• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Gay rights

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Like...out of all the memes, why would you choose that?
 
Lord Mar said:
I see this country going to hell in a handbasket in 10 years.
Click to expand...

Well, we're continuing down the "trains run on time" mentality of not caring how a political result was achieved, as long as we liked the result. To me, it's the structural equivalent of not caring if the President suspends an election and stays in office, as long as you like what he's doing. It's just less obvious.
 
Tornicade said:
We have 1st cousins and brothers and sisters who still are not able to marry in this country.
Click to expand...

Constitutionally, a right for brothers/sisters, mothers/sons/, dads/daughters to marry is no less "fundamental" than the "fundamental right" for gays to get married. I'm not saying that is just around the corner, or that the court would rule the same way if presented with that issue. I'm quite positive it wouldn't. But the distinction between those two things is purely policy-based, and has absolutely zero to do with the Constitution.

In other words, though the Court wouldn't rule the same way, it should. At least if it truly is interpreting the document honestly rather than just enacting their own policy preferences.
 
Last edited:
col63onel said:
Which has been said since....ever.

With all the stuff that was supposed to ruin the country, 2 dudes getting hitched is way at the bottom.
Click to expand...

It's just a thing old white dudes who hate negroes and fags say as code to one another that "we're running out of people we're allowed to fuck on."

And these are white guys that are rich. OR it's white guys who AREN'T rich, but say it because they want to find common ground with the rich guys and play pretend. "Maybe if a rich, racist white guy hears me say this he'll think I'm a rich racist white guy too...or he'll at least hang out with me today."

In the end it's about power and control.

You lose power, you claim it's going to harm the people taking it from you. So basically, it's as old as human beings.
 
Last edited:
Its just weird.. I don't care, its just weird..

Same thing as Caitlyn Jenner. Great, you can vote, marry other man/women, and can do other normal stuff... You're still not normal. I'll never understand this shit but really have no reason to. I won't yell at you or tell you how weird you truly are, but stay outta my face. I dont want you kissing each other (unless its chicks) and yelling "super duper" and "fab". Please leave us alone and we'll leave you alone.
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
Well, we're continuing down the "trains run on time" mentality of not caring how a political result was achieved, as long as we liked the result. To me, it's the structural equivalent of not caring if the President suspends an election and stays in office, as long as you like what he's doing. It's just less obvious.
Click to expand...

Notice this guy has yet to answer whether or not marriage is a right; or by what means states can decide to deny Due Process and Equal Protection under the law based on a person's sexual orientation?
 
gourimoko said:
Notice this guy has yet to answer whether or not marriage is a right; or by what means states can decide to deny Due Process and Equal Protection under the law based on a person's sexual orientation?
Click to expand...

I guess whatever we say is a right, is a right....is that how it goes?
 
Lord Mar said:
I guess whatever we say is a right, is a right....is that how it goes?
Click to expand...

Not we. 9 Supreme Court Justices. Whatever THEY say is a right, is a right. And Kennedy almost said exactly that.
 
Lord Mar said:
I guess whatever we say is a right, is a right....is that how it goes?
Click to expand...

Until you tell me why it isn't...

Mar, that's the definition of liberty. You are free to do something (anything) unless you are somehow infringing on either another individual or society's rights.

Since you continually cite libertarians, I'm quite shocked that when it comes to same-sex marriage you somehow forget that people are free, and therefore have a right to do anything and everything that is not otherwise prohibited.

Freedom means you have a right to generally do what you please. For someone to take away that freedom, i.e., the government, society needs to demonstrate a rational reason that such a freedom is somehow gravely detrimental to the purpose of government, or to other individuals.

Unfortunately, many people here, and I fear you fall into this too, espouse libertarian views but don't fully understand them. That's why I'm explaining this to you, repeatedly, to get you to understand what your rights are.

Not surprisingly, rather than making a libertarian argument, you are making an authoritarian one; wherein, the basis of your claim is that as of yet unenumerated rights are not an emergent quality of being a free person exercising their right to liberty (think about how one does this) - but instead, must be specifically granted from government action, charter, or declaration.

This isn't a libertarian (or even an accurate) view of the way rights work. Again, rights are not given to you by government, but instead, by the Creator; or, in other words, they are emergent properties of your own sentience. Government can either choose to recognize or fail to recognize rights, but they cannot give them to people.

To answer your original question in a more succinct manner, and perhaps this might help, Kant, Hobbes, Lock, and Rousseau all generally agreed on the natural rights of Life, Liberty, and Happiness; where one could potentially further extend to Property.

Your right to marry is imminently derived from your right to liberty (why can't you be married?) and your right to happiness (marriage makes people happy, we are naturally monogamous creatures). From a libertarian standpoint, there is also your right to property, as a marriage defines a unique, unalterable, and enforceable shared property contract.

So again, we can dance around the issue because we don't want certain people to be married - but, from any standpoint you look at this from, the government has no role in preventing LGBT couples from marrying. None. They have the same rights as you or I do. If you want to do away with the institution of marriage, that's a tangential argument.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell
 
gourimoko said:
Until you tell me why it isn't...

Mar, that's the definition of liberty. You are free to do something (anything) unless you are somehow infringing on either another individual or society's rights.

Since you continually cite libertarians, I'm quite shocked that when it comes to same-sex marriage you somehow forget that people are free, and therefore have a right to do anything and everything that is not otherwise prohibited.

Freedom means you have a right to generally do what you please. For someone to take away that freedom, i.e., the government, society needs to demonstrate a rational reason that such a freedom is somehow gravely detrimental to the purpose of government, or to other individuals.

Unfortunately, many people here, and I fear you fall into this too, espouse libertarian views but don't fully understand them. That's why I'm explaining this to you, repeatedly, to get you to understand what your rights are.

Not surprisingly, rather than making a libertarian argument, you are making an authoritarian one; wherein, the basis of your claim is that as of yet unenumerated rights are not an emergent quality of being a free person exercising their right to liberty (think about how one does this) - but instead, must be specifically granted from government action, charter, or declaration.

This isn't a libertarian (or even an accurate) view of the way rights work. Again, rights are not given to you by government, but instead, by the Creator; or, in other words, they are emergent properties of your own sentience. Government can either choose to recognize or fail to recognize rights, but they cannot give them to people.

To answer your original question in a more succinct manner, and perhaps this might help, Kant, Hobbes, Lock, and Rousseau all generally agreed on the natural rights of Life, Liberty, and Happiness; where one could potentially further extend to Property.

Your right to marry is imminently derived from your right to liberty (why can't you be married?) and your right to happiness (marriage makes people happy, we are naturally monogamous creatures). From a libertarian standpoint, there is also your right to property, as a marriage defines a unique, unalterable, and enforceable shared property contract.

So again, we can dance around the issue because we don't want certain people to be married - but, from any standpoint you look at this from, the government has no role in preventing LGBT couples from marrying. None. They have the same rights as you or I do. If you want to do away with the institution of marriage, that's a tangential argument.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell
Click to expand...

@Lord Mar is currently in first place.
 
The Oi said:
It's just a thing old white dudes who hate negroes and fags say as code to one another that "we're running out of people we're allowed to fuck on."
Click to expand...

Yeah, people who stereotype other people really have their heads up their asses, don't they?

And these are white guys that are rich. OR it's white guys who AREN'T rich, but say it because they want to find common ground with the rich guys and play pretend. "Maybe if a rich, racist white guy hears me say this he'll think I'm a rich racist white guy too...or he'll at least hang out with me today."
Click to expand...

Opposition to gay marriage is stronger among blacks than whites.

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/182978/religion-race-sex-marriage.aspx

But hey, just keep stereotyping....
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
Yeah, people who stereotype other people really have their heads up their asses, don't they?



Opposition to gay marriage is stronger among blacks than whites.

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/182978/religion-race-sex-marriage.aspx

But hey, just keep stereotyping....
Click to expand...

Sorry. For the sake of comedy, I made the grave mistake of generalizing against white people like myself and observing conversations had between the white people that I've spent time with and quietly observed over the last couple decades.

I should have pointed out that there's a lot of ignorant blacks that wish to restrict the rights of gays of all colors based on their reading of religious texts, and probably more likely...due to their own sexual insecurities or lack of exposure to well-adjusted homosexuals. (The poorly adjusted ones are annoying, just as much as poorly-adjusted straights).

It's kinda funny how those blacks seem to forget how their grandparents and great-grandparents had their rights trampled on just a few decades ago.

Isn't it?

Sure makes you wonder if the issues are tied more-so to the undeveloped opinions that come through religion-based logic than the color of these people's skin. Hell, the article you posted pushes that notion pretty strongly as well!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top