Comment: If Marriage is religeous, how

(See in situ)


If Marriage is religeous, how

If Marriage is religeous, how come im married and have a marriage certificate even though im not religeous, and there was no religeon involved in my ceremony which took place in a hotel before a judge? Im sure at some point in the past, and to some people currently, "traditional marriage" is religeous. But so far, I don't see any christian groups trying to use government to block non-religeous people from getting married. They seem to be content with banning marriage only to those of certain sexual orientations. In some ways, that's worse. It shows the bigotry for what it is. If they "truly" cared about traditional marriage, they'd want to block all non-traditional, non-religeous marriages. They'd want to block couples from getting married who can't have children for example. Or couples of swingers who regularly engage in extra-marital sex. That they are only picking on gays pretty well reveals the intolerance for what it is. They don't care about "traditional marriage." They simply hate homosexuals and consider it a offense against their religeon.

You misunderstand. Its the entire concept of "group rights" im against. "IF" whites don't have to pay taxes, then no one should. Every law should be equal to everyone. Every right, universal to everyone. This is the concept of Individualism that seperates a republic from a democracy. Naturally these things can't infringe on other rights, or they are unconstitutional and should be stricken down, however in a lawless collectivists society, at least universal welfare rights will collapse the corrupt system FAR faster, and do less to divide people against one another.

Also, you're mistaken in that I think we should CONSTANTLY be advocating for "universal" privledges against the state's power, and tax exemptions. We should advocate for them for every breathing individual until we are all immune from the state's authority and don't have to surrender one red cent to them(or perhaps even begin to wonder what we keep them around for anyway).

Every tax should be fought. Every penalty on civil liberties should be given battle and defeated. Sometimes these taxes and infringments are against a group. Does that mean we are asking for "group rights" by fighting against them? No. It means we oppose taxes and infringments against our rights. Because no matter who is under attack, we are all one group. Humans.

edit: There are many who want to wait outside and attempt to not participate in the system in the hopes that it will disolve all on its own. These people like to take principaled stands and say "No special privledges for anyone!" My belief is that this view is a pipe dream. As someone once said, those who do not live by the sword may still die by the sword.

Political power is like a gun. Just because you choose not to arm yourself doesn't mean you won't be a victim of politics. You can't simply opt out of the system. Sooner or later you will be targetted by the system, which if unopposed by those willing to play the game, will grow boundlessly. In the end, the former philosophy will probably be our only chance if the later fails. But we may attempt both. The view I advocate will be the far safer, less bloody route if it works. If it fails, option 2 will be waiting.