Padded-glove Righties...

[Minister of Truth]

Populism is not mob rule.

Yes it it.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Yes it it.

No it isn't.

 

[Canceled2]

Yes it it.

Isn't more correct to say that when populism turns anger directed at the wealthy class it "becomes" mob rule, i.e. The French Revolution?

 

[Minister of Truth]

No, populism always is mob rule. It was populism that destroyed the early Republic, and its pretty much all been downhill ever since. Proving the points concerning why the Founders built a republic and not a democracy.

 

[Cancel3]

You are welcome for the civil discourse.

I am not asking government to "secure" the institution of family, rather I ask that it promote its welfare via standing behind what it knows to be that which best establishes its success; in this instance marriage between one man and one woman.

I agree that sodomy laws with regards to consensual sex is a pretty silly business for the government to be into, however sodomy laws that have special punitive sentencing guidelines for victims of rape are the purview of government.

I really think that the test for all issues that ask government to intervene is "protection from harm". This test can be for society as a whole or the individual. It would need to pass a series of litmus tests to be sure, but this is imo, a valid approach.

How does establishing marriage as between one man and one women protect the institution of family?

Multiple studies have shown that children raised by gay couples are no different from children raised by straight couples?

If the children see that their parents love each other, that is the biggest positive they can have. Attempts to outlaw divorce would, despite the effort, do more harm for the family by keeping people in an intact relationship that is based on a licence and thats it.

 

[Canceled2]

No, populism always is mob rule. It was populism that destroyed the early Republic, and its pretty much all been downhill ever since. Proving the points concerning why the Founders built a republic and not a democracy.

I thought you were a fan of a large central government? aka as a Hamilton Conservative

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How does establishing marriage as between one man and one women protect the institution of family?

Multiple studies have shown that children raised by gay couples are no different from children raised by straight couples?

If the children see that their parents love each other, that is the biggest positive they can have. Attempts to outlaw divorce would, despite the effort, do more harm for the family by keeping people in an intact relationship that is based on a licence and thats it.

Marriage doesn't have to be established as one man and one woman, it's already established. So is the institution of family. Re-establishing marriage as defined by sexual behavior, which (oh by the way) is contradictory to family, can't possibly have positive effects on it.

Multiple studies have shown that stable families with a female mother and male father (aka: A Traditional Family) is superior to any other possible arrangement.

LMAO @ outlawing divorce! Where the fuck did you come up with that bullshit? I've never heard it... where did this actually happen?

 

[Adam Weinberg]

You are welcome for the civil discourse.
I am not asking government to "secure" the institution of family, rather I ask that it promote its welfare via standing behind what it knows to be that which best establishes its success; in this instance marriage between one man and one woman.

But do you really know that to be more successful? You may have some statistics, but we have many statistics that prove certain behaviors to be potentially dangerous and we keep those behaviors legal.

And evidence of imperfections in the choices people may make is not concrete proof of what is the most successful family. How does one person or group get to define success for everyone else? Some have argued that the institution of one man and one woman is in need of protection because marriage is for the purpose of procreation, and that government should promote that procreation.

But not all men and women who are married procreate, they are married for their own happiness. Not all men and women who are married stay married, again, because the marriage threatens their happiness or their well-being. Are the former in an unnatural and unsuccessful union? Should the latter be forced together permanently because someone else feels that they know what would be more successful for society?

Firstly, uncontested divorce was not legal in many parts of this country for a very long time. Whether that is an issue in today's political climate is less relevant to our discussion than the philosophical point that we're testing here. Which is, if the government's job is to decide what the best families are, then why do we stop at preventing same-sex families? Shouldn't the government manage all families to meet the voting public's ideal?

It seems that this kind of intellectual consistency is ignored because the primary interest is discriminating against same-sex couples.

My argument would be that the purpose and degree of success of a union is a decision for the participants. And I don't promise that society will always be better off, what I do promise is that society will always have the freedom and opportunity to make itself better off.

I'll give you an example very close to home for me.

I would be expected to marry within my own religion based on my upbringing, but I may very well find that my values as a person are better represented with a partner who was raised outside my faith. My friends and family may say my marriage is unhealthy and destined for moral failure...but isn't that up to me and my potential wife to take that gamble in pursuing our own happiness?

Maybe we will have a hard time deciding what we want to practice. Maybe if we have kids they will be confused about what exactly they are. But should imperfection and confusion in private society be something we should try to straighten out with the law, or is that something that's up to my family to work out?

It's enough to be bombarded with life-long stresses from the social institutions that already exist. That should be expected in a free society. But people who wish to make non-traditional, voluntary choices do not need the state to decide for them what constitutes a moral marriage.

As to the argument that this will open some kind of Pandora's box where anything goes, I say so be it. Any unorthodox behavior that might exist, probably already exists in some small amount and is happening under the radar, i.e. FLDS. It is so minuscule a concern that not one person should have to sacrifice their social, economic and political protections over an endless game of what if.

 

[Cancel3]

"Re-establishing marriage as defined by sexual behavior, which (oh by the way) is contradictory to family, can't possibly have positive effects on it."

Establishing that marriage can also include relationships of the same gender would do no harm.

It is the gender of the people, not the sexual activities.

 

[Cancel3]

But do you really know that to be more successful? You may have some statistics, but we have many statistics that prove certain behaviors to be potentially dangerous and we keep those behaviors legal.

And evidence of imperfections in the choices people may make is not concrete proof of what is the most successful family. How does one person or group get to define success for everyone else? Some have argued that the institution of one man and one woman is in need of protection because marriage is for the purpose of procreation, and that government should promote that procreation.

But not all men and women who are married procreate, they are married for their own happiness. Not all men and women who are married stay married, again, because the marriage threatens their happiness or their well-being. Are the former in an unnatural and unsuccessful union? Should the latter be forced together permanently because someone else feels that they know what would be more successful for society?

Firstly, uncontested divorce was not legal in many parts of this country for a very long time. Whether that is an issue in today's political climate is less relevant to our discussion than the philosophical point that we're testing here. Which is, if the government's job is to decide what the best families are, then why do we stop at preventing same-sex families? Shouldn't the government manage all families to meet the voting public's ideal?

It seems that this kind of intellectual consistency is ignored because the primary interest is discriminating against same-sex couples.

My argument would be that the purpose and degree of success of a union is a decision for the participants. And I don't promise that society will always be better off, what I do promise is that society will always have the freedom and opportunity to make itself better off.

I'll give you an example very close to home for me.

I would be expected to marry within my own religion based on my upbringing, but I may very well find that my values as a person are better represented with a partner who was raised outside my faith. My friends and family may say my marriage is unhealthy and destined for moral failure...but isn't that up to me and my potential wife to take that gamble in pursuing our own happiness?

Maybe we will have a hard time deciding what we want to practice. Maybe if we have kids they will be confused about what exactly they are. But should imperfection and confusion in private society be something we should try to straighten out with the law, or is that something that's up to my family to work out?

It's enough to be bombarded with life-long stresses from the social institutions that already exist. That should be expected in a free society. But people who wish to make non-traditional, voluntary choices do not need the state to decide for them what constitutes a moral marriage.

As to the argument that this will open some kind of Pandora's box where anything goes, I say so be it. Any unorthodox behavior that might exist, probably already exists in some small amount and is happening under the radar, i.e. FLDS. It is so minuscule a concern that not one person should have to sacrifice their social, economic and political protections over an endless game of what if.

That pandora's box is also very nearly eliminated by the use of "consenting adults" phrasing for marriage. This eliminates the ridiculous notions that gay marriage will lead to marriage that includes peodphilia, necrophilia, bestiality.

 

[midcan5]

Actually, biology and science says, a life requires a sperm and an egg. That, and time, is all that is needed to produce a life. In the United States, we have a little thing called a Constitution, and it guarantees us the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. What was that first word again? Oh yeah... LIFE! So, life is a right enumerated in our Constitution. If you don't like that, change the Constitution.

When it comes to abortion....

You know very little about biology if that is your definition of life, but that said, even the joining of egg and sperm is just potential and many if not most of these joinings end naturally. So then using your simplistic moral preaching, who kills, or is responsible for these trillions of murders? Unless a couple live as the Orthodox do, all people engage in 'abortion,' only the Catholic church is clear about this, but even Catholics don't have families like the one I was raised in. But the grandest irony of all here is the very people who pretend they support life, do not when it comes to support and education. As I have often said, Abortion is the Hypocrites Crutch, it requires nothing of the empty headed moralist except a condemnation of others, it is why the conservatives cling to it, it fits their judgmental ideology. Let Gawd in all her glory judge and let us educate and help those in need then you hypocrites will cease being hypocrites.

 

[midcan5]

Whenever I read of people concerned that gays should be allowed to marry I wonder what world they live in? Do they watch Povich, Springer, Phil, or any of the other reality TV shows and not wonder why heterosexuals are allowed to marry? Heterosexual marriage sure as heck inflicts a great deal more pain and suffering on their spouses and children than gays do. Consider too the recent financial meltdown. It probably will hurt more families and children than any act of legislation that gives gays the same rights as the other wackos who marry. And don't get me wrong I have been married forever and we have fine children also married. But our priorities are skewed when we focus on this issue and do not consider the real pain in the world.

 

[Cancel3]

Whenever I read of people concerned that gays should be allowed to marry I wonder what world they live in? Do they watch Povich, Springer, Phil, or any of the other reality TV shows and not wonder why heterosexuals are allowed to marry? Heterosexual marriage sure as heck inflicts a great deal more pain and suffering on their spouses and children than gays do. Consider too the recent financial meltdown. It probably will hurt more families and children than any act of legislation that gives gays the same rights as the other wackos who marry. And don't get me wrong I have been married forever and we have fine children also married. But our priorities are skewed when we focus on this issue and do not consider the real pain in the world.

This is a good point, midcan. It seems that the social conservatives want to focus on issues that are not nearly as pressing or serious.

 

[Kamala Trump]

You know very little about biology if that is your definition of life, but that said, even the joining of egg and sperm is just potential and many if not most of these joinings end naturally. So then using your simplistic moral preaching, who kills, or is responsible for these trillions of murders? Unless a couple live as the Orthodox do, all people engage in 'abortion,' only the Catholic church is clear about this, but even Catholics don't have families like the one I was raised in. But the grandest irony of all here is the very people who pretend they support life, do not when it comes to support and education. As I have often said, Abortion is the Hypocrites Crutch, it requires nothing of the empty headed moralist except a condemnation of others, it is why the conservatives cling to it, it fits their judgmental ideology. Let Gawd in all her glory judge and let us educate and help those in need then you hypocrites will cease being hypocrites.

No midcan. A fertilized egg is human life, period. That's bio 101. Your need to promote scientific ignorance is telling.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Isn't more correct to say that when populism turns anger directed at the wealthy class it "becomes" mob rule, i.e. The French Revolution?

That's wrong too.

 

[Canceled2]

But do you really know that to be more successful? You may have some statistics, but we have many statistics that prove certain behaviors to be potentially dangerous and we keep those behaviors legal.

And evidence of imperfections in the choices people may make is not concrete proof of what is the most successful family. How does one person or group get to define success for everyone else? Some have argued that the institution of one man and one woman is in need of protection because marriage is for the purpose of procreation, and that government should promote that procreation.

But not all men and women who are married procreate, they are married for their own happiness. Not all men and women who are married stay married, again, because the marriage threatens their happiness or their well-being. Are the former in an unnatural and unsuccessful union? Should the latter be forced together permanently because someone else feels that they know what would be more successful for society?

Firstly, uncontested divorce was not legal in many parts of this country for a very long time. Whether that is an issue in today's political climate is less relevant to our discussion than the philosophical point that we're testing here. Which is, if the government's job is to decide what the best families are, then why do we stop at preventing same-sex families? Shouldn't the government manage all families to meet the voting public's ideal?

It seems that this kind of intellectual consistency is ignored because the primary interest is discriminating against same-sex couples.

My argument would be that the purpose and degree of success of a union is a decision for the participants. And I don't promise that society will always be better off, what I do promise is that society will always have the freedom and opportunity to make itself better off.

I'll give you an example very close to home for me.

I would be expected to marry within my own religion based on my upbringing, but I may very well find that my values as a person are better represented with a partner who was raised outside my faith. My friends and family may say my marriage is unhealthy and destined for moral failure...but isn't that up to me and my potential wife to take that gamble in pursuing our own happiness?

Maybe we will have a hard time deciding what we want to practice. Maybe if we have kids they will be confused about what exactly they are. But should imperfection and confusion in private society be something we should try to straighten out with the law, or is that something that's up to my family to work out?

It's enough to be bombarded with life-long stresses from the social institutions that already exist. That should be expected in a free society. But people who wish to make non-traditional, voluntary choices do not need the state to decide for them what constitutes a moral marriage.

As to the argument that this will open some kind of Pandora's box where anything goes, I say so be it. Any unorthodox behavior that might exist, probably already exists in some small amount and is happening under the radar, i.e. FLDS. It is so minuscule a concern that not one person should have to sacrifice their social, economic and political protections over an endless game of what if.

Yes, there are numerous studies and history itself that has demonstrated that the nuclear family unit is the best unit to promote the health and welfare of society.

You continue to bring out scenarios of choices not in dispute. Yes, some marriages do not produce children. Yes, some people enjoy deviant sexual activity. The question is not to ask the government to force children onto couples in marriages, or peek into bedrooms of sexually consensual adults. The question is; does government, who is charged with protection of its citizenry as individuals and as a whole as one of its primary duties, have a role in protecting the unit that best serves children?

Laws serve to curb harmful behavior. Laws in and of themselves cannot prevent behavior. What they do is state “this is wrong”. They also provide our justice system with guidelines for prosecution and punitive damages. On the flip side they serve to protect life, liberty, and the general welfare of the public from those persons, organizations, or social movements that would seek to do harm either deliberately or in ignorance.

 

[unphased]

The question is; does government, who is charged with protection of its citizenry as individuals and as a whole as one of its primary duties, have a role in protecting the unit that best serves children?

Good question and the answer is; not if it violates the individual liberty of the citizenry involved in the equation , since the governments PRIMARY (and some would argue sole) role is the defense of said liberties.

I don't think the Federal Constitution ever granted the Federal Government the authority to "protect units" of anything let alone make some arbitrary evaluation of what "best serves" and I suspect you'll not find such language in any of the State Constitutions either.

Of course just my opinion on the matter

 

[Cancel3]

Yes, there are numerous studies and history itself that has demonstrated that the nuclear family unit is the best unit to promote the health and welfare of society.

You continue to bring out scenarios of choices not in dispute. Yes, some marriages do not produce children. Yes, some people enjoy deviant sexual activity. The question is not to ask the government to force children onto couples in marriages, or peek into bedrooms of sexually consensual adults. The question is; does government, who is charged with protection of its citizenry as individuals and as a whole as one of its primary duties, have a role in protecting the unit that best serves children?

Laws serve to curb harmful behavior. Laws in and of themselves cannot prevent behavior. What they do is state “this is wrong”. They also provide our justice system with guidelines for prosecution and punitive damages. On the flip side they serve to protect life, liberty, and the general welfare of the public from those persons, organizations, or social movements that would seek to do harm either deliberately or in ignorance.

If there were any study that showed children were done any harm by being raised by two gay men or lesbians, you MIGHT have a point.

Since there isn't, you don't.

 

[unphased]

If there were any study that showed children were done any harm by being raised by two gay men or lesbians, you MIGHT have a point.

Since there isn't, you don't.

Does it matter what any "study" has to say on the matter? IMHO it's irrelevant, the question is does the government or the rest of society have any authority to make a determination on the matter in question one way or the other?

If we governed our society based on "studies", "opinion polls" or anything else besides the rule of law, junk food, violent movies and a host of other assorted things that are derivatives of individual (sometimes *bad*) choices would be outlawed.

 

[Canceled2]

Good question and the answer is; not if it violates the individual liberty of the citizenry involved in the equation , since the governments PRIMARY (and some would argue sole) role is the defense of said liberties.

I don't think the Federal Constitution ever granted the Federal Government the authority to "protect units" of anything let alone make some arbitrary evaluation of what "best serves" and I suspect you'll not find such language in any of the State Constitutions either.

Of course just my opinion on the matter

Language specific to "units" is not in the Constitution. There are numerous protections and liberties provided for by the Constitution that do not have or need specific language to infer their rights to protection under the Constitution.

Our government’s job when seeking to establish laws, is to determine if one, are they Constitutional? Second, are they necessary for the health and safety of our citizenry? The discussion, and the emphasis I attempt to be illustrative of is; what are the guidelines for bringing attention to issues that are in need of redress?

The canard of "we shouldn't be legislating morality" is what began this particular thread of debate. All law deals with a moral question. All law points to an objective and declares "this is right and this is wrong"