- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/16/22 at 4:49 pm to Dex Morgan
How is expanding the definition of marriage considered limited government in your mind? If you support limited government, then said government should step back and say yea we don’t care about marriage, no special tax privileges, no advantages over singles, no state issued licenses.
Recognize whatever union you want with the god or devil you worship.
Recognize whatever union you want with the god or devil you worship.
Posted on 11/16/22 at 4:52 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
How is expanding the definition of marriage considered limited government in your mind? If you support limited government, then said government should step back and say yea we don’t care about marriage, no special tax privileges, no advantages over singles, no state issued licenses.
Recognize whatever union you want with the god or devil you worship.
Which is really what should happen.
But because it won't happen doesn't mean we should say "hey government, step in and stop those gays from getting married."
Posted on 11/16/22 at 4:54 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
How is expanding the definition of marriage considered limited government in your mind?
It's not, that's just one of the many dishonest aspects of this discussion. Marriage is still regulated; it's like saying if we changed the speed limit from 70 to 75 we shrunk government.
Posted on 11/16/22 at 4:55 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Flats' point is a valid one.
Not really.
He just doesn't know what the term "individual liberty" actually means. Nothing new. He's tried to pull the Muh Anarchist shite before.
This post was edited on 11/16/22 at 4:55 pm
Posted on 11/16/22 at 4:55 pm to DCtiger1
quote:That is a perfect world. We don't live there.
If you support limited government, then said government should step back and say yea we don’t care about marriage, no special tax privileges, no advantages over singles, no state issued licenses.
In our imperfect little home, we get to choose between government actively discriminating against one group of citizens ... or government not doing so.
Imperfect though it may be, I choose option (b).
Posted on 11/16/22 at 4:56 pm to Chaka
OP in 10 years...
The GOP should embrace grooming.
Pass.
Funny how we've gone from 'TOLERATE' to forced embracing of things all the while being mocked of even suggesting of 'the slippery slope'.
The GOP should embrace grooming.
Pass.
Funny how we've gone from 'TOLERATE' to forced embracing of things all the while being mocked of even suggesting of 'the slippery slope'.
This post was edited on 11/16/22 at 4:57 pm
Posted on 11/16/22 at 4:57 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
But because it won't happen doesn't mean we should say "hey government, step in and stop those gays from getting married."
And I respect your opinion, I just disagree. Somewhere in along the line it’s become so incredibly polarizing to differ on opinions, morals and values that we’ve been conditioned to beat your opposition into submission.
I’m simply saying don’t accuse conservatives of being hypocritical when it comes to limited government intrusion when it comes to marriage, because the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at any level.
Of course if marriage( not civil unions) was only something religious performed in a church, that would then be the next issue.
Posted on 11/16/22 at 4:57 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
How is expanding the definition of marriage considered limited government in your mind? If you support limited government, then said government should step back and say yea we don’t care about marriage, no special tax privileges, no advantages over singles, no state issued licenses.
Recognize whatever union you want with the god or devil you worship.
That's exactly what they should do. If your church wants to say you're married then whatever, have a blast.
Posted on 11/16/22 at 5:00 pm to AggieHank86
I disagree that it’s discrimination. It’s simply intended for a man and a woman. Call it something else and let them have it.
If you’re a male, is it discriminatory that you cannot use the women’s restroom? No, that restroom simply wasn’t intended for you. Everything doesn’t have to be offensive or discriminatory.
If you’re a male, is it discriminatory that you cannot use the women’s restroom? No, that restroom simply wasn’t intended for you. Everything doesn’t have to be offensive or discriminatory.
Posted on 11/16/22 at 5:00 pm to Dex Morgan
quote:
That's exactly what they should do. If your church wants to say you're married then whatever, have a blast.
I agree
Posted on 11/16/22 at 5:02 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
we get to choose between government actively discriminating against one group of citizens ..
As long as there are marriage laws government will still actively "discriminate" against someone. In some states you can get married at 16, in others you need parental consent to do so. If you're consistent you should want the Federal Government to dictate identical conditions to all of the states so a 17 year old isn't discriminated against.
Or we could have stuck with federalism, but that ship has sailed.
Posted on 11/16/22 at 5:02 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
And I respect your opinion, I just disagree.
I'm never going to inherently have a problem with that.
quote:
I’m simply saying don’t accuse conservatives of being hypocritical when it comes to limited government intrusion when it comes to marriage, because the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at any level.
I will call conservatives who claim to support limited government, then push for more government hypocrites because that's what they are. The government already being too involved doesn't change that.
Posted on 11/16/22 at 5:02 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
Everything doesn’t have to be offensive or discriminatory.
There's nothing inherently wrong with discrimination and it's a silly thing for the nanny state to attempt to regulate.
Posted on 11/16/22 at 5:04 pm to DCtiger1
quote:Married couples have literally thousands of privileges and rights under both state and federal law ... which are denied to unmarried couples.
I disagree that it’s discrimination.
As long as you refuse to allow willing folks to enter into same-sex marriages (and to thus obtain those privileges and rights), you are discriminating against them.
I don't give a damn whether you call it "marriage" or something else. Like Willie said, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
The spasms caused by the semantics of the thing entertain me to no end.
Posted on 11/16/22 at 5:04 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I will call conservatives who claim to support limited government, then push for more government hypocrites because that's what they are.
Says the guy jonesing for yet another federal law.
Posted on 11/16/22 at 5:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
As long as you refuse to allow willing folks to enter into same-sex marriages (and to thus obtain those privileges and rights), you are discriminating against them.
Just like we discriminate against polygamists, people who want to marry 15 year olds, etc, etc, etc.
Posted on 11/16/22 at 5:06 pm to Flats
quote:For good or ill, PURE federalism is limited by the provisions of the US Constitution.
Or we could have stuck with federalism, but that ship has sailed.
Posted on 11/16/22 at 5:06 pm to Dex Morgan
God gave them over to shameful lusts.
Page 11 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News