Minnesota Politicians more concerned about Gay Love then the Budget Crisis

[Ajidica]

That's not really relevant to this issue at all, though. They can do other things whether they've solved or exacerbated economic problems, and still have a focus on economic issues. If they are distorting the agenda, then that is a bit of the issue, but this quote:

"What family does this help in Minnesota, especially during this time of economic difficulty and crisis?" asked Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis./quote]
is merely political posturing of the same kind as, "why aren't they fixing this economy instead of focusing on repealing DADT?"
Example that I'm pretty sure you'd agree is a pretty bad argument.

Sure, I agree it is a bad argument but remember, state law already defines marriage as between a man and a woman and I don't recall any serious bills or initiatives to legalize gay marriage now so it isn't like they are trying to head something off.

There is a difference between dealing with multiple issues and creating an issue because you can. If they wanted to pass a law making the definition of marriage stricter (or even trying to remove it from the courts jurisdiction) I couldn understand why they are doing it. But an actual constitutional ammendment? That is a large process to address an issue that is not at the forefront right now (until they put it at the forefront).

 

[GhostWriter16]

Rights do not need to be given; by their very nature, they are a fundamental part of modern human life. The privilege of having low taxation will never be a right, for that very reason.

That implies that the government has the "Right" to take whatever it wants, a postulate I do not accept.

That said, you totally ignored the main point of my post to address something VERY minor. That's really annoying.

 

[emzie]

So, are they going to something about the washroom stalls at the airport?

quality post.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, Domination, arguing with you about gay marriage is rather pointless, as both of us claim Christian teachings as the reason why we hold those (different) beliefs, so I decided a different point instead.

 

[amadeus]

Huh, an amendment that isn't a tax hike. There's a new one for ya.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, Domination, arguing with you about gay marriage is rather pointless, as both of us claim Christian teachings as the reason why we hold those (different) beliefs, so I decided a different point instead.

Depends on the postulates that we use for the argument.

Arguing which view is correct could have merit, although we'd probably still not agree.

Arguing which view is more Biblical would be very enlightening, but the thing is, you already know who would win that.

Arguing which view is more "Christian" would have no point to it, since our definitions are essentially opposites.

Arguing about taxes because of a subnote that I used to make a different point? Just please don't. Respond to the point, or don't respond.

 

[Arakhor]

Arguing which view is more Biblical would be very enlightening, but the thing is, you already know who would win that.

I'm with Thomas Jefferson on this one - I don't let ancient documents restrict my thinking, but rather allow them to channel my thinking to a better, more modern synthesis of ideas.

Arguing about taxes because of a subnote that I used to make a different point? Just please don't. Respond to the point, or don't respond.

I think we could all learn to do better on this point!

 

[Bill3000]

Huh, an amendment that isn't a tax hike. There's a new one for ya.

You have to amend for tax increases?

 

[Ajidica]

That implies that the government has the "Right" to take whatever it wants, a postulate I do not accept.

Society has the morals it can afford.

Without any form of civilized structure, no matter what you believe, rights are a transient thing unless a temporary authority decides it is in their interest to enforce them. The only reason we consider certain rights to be 'inalienable' is because we have reached a stage where we can treat those rights as inalienable. Using Niven's example in the book Lucifer's Hammer, if society were to retreat back into the stone age as a result of a comet strike, you don't really have a right to property in a society as society cannot afford that.

You have to amend for tax increases?

Not really. What Ama was talking about was the Legacy Ammendment that levies an additional sales tax on certain items to go into a pot that is distributed to preserve minnesota's natural features for the future. The distribution of funds has come under some criticism recently but I haven't really been following it.

 

[GamezRule]

Bachmann 2012!

 

[Ajidica]

 

[amadeus]

Not really. What Ama was talking about was the Legacy Ammendment that levies an additional sales tax on certain items to go into a pot that is distributed to preserve minnesota's natural features for the future. The distribution of funds has come under some criticism recently but I haven't really been following it.

There was also the thing in 2006 where a tax on the sales of new and used vehicles goes to mass transit. Metro Transit here in the cities doesn't even collect 1/3rd of its budget from fares -- if Metro Transit were to collect all of its budget from fares, a standard bus ticket would have to cost $5.64.

$9.67 for an express bus during rush hour.

 

[NovaKart]

The reason I brought up driver's licenses is because like marriage it's not a basic human right to have either of them but it's not acceptable to discriminate against people unless there's a good reason, like someone is epileptic for a driver's license.

The only reason people in America have for discriminating against gay people for marriage is because they think God wrote a book a really long time ago and everyone else in the country has to go along with their beliefs, even though they normally very selectively follow the book themselves.

Forget the separation of church and state.

 

[Elrohir]

The reason I brought up driver's licenses is because like marriage it's not a basic human right to have either of them but it's not acceptable to discriminate against people unless there's a good reason, like someone is epileptic for a driver's license.

The only reason people in America have for discriminating against gay people for marriage is because they think God wrote a book a really long time ago and everyone else in the country has to go along with their beliefs, even though they normally very selectively follow the book themselves.

Forget the separation of church and state.

Or because they genuinely think calling something that's not heterosexual marriage marriage is silly. This is generally religious, but does not have to be so; I've met plenty of people who don't base their objections to gay marriage on religious ideas. It's simply untrue to say that "the only reason people in America" can have for not supporting gay marriage is religious in nature.

 

[bhsup]

I think my response from the California Prop 8 thread works just fine...Let me just add "Go Minnesota!"

I think my response from the second New Hampshire thread works just fine...Let me just add "Go California!"

I think my response from the second Maine thread works just fine...Let me just add "Go New Hampshire!" ... again.

I think my response from the New Hampshire thread works just fine... Let me just add "Go Maine!" ... again.

I think my response from the Maine thread works just fine... Let me just add "Go New Hampshire!"

I think my response from the Iowa thread works just fine... Let me just add "Go Maine!"

I love States' Rights. Go Iowa, go Vermont, go Missouri, go Texas!

 

[Arakhor]

And what about the states that refuse to recognise it, even when it has been performed legally in another state, VRWC?

 

[NovaKart]

Thanks VRWC for reminding us how many stupid bigots live in the USA. I look forward to the day when we can put this all behind us and not allow your backwards beliefs to dominate our country. The fact that you would rejoice about certain people having their rights limited shows a cruel rather unchristian streak in your character.

Thinking something is silly is not reason enough to ban it. It is true that some people have non-religious objections to gay marriage but it's mostly the "I think it's icky" kind. Not really any coherent argument. I think two morbidly obese people or two elderly people having sex is icky but I don't object to them getting married.

 

[Arakhor]

I think my parents having sex is extremely icky, but I wasn't exactly in a position to object to them getting married, seeing as I was -15 months or so!

 

[Elrohir]

Thinking something is silly is not reason enough to ban it. It is true that some people have non-religious objections to gay marriage but it's mostly the "I think it's icky" kind. Not really any coherent argument. I think two morbidly obese people or two elderly people having sex is icky but I don't object to them getting married.

1. Whether it's a justifiable reason or not, it is a reason. My point -- that your assertion that religion is the "only reason" people oppose gay marriage -- stands.

2. I was being rather colloquial. Many people, for instance, don't just think it's silly, but rather perverse, because they think of marriage as something that exists primarily or solely for the sake of producing children. Under that line of reasoning, since homosexuals cannot produce children, marriage for them is unnecessary. I'm not advocating this view, but I've heard it expressed, and it's not completely incoherent. (Although those who advocate it are not usually perfectly consistent in their application of this principle.)

 

[bhsup]

And what about the states that refuse to recognise it, even when it has been performed legally in another state, VRWC?

Get back to me when an attorney in Missouri doesn't have to get another license to practice law in California.

Thanks VRWC for reminding us how many stupid bigots live in the USA.

Like how I cheered for Vermont and New Hampshire? I think perhaps you didn't get the meaning of my post.