Legislating morality
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
I agree with your quote in general... however the devil is in the details, it becomes a matter of degree. An argument can be made that almost anything you do, negatively affects someone. The Religious wacks, for example claim that allowing gay marriage negatively affects them. The liberals claim that not allowing gay marriage negatively affects gay people.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Why legislate marriage at all? Keep your government out of my personal relationship.
Are you married?
Regarding the bold, the liberal claim benefits from being true, while the religious wacko claim suffers from being false. That's kind of a bad example to base your criticism of that quote.
Canceled.2014.1
New member
What difference does it make if he is married? The gov't has no place in the marriage business.
I find it funny when married people say shit like that. Don't want the government involved in your relationship? Don't get married (the secular variety). It's that simple.
Canceled.2014.1
New member
Considering his former stance on marriage, I find his current idea of getting the gov't out of marriage to be admirable.
As for not marrying, only a fool would refuse the benefits afforded married couples to make a statement about marriage. Sort of a cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Well, I guess I don't understand the whole "get the government out of my relationship" thing for people who voluntarily invite the government into their relationship by getting married. What am I missing?
Edit: And I'm generally receptive to the argument that people playing who advocating for changing the rules are not hypocrites for acting under current rules as opposed to the rules they want implemented (like rich people not voluntarily paying more taxes).
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
My personal life is none of your business.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
That's like saying that I shouldn't complain about paying taxes because I might go to a park paid for by taxes.
Not really. It's more like saying the government should stay our of your relationship and then inviting the government into it.
More to the point, I think the "government should stay out of marriage" argument is a weird one. Why should it?
That's totally fair. Just wondering.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
No, because in my example, that public park would have been owned by a private concern if GovCo hadn't bullied its way into ownership. Since they have, if I want to see that venue I have no choice other than to sign up for the GovCo service.
A better question is why should government be in the marriage business, or for that matter, any business that the private sector handles quite well by itself.
I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Seriously. Can you explain what you mean by the "marriage business." Because I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about.
And that analogy is totally fucked. You can get married in a religious ceremony if you want and not enter into secular marriage whatsoever if that's what you want to do. Of course, the rights, obligations and benefits flowing from secular marriage will not apply to your marriage, but that's becasue only the govenrment can confer those rights, obligtions and benefits. No private instituation can.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
I guess I'll have to dumb down my posts to 4th grade level so you can understand. But then again, nah.
So basically you're saying that if I take advantage of a GovCo program, then I have no credibility when I say that GovCo shouldn't be involved in the program.
That's sort of like the social security argument with you liberals, that even though I've been forced to pay into the system my entire working life I shouldn't take payments later on when I retire.
You seem to have enough difficulty describing what you mean by the "marriage business" that I think it counterproductive to introduce new, additional analogies. What do you mean by the "marriage business?"
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Licensing, tax filing status, duh.