Gay marriage ban upheld in California

[Scam of God]

This doesn't matter in the long run, except to facilitate more class divisions between the homosexuals of California: I can easily see the relationship between the 18,000 married gays of the state and the thousands of other homosexuals there growing strained as a result of the artificial caste system imposed upon the state by the collectivistic and anti-individualistic bigotries of its citizens.

But, as I said, California is on the wrong side of history. Social communists like tmthforu94 are a dying breed; we are a people are rediscovering our anti-authoritarian nature, and one of the prime elements of such a philosophy is knowing when to let people well enough alone. These socialists-of-the-spirit may not understand it yet, but their days are numbered.

[Scam of God]

I am pleased with the decision.  Its a victory for the anti-gay marriage camp.  I am warming to gay marriage, but SLOWLY.  We've had 5 states ratify gay marriage in the last 3 months and, to me, that is too much too fast.  We need to slow it down a little bit.  This country needs time to soak in and get used to it after each state, rather than have the entire steak shoved down its throat at one time.  The country could choke on it if it is done too fast.  I think a slow, methodical approach to the ratification would be ideal.  I don't prescribe a regular interval, but a slower, again more methodical, approach.  To me, its like a child learning to eat meat.  If you try to shove the entire sirloin steak down its throat at one time, the child's liable to choke on it.  Rather, if you take it slow and easy, the child is more apt to accept it without major repercussions.  They may spit a bite back up every now and then, but eventually, he'll eat the entire steak.

This argument is idiotic, the sort a child might make when his mother snatches from his grasp the marker he's using to doodle on the wall. The ethical right knows no divergences of time; one is either all correct immediately or he never is. You are a typical communist - both your economic and social scores belies it - so I really expect you not to see the value of individualism. Nevertheless, the truly individual man cannot wait for morons like yourself to acquiesce to his need for space; your weakling's recalcitrance on this issue has no bearing on the private conduct of any man. To whit: it is unmanly for anybody to proclaim to decide what is valuable for any other man, for it suggests a feeling of instability and a lack of assurance on one's own part. You are either in favor of freedom or you ought to be disposed of.

[Scam of God]

This doesn't matter in the long run, except to facilitate more class divisions between the homosexuals of California: I can easily see the relationship between the 18,000 married gays of the state and the thousands of other homosexuals there growing strained as a result of the artificial caste system imposed upon the state by the collectivistic and anti-individualistic bigotries of its citizens.

But, as I said, California is on the wrong side of history. Social communists like tmthforu94 are a dying breed; we are a people are rediscovering our anti-authoritarian nature, and one of the prime elements of such a philosophy is knowing when to let people well enough alone. These socialists-of-the-spirit may not understand it yet, but their days are numbered.

I do not support a national ban on gay marriage. I am also slowly warming to gay marriage, although I still find it strange. The only issues I am still a strong conservative on are immigration and abortion, but I'm slowly trending more moderate.

I don't give a hoot in Hell what you are 're-discovering'. You believe in a communal ethical system; you presuppose you and yours capable of mandating a moral schemata suitable for all men everywhere and at every time. This is collectivistic, and, ultimately, communistic. You are a traitor to the American spirit of individualism and a political abhorrence.

[Scam of God]

Liberals hate democracy when they lose.  Liberals hate the country when even the courts don't agree with them.

Democracy is a sham established to set the individual's rights under the rule of the great masses - the self-same great masses that make you feel empowered, that remind you that you're not the only drooling mongoloid in this great world of ours.

[Scam of God]

I support Gay Marriage, but I don't want to push it on people. The will come around sooner or later. People in California voted to not have it, so they shouldn't have it.

You aren't "pushing it on people"; the anti-marriage activists are pushing it on you. According to the theory of negative liberty - which is the overriding libertarian ethical system of rights - all liberties are assumed from the outside; government regulations simply take away what already exists. You already had the right to marry outside of the artificial construct that is Proposition 8 -- that Proposition removed from you a pre-existing right.

[Scam of God]

Wow, for once I agree with Vander!!

So, you see no moral issue with segregated schooling or busing?

Or, if homosexuality isn't actively chosen, you might as well say that blacks had the same rights -- to not be enslaved if they had white skin.  The only difference in the analogy is that one might be able to suppress their sexuality, but not skin color.  Otherwise, the moral parallel is pretty pure.

There is one BIG difference.  I firmly believe that being gay is a choice, not genetic.  I don't think I'm wrong, either.

What if it is? You have no authority to contravene the negative liberty of the individual in pursuit of the application of your own positive tyranny. The same freedom that keeps you from being shackled to the Church in Rome - the presupposition that all men are possessing of a freedom of religious - is the selfsame liberty that guarantees to homosexuals their right to marry outside of any collectivistic-traditionallistic setting.

[Scam of God]

I support Gay Marriage, but I don't want to push it on people. The will come around sooner or later. People in California voted to not have it, so they shouldn't have it.

You aren't "pushing it on people"; the anti-marriage activists are pushing it on you. According to the theory of negative liberty - which is the overriding libertarian ethical system of rights - all liberties are assumed from the outside; government regulations simply take away what already exists. You already had the right to marry outside of the artificial construct that is Proposition 8 -- that Proposition removed from you a pre-existing right.

But if the majority of the people in CA, voted against it and the court over turned it wouldn't that be pushing it on a state that did want it in the first place? I may be wrong here, but that is how I look at it.

That doesn't matter. The courts are in the wrong, and the people of the State are in the wrong - "inalienable rights" are inalienable for precisely this reason, because they are not susceptible to the whims of the ballot box. A spiritual Red like StatesRights, who hates freedom in all of its multifaceted forms, will not understand this; but you must.

A man's negative liberty cannot be taken from him, point blank. You had - and still have - the right to marry wherever you wish.

[Scam of God]

I support Gay Marriage, but I don't want to push it on people. The will come around sooner or later. People in California voted to not have it, so they shouldn't have it.

You aren't "pushing it on people"; the anti-marriage activists are pushing it on you. According to the theory of negative liberty - which is the overriding libertarian ethical system of rights - all liberties are assumed from the outside; government regulations simply take away what already exists. You already had the right to marry outside of the artificial construct that is Proposition 8 -- that Proposition removed from you a pre-existing right.

But if the majority of the people in CA, voted against it and the court over turned it wouldn't that be pushing it on a state that did want it in the first place? I may be wrong here, but that is how I look at it.

That doesn't matter. The courts are in the wrong, and the people of the State are in the wrong - "inalienable rights" are inalienable for precisely this reason, because they are not susceptible to the whims of the ballot box. A spiritual Red like StatesRights, who hates freedom in all of its multifaceted forms, will not understand this; but you must.

A man's negative liberty cannot be taken from him, point blank. You had - and still have - the right to marry wherever you wish.

Marriage is not a right.  Tell the 40 year old who watches Babylon 5 and lives in his mother's basement that marriage is a right.

It most certainly is a right for him, too, provided that he can find a consenting (ego res cogito) person to go on with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who cares what they have to say of it? These mythologized 'Founding Fathers' didn't conjure up out of nothingness liberalism; Thomas Jefferson plagiarized nine-tenths of his metaphysics from John Locke, who we really ought to turn to in such discussions.

[Scam of God]

Given that the fuss in California is strictly over a word, and nothing else, I fail to see how the desire of one group of people to define that word takes precedence at the level of being an inalienable natural right over the desire of another group of people to define that word another way.

Because I have the right to define whatever I wish how I wish. If I want to call myself God, you'd best not contravene me or else I'd knock your teeth down your throat. Likewise, as per Locke's Treatise, "all rights pertaining to affairs of the heart or to affairs of the mind are reserved by the individual, & in no wise should they be delimited by the authority of the masses" - the very structural foundation of our entire theory of liberalism is predicated on the individual's sole authority over such private things. To democratize them, to turn them over to the collective, is to betray liberalism and to betray individualism.

[Scam of God]

Defense of real marriage is neither bigoted nor ignorant.

What gay marriage does in fact do is debase, demean and trivialize real marriage.  Therefore, if gay marriage becomes law, what the gay community has accomplished is in fact to debase, demean, and trivialize real marriage.

Do you have ideas, or do you limit yourself to just opinions?

I find it patently offensive that you think gays entering the same unions "demeans" or "trivializes" the institution.  You may not agree with their relationships, but the idea that they "pollute" our real marriage goes beyond simple knee-jerk theological disagreement.  It's intentionally demeaning and being spiteful against them.  It is bigoted.

I have known many gay marriage opponents who address the issue respectfully -- you are not one of them.

Let me be clear.

Pro gay marriage advocates have been anything but respectful.  They have trodden upon the symbol of Christianity and they have demeaned and physically attacked anti gay marriage advocates.

What of it? I am required by no 'law' to respect your asinine and primitive belief system; where the Church stands to threaten the inviolable rights of the free man, I stand to threaten it down to its very foundations. When the Church mobilized its mindless millions during the Reagan revolution, it ought to have realized - ought to, but didn't; for the Church's foresight extends little beyond the Books of Daniel and Revelation - that it would only engender a backlash some time down the road.

When you rise up against freedom, I will put you down.

[Scam of God]

That reasoning leads logically not to State recognition of both same-gender relationships and opposite-sex relationships by the word "marriage", but to the State not using the word not at all.  A perfectly valid argument, but not the position that is generally being advocated by those passionate on either side of the issue

Wrong. That reasoning leads logically to the granting of marriage powers to anyone who desires to perform one - e.g., one ought not need to be an ordained minister or Justice of the Peace to assume the authority to marry others, 'legally' or no - and the validity of said marriages to whoever agrees to recognize them.

Now, I agree that the State ought to be out of the marriage business altogether. But until such a time as it elects to surrender that power (quite probably never), then it is beholden upon the State to recognize all marriages conducted between consenting individuals.

I understand how busy you are in trying not to upset your Fusionist/Reaganite masters, but please try to apply your anti-federalism with some care towards intellectual honesty.

[Scam of God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This presumption is not only stupid, it is deliberately disingenuous: all homosexuals in California, prior to the passing of Proposition 8, had the right to wed already; that was not only the finding of the State Supreme Court, but also a very basic derivation from negative liberty - I possess what's called 'real' freedom until the State passes a law declaring otherwise. Ergo, not only did the legalization there of gay marriage not force a 'definition' on heterosexuals, but the heterosexuals who voted for Prop 8 forced their own definition onto the homosexual community.

[Scam of God]

I support Gay Marriage, but I don't want to push it on people. The will come around sooner or later. People in California voted to not have it, so they shouldn't have it.

You aren't "pushing it on people"; the anti-marriage activists are pushing it on you. According to the theory of negative liberty - which is the overriding libertarian ethical system of rights - all liberties are assumed from the outside; government regulations simply take away what already exists. You already had the right to marry outside of the artificial construct that is Proposition 8 -- that Proposition removed from you a pre-existing right.

But if the majority of the people in CA, voted against it and the court over turned it wouldn't that be pushing it on a state that did want it in the first place? I may be wrong here, but that is how I look at it.

That doesn't matter. The courts are in the wrong, and the people of the State are in the wrong - "inalienable rights" are inalienable for precisely this reason, because they are not susceptible to the whims of the ballot box. A spiritual Red like StatesRights, who hates freedom in all of its multifaceted forms, will not understand this; but you must.

A man's negative liberty cannot be taken from him, point blank. You had - and still have - the right to marry wherever you wish.

Marriage is not a right.  Tell the 40 year old who watches Babylon 5 and lives in his mother's basement that marriage is a right.

It most certainly is a right for him, too, provided that he can find a consenting (ego res cogito) person to go on with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who cares what they have to say of it? These mythologized 'Founding Fathers' didn't conjure up out of nothingness liberalism; Thomas Jefferson plagiarized nine-tenths of his metaphysics from John Locke, who we really ought to turn to in such discussions.

Somehow I doubt that your concept of 'negative liberty' would apply to gun ownership, since conveniently your libertarian theories only apply when they aid progressive causes.   

And the same could be said of you, and the rest of your worthless, pseudoconservative Reaganite ilk: you champion 'small government, small government!', until you decide it is time that you want to expand the government so as to better, say, lock up minorities for garbage drug crimes, or restrict a woman's right of self-ownership. You are in fact a far bigger hypocrite and a far less principled individual than I, anyway, because I in fact do not champion gun control on a Federal level - I do, however, believe that it is fine for a local community to opt to restrict guns within its immediate confines, and I have very pragmatic reasons for believing this; I live near to East St. Louis, which has the highest per capita crime rate in the nation.

Incidentally, negative liberty is not my own concept, but instead was formulated first by Isaiah Berlin, classical liberal philosopher and theorist. You'd know that if you weren't terrified of book-learnin'.

[Scam of God]

In re: That "will of the voters" nonsense. It comes from the insane conceit that democracy is in itself an intrinsic moral good, rather than one of many competing factors in a balanced government. The entire concept of a system of laws is to reduce the power of public opinion. Otherwise we might as well throw out the courts and go with mob rule.

The average person should only be allowed to vote on general statements of legal principle, rather than specific issues. We have seen time and time again that the average person is more than capable of supporting a general statement of principle while rejecting the ramifications of that principle. I've lost count of the number of people who say that they oppose discrimination against homosexuals but they also oppose legalizing gay marriage. The average person is too stupid to recognize his own contradictions, because he does not think logically. He does not start from principle and then deduce conclusion; he instead starts from conclusion and then looks for appropriate supporting principles, whatever they may be. Popular opinion when it suits him, legalistic mumbo jumbo when it doesn't, religious tripe when he can't think of anything else, appeals to tradition, whatever. The same person today who demands respect for states' rights would tomorrow lobby his Congresspeople to vote for a Federal Marriage Amendment.

No matter what conclusion you want, there's always a principle which supports it. That's why people like this are always able to construct an argument. You never see them at a loss for words; it's just that those words do not come from any kind of coherent value system. It shifts and changes depending on what they want to justify today.