Farm
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-25 18:39 ID:XrXuGulv
>>52
Don't turn this into another Communism vs. Capitalism debate, its not. I never said treat all people the exact same, I said treat gays the same with regards to marriage and adoption.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-25 18:41 ID:iS2luJjz
Churches have the right to deny marriage services, but a courtroom does not have the write to deny civil unions.
If this was just about marriage, it wouldn't be a problem, but because married couples are put into separate tax brackets, gay "marriages" are constitutionally essential.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-25 19:27 ID:OcxpPAWo
>>55 The idea is not that all people are to be treated equally, but that all people are to be treated equally before the law. This includes homosexuals. Thus, people should not be treated differently as far as the law goes simply because of sexual preferences.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-26 9:29 ID:Tq3sTC78
>>60
so it basically goes like this: if you want to marry a man, you should be able to do it but you will be discriminated by the people around you, am i right?
should be antidiscrimination laws abolished or not?
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-26 13:55 ID:RB8JX6dw
Either we all drink from the same fountain or we don't
The country is a much more conservative place thanks to the stupidity of your proposition. Thank you Anita Bryant, wherever you are.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-04 0:02 ID:KA+z+xaF
Libertarian Socialism = No civilization.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-04 0:07 ID:KA+z+xaF
Unless of course, you're an anti-civilization hippy. Which is cool with me.
You just can't cram so many people together and keep things stable. It's like, row after row after row of people vertically stacked and compressed into an area.
Of course, then you've got to have a lot of military on hand in case things get instable - which they likely will - then you'll have to deal with the political backlash of that and so-forth and so-forth.
Which was, of course, what most of the world was like before things like suburbia happened. Unstable, uncomfortable, harsh, dirty and poor.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-04 0:18 ID:mRGdUPcF
What I wanna know is, why in every single porno involving Black men and White wimmin they always have to sodomize her? I mean seriously, why?
(srsly)
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-04 1:13 ID:KA+z+xaF
>>67
No, it's like that way in all porno with groups of men and one women. It's a power thing.... some girls also feel powerful because they have so many men clamoring over them.