pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Utah Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down As Unconstitutional
#31
I'll reiterate what I said in this or maybe another thread. We all agree on almost every point here. It's just rectifying the fine details. I think we all get hung up on one point, poorly communicate it and then get all emotional over it. I do not exclude myself from this paradox. The whole gay issue, the whole manogamy issue the whole pologomy issue, the whole cousin/brother/sister/father /mother issue all falls down when we think logically. No one can control what or who someone else loves or what they love. Once you love it you're done for. While we all might find it sickening ourselves we have no right to intervene EXCEPT for non-consenting adults or any child. The age of consent being a rather tough delimiter to define. SO while I don't want to see father and daughter having a romantic relationship, it is none of my business so long as the daughter wasn't abused when she was underage. I have every right to find it appalling, offensive and nauseating. I have every right to say I find it appalling, offensive and nauseating. I have zero right to get involved. Now that being said the Mother has every right to go off yelling and screaming. I can't say that if she killed the husband that I would be calling for her head, but I'd convict her of manslaughter and ask for a light sentence.

So.. Why can't we all just find that balance. Why can't we understand that others have a different view of the world and stick to really one simple rule. There shall be no criminal law without harm, physical or financial, the severity of punishment should be weighed by the presence of intent and the severity of the loss. Running a stop sign can be a fine but should never be criminal in and of itself. If you hit a baby carriage while running the sign, well the sign running isn't what is criminal it's hitting the baby carriage while doing so that is.

I do hold out hope that we'll get there and I actually find it in all the stupid laws that are being passed and the violations of our rights that we see far more often now, probably only because we have the internet to bring it to us. I'll bet corruption is far less today than it was 50,100, 150, 200 years ago! None-the-less the scale of the corruption is probably far broader because of the number of laws that are in themselves corrupt. I have strong hope that people will eventually say enough is enough and start beating some of this crap into submission.




steelcityk9cop;129393 Wrote:Gay marriage is just one of the many social issues that drove me to the Libertarian Movement.

Free and Independent

Libertarians believe that being free and independent is a great way to live. We want a system which encourages all people to choose what they want from life; that lets them live, love, work, play, and dream their own way.

Tolerant

The Libertarian Party is for all who don't want to push other people around and don't want to be pushed around themselves. Live and let live is the Libertarian way.

To me this isn't a states rights issue.. it's a human right's issue. We are all one... be it man or woman and entitled to the same rights and privileges.

Excel... I feel your pain about almost feeling politically helpless in a way. Some times the best way is to speak your mind and beliefs and hope that it creates a spark in someone.
Reply
#32
ExcelToExcel;129414 Wrote:Who said gays were going to burn churches down?How about not taxing anyone on inheritance regardless of if its to your wife or your life long friend. The argument your applying is to the symptom of a disease. Let's just fix the disease. I don't want any state bureaucrat telling me what I should or shouldn't believe even if it is what I believe. So please take every incident of "you" and change it to "them" because you ain't talking about me. I said it before and I'll say it again. "In god we trust" sounds great to some until it gets changed to "In allah we trust" or to "In the lava god we trust" or whatever..

ArcticSplash;129388 Wrote:Same-sex marriages are legal in the libertarian haven of New Hampshire [an open carry state]. Anybody drive up there to check to see if they've burned all the churches and forced the Christians to swear an allegiance to Cthulhu?

Where does your religion and your marriage to your wife come into the picture when I'm trying to get my estate bequeathed to my spouse without incurring state transfer taxes; while you get to enjoy the tax-free privilege because our state recognized your marriage but not mine?

Did everyone elect to discard their religious beliefs the second the clock struck midnight when marriage certificates to same sex couples started coming out of the laser printer? If that's all it takes to destroy a church someone would have wiped out Scientology a long, long time ago. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a person of the same sex. Nobody's forcing you to select your partner, and I don't understand WHY you need state bureaucrats to justify your faith.

How about we just delete "In God We Trust" and not replace it with anything?

It didn't start appearing on our cash until 1956. People do some extremely sinful things with cash.

Do we really want the name of God rubbing up on some fat whore's cooter at a strip joint? Or touching the hands of a steroid-addicted HIV-infected rent boy buying meth with cash he earns giving happy endings to closet legislators?


All of the money in your wallet has traces of cocaine on it:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...money.html
Reply
#33
ArcticSplash;129418 Wrote:
ExcelToExcel;129414 Wrote:Who said gays were going to burn churches down?How about not taxing anyone on inheritance regardless of if its to your wife or your life long friend. The argument your applying is to the symptom of a disease. Let's just fix the disease. I don't want any state bureaucrat telling me what I should or shouldn't believe even if it is what I believe. So please take every incident of "you" and change it to "them" because you ain't talking about me. I said it before and I'll say it again. "In god we trust" sounds great to some until it gets changed to "In allah we trust" or to "In the lava god we trust" or whatever..

How about we just delete "In God We Trust" and not replace it with anything?

It didn't start appearing on our cash until 1956. People do some extremely sinful things with cash.

Do we really want the name of God rubbing up on some fat whore's cooter at a strip joint? Or touching the hands of a steroid-addicted HIV-infected rent boy buying meth with cash he earns giving happy endings to closet legislators?


All of the money in your wallet has traces of cocaine on it:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...money.html

Why not just leave it alone and not try to pretend our Country didn't have a specific set of founding principals? Shrug

Why is the name God so threatening to some people that they seek to see it stricken from the world? Sounds like book burning.
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#34
ByblosHex;129421 Wrote:Why is the name God so threatening to some people that they seek to see it stricken from the world? Sounds like book burning.

I've met an atheist who told me he tears pages off of Bibles and uses them as his cum rags when he jacks off.

Oddball for sure; but that's his thing. I'd love to see how one could conjure up masturbation legislation to go after that guy and also do the mental gymnastics needed to tie it to the founding principals of this country.


I think the founding principal of this country is that people fucking hated Britain with its syphalis-infected lunatic King, its state religion being used as a thought control device, and people generally wanted to live in peace without their lives being dictated to as much as possible.

I don't think it had in mind Jerry Falwell and the Religious Right coming into the picture and legislating what goes on in people's bedrooms and who they chose to associate with. But Puritan beliefs reasserted themselves after the Revolutionary War and we got things like Prohibition and Blue Laws and then the Progressives (not the ones today but the ones from the 19th Century) who thought they could fix social ills through legislation and illegalize things like poverty, drunkenness, and morals.

The only thing from those early progressives that stuck were rights that were expanded. The biggest one is that women have the right to own and trade property, conduct business, get employed, hold office and VOTE. They did not have that before.


Your average 1910s man, and many conservative women, would not be thrilled with seeing this:
[Image: gty_sarah_palin_jef_121105_wmain.jpg]
[Image: sarah-palin-shotgun-4.jpg]


And again, during Women's Suffrage, religious piety and faith tradition was used by opponents as justification for denying sufferage.

It didn't work.
Reply
#35
ByblosHex;129421 Wrote:Why not just leave it alone and not try to pretend our Country didn't have a specific set of founding principals? Shrug

lol.... let's not even go there. It sure wasn't religious freedom. It was all about power, greed, money... in the name of religious freedom of course. Big Grin
Reply
#36
steelcityk9cop;129428 Wrote:
ByblosHex;129421 Wrote:Why not just leave it alone and not try to pretend our Country didn't have a specific set of founding principals? Shrug

lol.... let's not even go there. It sure wasn't religious freedom. It was all about power, greed, money... in the name of religious freedom of course. Big Grin


You must have learned about George Washington differently than I did.
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#37
ExcelToExcel;129383 Wrote:I have no doubt that if all of us were in the same room, we would have great discussions, good laughs, and respect each others differences, with only a few exemptions. Those few exemptions would still be handled respectfully and with integrity.

It's happened before, and there were no problems except for the fact that Valorious was there and apparently people don't like him in person either. Big Grin Personally I didn't have a problem with anyone.
Reply
#38
bac0nfat;129457 Wrote:
ExcelToExcel;129383 Wrote:I have no doubt that if all of us were in the same room, we would have great discussions, good laughs, and respect each others differences, with only a few exemptions. Those few exemptions would still be handled respectfully and with integrity.

It's happened before, and there were no problems except for the fact that Valorious was there and apparently people don't like him in person either. Big Grin Personally I didn't have a problem with anyone.

All the passion each of us have isn't something that should divide us. It is something to discuss and without that why bother posting anything. Smile
Reply
#39
Lesbians can have five wives in Utah.
A gun rack in a pick-up is not for holding guns. Its a place for women to hold on to. Smile
Reply
#40
MrPeanut;129467 Wrote:Lesbians can have five wives in Utah.

Pictures! We want PICTURES!
gascolator, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Nov 2012.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What? Obama Issues Absurd Prison Food Ban das 21 3,163 02-10-2016, 03:46 PM
Last Post: sgtsandman
  Update to the gay cake fiasco... Updated again 8/23 Emoticon 101 9,878 07-22-2015, 11:13 PM
Last Post: Emoticon
  In close vote, Utah House OKs firing-squad proposal das 14 2,233 03-13-2015, 07:42 AM
Last Post: Uinta Firearms
grenade H.R. 5344 Enhanced body armor ban. JustinHEMI 9 1,540 12-26-2014, 10:02 AM
Last Post: ArcticSplash
  NM Supreme Court Finds Refusing to Photograph Gay Wedding Illegal Jon Doe 113 8,359 04-17-2014, 09:37 AM
Last Post: ExcelToExcel



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.