A solution to gay marriage debate.

1. 58

   mio cidposted 13 years ago

   I have a solution to the gay marriage debate.If you are a heterosexual, don't marry somebody of your same gender,trust me the gays won't come to your house and force you.At least they haven't in my case ,when me and my wife got married nobody tried to stop us.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      SomewayOuttaHereposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      huh?..i don't get what you are saying...maybe my second cuppa coffee hasn't kicked in yet....

      replyreport
      1. 58

         mio cidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         well,in that case I don't think cofee will do it for you, if you want I'll walk you through the thought process step by step.some times I don't get what people are saying and I need it clarified to me.

         replyreport
   2. 76

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Now that just makes too much sense to work.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      This is commonly known as "the right of association". This is an inherent property of the much more fundamental, inalienable "Right to Property".
      
      You have a right to associate in any way with another voluntary individual. The state can only prevent this right through the use of force and tyranny.
      
      This is the fundamental problem with democratic republics: the real problem is the usage of force, but we sit around blaming each other for the tyranny that those in power force upon us.
      
      Ron Paul fully supports getting government COMPLETELY out of the marriage debate.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         mio cidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         i believe we are always blaming everything on those in power while we are the ones who put them in power.we can't claim ignorance anymore everything is out there for everyone to see if we bother to look.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I've heard you argue against the right to free association. I would love to see you be more consistent.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               mio cidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               can you tell me in what way I argue against free association ?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  If I own a restaurant, do you think I should be allowed to keep asians out of my restaurant?

                  replyreport
      2. 75

         wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Would that mean that a Justice of the Peace would no longer marry anyone at all?  Church weddings only?
         
         Or that a JP would marry any couple wanting to be married? 
         
         Would Paul's idea of government recognize such things as spousal next of kin or community property?  If so, would it include gay couples or just heterosexual couples?  What about spousal inheritance - hetero spouses only or include gay spouses?  Or none at all without a will?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Marriages are marriages: they have nothing to do with government.
            
            Inheritance should be handled through wills and the sort.
            
            I have no idea what you're talking about with "community property" and the sort, but it could easily be taken care of with a simple well-documented sheet of paper.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I deduce that Paul would require that anyone wanting to get married go to their church to have it done.  Atheists need not apply.
               
               And that if you don't pay a lawyer to fill out papers acceptable to the government that your spouse can't keep the things that jointly belong to the couple when one dies.
               
               Community property: property owned by a married couple.  It could be a house, a car or a cooking pot.  What one owns the other owns and if divorced a couple must share equally.  I assume that Paul would give it all to the spouse earning the higher income as their money was used to purchase it.
               
               Sorry - govt is intimately involved dozens if not hundreds of ways in marriage contracts, and it must be.  Without govt intervention female homemakers will go back to being second class citizens with no rights.

               replyreport
   4. 61

      ib radmastersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If your a homosexual then don't use marriage to validate your lifestyle.
      Focus on moving the law to capture all the legal aspects of the marriage contract and put it into Civil Union.
      
      Same sex marriages don't help gays and lesbians that don't want to be married but want to have the legal advantages of marriage.
      
      Marriage is an implied contract with very little definition so the rights are very minimal. Filing as married on your taxes could be changed with the same energy the proposition 8 in California is being attacked.
      
      A legal contract and Civil Union would be legally far superior to marriage. It would also be a big advantage when the union is to be broken. It then becomes a contract issue and makes it easier to adjudicate that divorce.
      
      Same sex marriage leaves behind without protection all the couples that don't want marriage and that includes both hetero and homo couples.
      
      BTW, the divorce laws don't fairly work for the heterosexuals and would hardly work for the homosexuals.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         mio cidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         This response is not accurate, for a time there was a chance a settlement on this issue could have been reached with a compromise and have called it something other than marriage, but the righties tried to be smart and shortchange the gay community by determining that the status and benefits of for example, civil unions were inferior and not exactly the same as married couples, so at this point that train has left the station and eventually there will be same sex marriage in a year or a decade, because the wheels of history don't turn backwards.

         replyreport
2. 72

   d.williamposted 13 years ago

   I may be old and getting senile, but this is the dumbest argument i have seen in MY life time.  Our constitution (declaration of independence) guarantees these basic rights of all Americans: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- ".   There are no provisions that state these rights are only for the heterosexual conservative religious factors.  When we start making laws that blatantly discriminate against ANY minority we are in big trouble.  Radicals argue "the majority rules", but this does not include passing legislation that discriminates.  Why are we even having this discussion on a National level?

   replyreport
   1. 58

      mio cidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      We are having this discussion because the republicans had bet all their chips on a continuing malaise and as  that issue is slowly vanishing today they turn to the old tried and true politics of division.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That is exactly right.  Unfortunately for them, they're losing moderate independents who would prefer not to revert to the 1950s.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            mio cidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            It's apparent they decided to trade the big tent party for a little sleeping bag.

            replyreport
3. 0

   Sooner28posted 13 years ago

   This is going to be one of those debates people like me (who are young) look back on when we are old and just shake our heads about.  Daddy, did people actually oppose equal rights for homosexuals?  Yes son, they did..."

   replyreport