Legislating morality

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
State governments are still governments and your support of their licensing laws contradicts your claim of a desire to "keep your government out of my personal relationship." You fully support legislating marriage. You just oppose the protection of the Bill of Rights and 14th amendment against discriminatory laws.
Click to expand...
Again, you don't get to choose my position.
 
aeprga said:
Thanks. I thought so. I wanted to give the new guy the benefit of the doubt, but SouthernMan/DamnYankee ain't entitled to it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought Right was just young, naive and or stupid. He is definitely reminiscent of DY, i.e., no real principles and every argument is just vulgar sophistry used only for attack and then quickly abandoned when under fire.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Yeah, I thought Right was just young, naive and or stupid. He is definitely reminiscent of DY, i.e., no real principles and every argument is just vulgar sophistry used only for attack and then quickly abandoned when under fire.
Click to expand...
This obsession is getting creepy...
 
One more...

Right said:
I win!
Click to expand...

Classic dy. No, you lost when you lied about your position as being opposed to government involvement and legislation of marriage.

From winterborn, I accept it as sincere but would still challenge him that it is impossible/not feasible/impractical without Anarchy (not chaos, but no government).
 
So back up a bit. Where do you draw the line, at what point it someone's immoral act, harming you. Is a perceived indirect harm caused by changed in social structure enough to permit the government to exclude types of marriage? I'm not talking about marriages that harm innocent victims, like between children and adults or that type of thing. I am talking about gay marriage where two consenting adults agree to join in a marriage.
 
To me, Jarod, its a simple licensing issue. If residents of a state are of the opinion that it is not in their best interest to license an activity, the they shouldn't be forced to license it.

Would you prefer it if a judge issued an edict to force them?
 
Right said:
To me, Jarod, its a simple licensing issue. If residents of a state are of the opinion that it is not in their best interest to license an activity, the they shouldn't be forced to license it.

Would you prefer it if a judge issued an edict to force them?
Click to expand...

I think if you are going to issue a license to some, excluding others, you must have some non-arbitrary standard for why and who you are going to exclude, that is based in some sort of discernible governmental interest.

For example, people under 16 cant get a licence to drive a car, not because we don't like people under 16, but because people under 16 are scientifically less likely to have the judgement required to safely operate a dangerous instrument. You see, there is a discernible government interest in protecting the health and safety of other people on the roads. This limitation is based in a standard that promotes the governmental interest of protecting the health and physical safety of the citizenry.
 
Jarod said:
I think if you are going to issue a license to some, excluding others, you must have some non-arbitrary standard for why and who you are going to exclude, that is based in some sort of discernible governmental interest.

For example, people under 16 cant get a licence to drive a car, not because we don't like people under 16, but because people under 16 are scientifically less likely to have the judgement required to safely operate a dangerous instrument. You see, there is a discernible government interest in protecting the health and safety of other people on the roads. This limitation is based in a standard that promotes the governmental interest of protecting the health and physical safety of the citizenry.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The standard for gov't involvement must be more than it being "icky" for a lot of people. There needs to be a vested interest for society in denying it.
 
WinterBorn said:
Indeed. The standard for gov't involvement must be more than it being "icky" for a lot of people. There needs to be a vested interest for society in denying it.
Click to expand...


And since not a one of the whiners who find it "icky" can express specifically what it is about gay marriage that is going to destroy the American way of life and the traditional family unit as they've claimed, then maybe they should just this once shut the hell up.
 
Jarod said:
I think if you are going to issue a license to some, excluding others, you must have some non-arbitrary standard for why and who you are going to exclude, that is based in some sort of discernible governmental interest.

For example, people under 16 cant get a licence to drive a car, not because we don't like people under 16, but because people under 16 are scientifically less likely to have the judgement required to safely operate a dangerous instrument. You see, there is a discernible government interest in protecting the health and safety of other people on the roads. This limitation is based in a standard that promotes the governmental interest of protecting the health and physical safety of the citizenry.
Click to expand...


Then you should know why marriage and its licensing, rules and regulations protecting mothers, children, etc. was of interest
to the government and society....the FACT that homosexual relationships produce no children to protect might light a bulb in your numbskull....

When is the line drawn.....nowhere ?.....if its ok for 2 men to get "married", why not three...why not four....should they allowed or prevented from obtaining children, adoption...
Why is there a law against bigamy ?.....
Society does have some obligations to protect children and mothers and even promote the procreation of mankind....its what
'marriage' is and was....why it exists.... and why society and thus gov. has an interest....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top