Why the Revolution needs to oppose Prop 8
Posted November 17th, 2008 by user_corrupt
output
We need to agree that in a perfect world, the IRS would be abolished, and government would be kicked out of the marriage business, which is basically a religious matter.
As it stands, the government is deciding that it will steal less money from you, if you happen to conform to its own religious standards regarding marriage.
It's bad enough that they steal from us, but then they make it twice as bad, by doing it selectively, along what are essentially religious lines.
The entire Revolution needs to oppose Prop 8, so that the theft can essentially be uniform, until we are able to kick government out of the marriage/theft business all together.
This will be an excellent way for us to reach out and tap into the revolutionary energy that exists on the left right now.
I mean massive anti-Prop 8 protests all over the country?
If the Revolution can show that it is able to support freedom fighters on the left, then pretty soon they will be marching with us on things like ending the war or the fed as well.
Think about it.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
As a Lesbian
trapped in a mans body, I certainly see both sided of the issue.
I have a few questions for the gay community.
How did the word for a bundle of sticks come to be a bad name for homosexuals forever ending the favorite past time of roasting marshmellows and singing the song "throw another faggot on the fire."
Do homosexuals dislike campsongs?
And, why am I no longer allowed to be a gay heterosexual person?
When I was a kid , Gay meant happy, Yep.. it is still there in the websters. I want to be Gay but now I can't. That is why I'm upset, I can no longer be Gay.
We need legislation once again declaring the word faggot to mean a bundle of sticks and gay to mean happy. Why are homosexuals always trying to change the dictionary definitions?
Can't we agree on a few simple definitions for words ?
GEEZ...
The problem is that
The problem is that homophobic bigots turn words into slurs. "Faggot" is used as a slur. Likewise "homo," which would probably still be used as a self-descriptor if it hadn't been redefined into a slur by homophobic bigots. (We still use "hetero" and "bi," because they haven't been turned around against heterosexuals and bisexuals in this manner.)
They need a self-descriptor that hasn't been turned around to abuse them. They used "queer" for a while, but again, it was abused. I wouldn't be surprised if "gay" were dropped at some point.
The solution, if this language evolution really bothers you, is to not tolerate hateful bigotry. Don't let words be used as weapons in your presence without speaking out against it. Don't chuckle when your drinking buddies point at "those gay guys" and laugh. Don't use "gay" as an insult against people you know aren't gay.
But I seriously doubt you really care about "gay" taking on a double meaning. I suspect you're just irked by gays in general and this is the last social acceptable way to criticize them as a group.
I voted no. Let them get
I voted no. Let them get married. The pursuit of happiness for all.
uggggggggggggggggg i
uggggggggggggggggg i thought people on the daily paul were smart!
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson
I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money. --Mark Twain
I thought they believed in
I thought they believed in liberty and equal rights.
I just wanted to weigh in on
I just wanted to weigh in on the side of the OP and equal rights for all.
I skimmed the comments here and was absolutely appalled by the extent of the vicious bigotry and hate on display. It's comments like these that almost make me ashamed to be a part of this community -- almost, but not quite, because I know the bigots do not represent the liberty movement, but are in fact an anomaly that is mostly affiliated with the pseudo-libertarian paleoconservative wing, which has unfortunately infiltrated the movement as of late.
My personal view is that marriage is no business of the state. However, as long as the state is going to be involved, it MUST be non-partisan. That means recognition of homosexual marriage.
Sniveling complaints of being "forced" are barely worthy of the mockery they deserve. I'm currently "forced" to recognize heterosexual marriage. It hasn't rubbed off on me and made me a proponent of state-sanctioned marriage. I seriously doubt that being "forced" to recognize homosexual marriage would turn me gay.
Proponents of heterosexual marriage who oppose homosexual marriage are disingenuous. They say they oppose state involvement in marriage, but they don't protest by getting divorced (or not getting married in the first place). The truth is, they are simply using the "no state involvement" rhetoric as a means to oppose homosexual marriage without appearing bigoted.
blah blah blah!....... "When
blah blah blah!.......
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson
I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money. --Mark Twain
As usual, that is the extent
As usual, that is the extent of your "argument."
I'm not unsympathetic.
It's fine with me if churches want to marry gay couples, even gay quadruples. But really this issue is tantamount to deck chair rearrangement on the sinking Titanic. This issue may loom large for any still supposing that normalcy will continue despite a few Wall Street hiccups, but the briefest glance at the dark, roiling tempest on the horizon should scare the wits out of disappointed gays and pizza-ordering straights alike. Our lives are about to change immeasurably. It is time to toughen up, shed pounds, shed our vices, strip our lives bare, and learn to sleep with one eye open. It's time to join up, train up, get ready, decide what is most important to defend. If you can do all that and still campaign against the already passed Prop. 8, then more power to you.
This is about individual rights!
Individuals have the right to associate with whomever they want, however they want. (so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others) If the supreme court shoots these bans down, which it should as a function of constitutional oversight, no one will be forced into a gay marriage. The only people trying to force anything are those that want to ban individuals from choosing a spouse by their own standards. If you beleive in the constitution and the idea of a free society, you must not trample upon the right of free association. This is legislated morality! No one can claim to beleive in the ideas of this movement while they seek to deny others thier rights. No one gets into heaven by faking reality in any way.
Furthermore, I think this is an important issue for the CFL to get involved in because, in my experience campaigning for Dr. Paul in IA MN and WI, we have a great opportunity to gain support from the left. We establish common ground on civil liberties and the war, they like what we say, then they are more willing to hear us out on economic issues and the role of government. I got a lot of liberals to caucus Republican. Also, we wont be alienating many people. You would be supprised how easy it is to win over religeous conservatives on this issue. Once you point out that they still wont be allowed to marry in most churches and that this is only a legal thing for issues like power of attourney and property rights, they tend to calm down. After that I like to point out that God wants us to live a moral life because it is the right thing to do, not because we are forced to do so by our government. If that's not enough, point out what St. Augustine (I'm 95% sure it was him) said about legislated morality; When government makes laws designed to stop some immoral activity, those laws generally do not prevent the activity. They merely add to human suffering. Those laws are thus immoral. (He was talking about anti-prostitution laws, I usualy bring this up when discussing prohibition) If none of these things have convinced your social-conservative neihbor, tell them to reflect upon what 1st Samuel said about he role of a king and walk away, they'll be voting Palin anyways.
Take a "Chill Pill" ...
already!!!
Relax
The only reason Prop 8 was on the ballot was to bring out the religious conservatives, which carried Obama (only in Cali can you bring out the religious right to support the left!). They did it in 2000 and 2004 in other states. It was California's turn this year.
If gays have the best of all worlds why do they want to be married? If it is a question of taxes and being taxed less for being able to file Federal taxes jointly, etc., the point is missed entirely.
Your rights were given to you by your creator(s), not by Uncle Sam or the IRS. No government has the authority to grant or revoke anyone's right to marriage, gay or otherwise. ALL TAXES ARE DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. So fighting for less taxes rather than NO DISCRIMINATION is foolish. Foolish, because all laws should be written to restrain government, NOT YOUR LIBERTIES.
We are all sovereign individuals.
=======
...In Liberty
Homosexuals do NO have the right
to have the rest of us recognize their relationships. What they do in private is their business if they keep it private. When they want it recognized publicly, that's where their rights end. Homosexuality only becomes an issue when they try to force it on the public. If they keep it private, it's not a problem. This is another attempt for them to foist their homosexual relationships on the public.
They don't have the right for the gov't to recognize what they do as a "marriage". They don't have the right to extract benefits from their employers because they commit anal sodomy. They don't have the right to redefine words in the dictionary.
People don't have the right to marry someone just because they love them. I love my stepdaughter, my brother, and my sister. Should I be able to marry either of them? Maybe I want to marry more than one of them. Is that okay, or would you hinder MY rights?
Then heteros don't either.
(nt)
Well looky here
We have us a Hetero basher. Heterophobics piss me off. Racist bigots. What about our rights you straight Hater!
Right on TenoG
Homosexuality is Never Right no matter how you look at it! They are some of the most dangerous people in society because they basically try and force their crap on us and make s try and go along with them!! Well, look what happened in Sodam and Gomorah !! It's no wonder why this country is in the mess it's in. We have so many degenerates who do what they want when they want how they want and where they want. We have abortion ( another name for murder) , drug addiction. promiscuity,alcoholis, violence,teenage pregnancies,rage,no wonder ,it's a wonder God doesn't come down and strike us all dead.We deserve the leaders we get compared to the sufferings Christ bore for us. He was betrayed,scourged unimaginable ,crowned with the thorns, then humiliated and made to walk through Jerusaleum and carry his cross. He suufered and died for us and we complain complain complain? No wonder there are so many horrible things going on. Does anyone know Mary? his Mother? oh wait... I better sthu .............shush be quiet...don't say anytihing.....not a word.....We Live in an EVIL world and EVIL times...oh well what else is new? Do you you want say what you will your gonna anyways!! Go do what you gotta do!!! Don't Listen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, if the Prince of Peace were homosexual (the
bible doesn't say) would you scorn him and his message of love and compassion and tolerance? Would his sexual preferences outweigh his profound revolutionary teachings?
The surgar fairys of lollipop forest
In the land of what ifs these debaters live. In the land of what is is where I stay. What a non argument. What if Jesus was a fag. How absurd. That like saying in a argument "Your a TOWEL!"
More religious claptrap
which has nothing to do with constitutional rights, and mistakes the sex act for the marriage act...AGAIN!
Gays are dangerous???
I dont fear homos. None of them have ever tried to force anything on me, and I know and associate with plenty of them. Think about these laws that we have restricting sexual freedom. THAT is trying force someone else to go along with you. Asking that we stop taxing people more and refusing them hospital visitation rights because they have a different set of morals isn't trying to force anything. I agree with you, we do live in evil times, but I just don't see how what other peole do in the privacy of their homes is any of my business or why I should care.
-Cracks Knuckles-
I'm with you bub. I say let the sodomites come. The state of California has spoken. We have won. They lash out with a great gnashing of teeth in their hatred for the straight community. Lo they will never be recognized as normal. They are an abnormal few with allot of big mouths. I say few because the vote went our way. The straight way.
User_corrupt, you should in my
Freedom is not FREE!!
opinion think about what you want in your life and then fight California to get it. The Revolution has NOTHING to do with anything but restoring LIBERTY and the Constitution. I personally do not care what your argument is. This whole issue is a STATES ISSUE. I has nothing to do with my country, state, city, parish, or family. It is a STATES Rights issue just as the Constitution says.
This issue is just a freedom division thing. This is a problem you must stand up to your own state gpovernment. This is not a US problem
Constitutional rights are not states issues.
Never have been, never will be.
California has nothing to do
California has nothing to do with your country?
I'm sorry, but I just don't see how the state of California has any right to say that opposite sex couples can be married but same sex couples can't.
I don't see how any state in America has that right.
Would it be ok with you if California one day decided that opposite sex couples could not be married, just because the majority in California felt that way one day?
Also, the fact that the federal government is stealing less money off of you if you happen to have one of these "licenses" ads that much more urgency to the situation.
A no on Prop 8 would have been an excellent start, and anyone with a sincere interest in liberty should be able to understand that.
This oppression of liberty in California,
could spread across the nation.
Did you ever let a salesman get his foot in your door?
Those who would oppress start small, then think big.
Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.
"The Constitution was written not to regulate you in any way, the purpose of the Constitution is to restrain the government." Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Meh....
Meh
It's funny to me...how people, and even some here, will lie down
and give up their American liberties regularly...complain...but still whimper away...and THEN the People of California vote down Gay Marriage...and the same "liberty-giving-up-wimps" become crusaders....
I find this terribly odd...
In Christ,
Dave
"where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty." 2 Cor. 3:17
Check us out @
www.lionandlambministry.c...
Best Ever Website Design:
www.USDesigns.org
All New, All Christian and Freedom Video Site:
www.lionandlambtv.com
I think Ghandi said it best.
I like your Christ.
I do not like your Christians.
They are so unlike your Christ.
Gandhi
"The Constitution was written not to regulate you in any way, the purpose of the Constitution is to restrain the government." Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Gandhi Likes Christ?
Christ said a marriage was between one MAN and one WOMAN. He didn't say homosexuals have any right to marry. He did not say homosexuals have any right to have their relationships recognized by the gov't. He did not say homosexuals have any right to special benefits from their employer.
Well ACTUALLY....
Christ never said anything about gays. In Leviticus it does say that for a man to lay down with another man as he would with a woman is an abomination, but that has nothing to do with Christ or Christianity. We kept the Old Testement because our religeon was born largely of the Jewish tradition, not so that we could read it verbatum without remebering context and the views of the MANY writers. That passage is there as part of a larger section telling the Hebrews basically to reject the customs of the peoples already living in the promised land. I would suggest that you stop putting words in Jesus' mouth, read your Bible, and realize the Truth of Christ's message.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
"Anyone who says 'Ilove God' but hates his neighbor, he is a liar. For how can one love God, whom he has not seen, when he cannot love his neihgbor, whom he has?" 1 John 4:20
Well, see it's like this...
Well, see it's like this... first they take away your "unimportant" rights, then they start denying powerless groups rights, then they start taking away the big, "improtant" rights. Just imagine what Jesus would do.
.................
Truther?
No, sir!
When they came for me,
there was no one left to save me.
"The Constitution was written not to regulate you in any way, the purpose of the Constitution is to restrain the government." Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
You should just be happy
You should just be happy that they are at least crusading for something related to individual liberty now.
These people are pulling massive crowds all over the country, and you think that we should just brush them off because we have different ideas about how one should live their personal life?
If this revolution is going to be a success, then we are going to have to find some way to reach out to the left, and make them understand that we are all actually on the same side.
The fact that marriage, opposite sex or otherwise, is none of governments business, is a perfect way for us to create a bridge across common ground with crusaders on the left, so that we can add some major bi-partisan strength to this movement.
Glad to see someone else gets this key point on outreach
Because user_corrupt is exactly right.
Who here opposes Dr. Paul.
I do not believe in doing drugs, but Dr. Paul would not interfere with a person's choice to do drugs.
I do not believe in prostitution, but Dr. Paul would not interfere with a person's choice to pay for sex.
I do not believe in gay marriage, but Dr. Paul believes that we should all be free to do whatever we want as long as we don't hurt somebody else.
Some of you people, cannot get past your own bigotry and biases and see the truth for what it is.
If you want freedom and liberty, then you have to fight for freedom and liberty. Even if the freedom and liberty choices of another individual are not the same choices that you would make.
Cast your hatred aside, and fight for the truth of the Constitution.
"The Constitution was written not to regulate you in any way, the purpose of the Constitution is to restrain the government." Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Well stated, Felix.
Well stated, Felix.
Free to choose
Our freedom to choose who we consent and do not consent to marry should be so obvious that I can't believe we're still debating this.
Think being gay is perverted? Then don't let gay people into your house. Don't marry them. Don't talk to them.
Think that you're marriage is somehow weakened because the gay couple next door are now married? Think that if you want. I happen to think that frequent marijuana use weakens the community as well. But just as I can't use the powers of government to come down on the pot smokers, neither can you come down on a gay couple trying to get married.
Think being gay is a sin? We are ALWAYS free to sin, as long as doing so doesn't rob another of his life, liberty or property.
THANK YOU!
Well said, and it puts in clear simplicity!
I think
there are a lot of people on this thread who have nowhere else to go after their candidates (McCain-Palin) lost. I can't explain their ignorance and hatred in any other way.
I sure hope these people aren't RP-ers, Dr. Paul would be very disappointed.
There is actually a big gay community that are conservative.
Most of them seem to still vote Dem because of the issue Republicans are known for. I wouldn't mind at all if more gay and lesbians joined the revolution. But then again, I am for liberty and freedom for all.
Thankfully we here have stepped away from
Comparing the hardships and struggles that the blacks faced during thee true "Civil rights" movement of this nation to some anal sex loving males and finger banging females.
Once again I fail to see the logic behind stuffing your lover boy with your penis a rights issue. I find the logic extremely flawed in that sense. Keep what you do in your bedroom there and out of the public please. Right issue bah. Next thing on the ballot Prop. 9 Interspecies marriage rights. If I want to stuff my pig with my man meat its my right to do so. I will compare that to the civil rights movement. When the PEOPLE decide no thats not going to happen here I'll deface churches and assault those who voted against me. Its my right to decide who I fuck whether it be a pig,sheep,oxen, or kitten.
Tell me this is not were this is headed. Pretty soon NAMBLA will be wanting the right to marry young boys.
Thanks for speaking up for
Thanks for speaking up for imbeciles everywhere. They appreciate your dedication to their cause.
sorry
but there is no comparison between monogamous, loving couples who happen to be the same gender and a guy who wants to marry a goat. You are ignorant and insulting, and Ron Paul would be disappointed.
I still see no difference
A goat ass or a male's ass. Your still fucking something in the ass. Evolution made the penis for the vagina. God made the vagina for the penis. People screwed up in the head put the penis in the bootyhole.
Tell that to the mushrooms and mules.
One uses asexual reproduction. the other is sterile.
You see no difference between a goat's ass or a male's ass because you are both at once. Your comments bear that out.
And guess what? Over 450 known animal species have homosexual practices, and they evolved, too, so your argument is pretty much junk.
And you still make the mistake of equating the sex act with the marriage act.
Slippery-slope garbage aside,
Look down further to see where your arguments fail. I've explained it rather clearly in various spots.
Maybe that will clear up your logic failure.
the only thing you have
the only thing you have explined clearly is your biased opinion.
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson
I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money. --Mark Twain
IOW, you didn't read down.
(nt)
tannimty=Yawn
You? Ha! you better graduate highschool before you step into this ring.
The sign of a bankrupt argument
..is when a person reverts to character attacks.
Me, I'm a college graduate, married 11 years, children. I've either been involved in or been around every conceivable type of marriage in existence save polygamy and incestuous. That includes a marriage to a minister, an interracial marriage, a divorce and a household with two female parents, married gay neighbors, a second marriage with stepchildren, faithful marriages, unfaithful marriages, and open marriages.
So, yes, I do know what I'm talking about.
You, as shown clearly below, do not.