Gun-toting liberal

[glummer]

The point here is your position ultimately boils down to allowing the govt to do something for hetero marriages it won't do for gay ones.

A) Circular argument; there are no “gay marriages” in the eyes of the law, until the law says so.
B) My point boils down to allowing the gov’t to do something for X that it won’t do for Y, if X and Y are reasonably determined to be different from each other. Substitute any X and Y you want; if they are fundamentally different, with reference to the government’s goals in question, then different treatment is perfectly reasonable. Even your proposed "gay marriage" law would distinguish between those homosexuals who were officially married, and those who were not, and THE LAW WOULD TREAT THE TWO GROUPS DIFFERENTLY.

Hetero unions are the foundation of society; without them there would be no human race.
Homo unions are socially worthless by comparison. (Careful: bait for cheap-shot-artists.)
They are VERY different, and treating them differently is perfectly reasonable.

A reasonable person might conclude that the govt shouldn't be in the business of making such a distinction

Or not. Millions of reasonable persons, over hundreds or thousands of years, have in fact concluded that such distinctions SHOULD be made.

 

[Soybomb]

he real threat to gun rights comes from gun people, their organisations, and the way they misinterpret the second amendment

I can't help but poke the bear, what is the proper interpretation of the 2nd amendment that so many don't get?

Hetero unions are the foundation of society; without them there would be no human race.

I've got bad news. Humans were having sex and procreating long before someone dreamed up the concept of marriage. I assure you people would continue to procreate if the institution were abolished in its entirety, in fact something like 30% or more of children are already born to an unwed mother today. Don't romanticize your views of marriage and think of it in that oh so special hallmark way. The history of marriage is filled will polygamy, arranged marriages, and dowrys.

To me if two people are able to enter an agreement that is going to grant them special privilege from the government and have coutless legal impacts, any 2 people must be allowed to do this. Privileges should not be extended to only whites, blacks, the rich, hetereosexuals, land owners, etc. I understand this conflicts with the religion of some people but really the problem here is the gentle mixing of religion with government. Take the religious value out of what the government does and make it all private and everyone's happy.

 

[45Frank]

It's very simply, if you want to keep your GUNS we sometimes must vote for people and parties we don't agree with.
You must vote for the person who will EFFECT YOU when you wake up the day after the election, unfortunitly it don't matter how pro gun a demorat is when the chips are down they will always vote anti gun. So you are left with what remains of the Republican party.

 

[SaMx]

as long as we're arguing about gay marriage, I have never heard one legal reason why people should not be allowed to marry people of the same sex. Some people are gay. So what. If they want to get married that's fine. It has no effect on you or me, and there is no reason not to let them get married.

Bringing it back to guns, I am what many people would call a liberal. I would rather think of myself as an independent. But Probably one of the best things you can do for RKBA is encourage people of all political colors to realize the importance of gun rights. If you insist of alienating people who have a different opinion on gay marriage, or abortion, or foreign policy, then you force gun rights to be a purely conservative issue. And putting all of the gun rights eggs in the Republican basket isn't a good plan to protect our rights in the long term.

 

[Keith Wheeler]

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence ... too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment."

Of course perhaps I'm "ascribing a wisdom more than human" to the venerated Mr. Jefferson; but I do like his concept that freedom and liberty are the most important concepts of all; they should be our primary focus, not turning a document, even one so finely crafted as our constitution, in to a holy artifact.

 

[noops]

My problem with folks like you is that you want to pick and choose! Hmmmm, I like guns so I should be able to own them but by golly, I want the government to co-opt the legitimiate responsibilites of adults and take care of us damnit!

Besides the ad hominem nature of this, I love this one. As opposed to the "right" who are doing a "keckuva job" of picking and choosing: PATRIOT ACT, Warrantless wiretaps of Americans, Habeas Corpus.

As for the Right To Privacy, there is considerable legal precedent for right to privacy, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the 9th Amendment, except as it's left to the several states independently.

Right to privacy (what Justice Brandeis termed, "The right to be left alone") has no specific mention in the constitution but significant precedence exists since 1890 with references to the 14th (Due Process clause), 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments. The legal balance to a right to privacy is the compelling interest of the state. Legally it's referred to as the "Personal Autonomy" and while not specifically mentioned, the "penumbra" or fringe of the Constitution and its Amendments have been affirmed, starting with Griswold.

While this right is narrowly defined, it is specifically defined as covering issues of family, motherhood, marriage, procreation and child rearing.

How does it apply to guns? Well, there's been considerable attempts to expand autonomy to cover issues of other areas, but it's really been successful/unsuccessful on a case by case basis, with no sweeping event leading one way or the other.

N

 

[iocane]

The second amendment was made to protect all the other amendments. So politicians who don't like the Bill of Rights are of course against the constitution. Now if politicians with the same political beleifs as you are out to take away the second admendment, it is not my fault. Go convert those who share your beleifs to beleiving in the value of the second admendment.

As for this idea that marriage some artificial construct, many species do in fact mate for life. Since I haven't noticed those species having a legal system or religious system, its apparant that some concept of marriage has been around longer then there has been people.

 

[glummer]

I've got bad news.

Bad, how? You’re agreeing with me; I said UNIONS, not MARRIAGES.

Humans were having sex and procreating long before someone dreamed up the concept of marriage.

Heterosexuals were doing this. Homosexuals were not.
The heterosexual activity was recognized as enormously important to society, and thus marriage institutions were developed.
The homosexual activity was important only to the individuals involved, and therefore no equivalent institution exists.

I assure you people would continue to procreate if the institution were abolished in its entirety, in fact something like 30% or more of children are already born to an unwed mother today.

And that portion of society is becoming pretty degenerate because of it. If you ever find a dead newborn in a trashcan, you can lay long odds the mother didn’t have much use for marriage.

To me if two people are able to enter an agreement that is going to grant them special privilege from the government and have coutless legal impacts, any 2 people must be allowed to do this.

What’s the reason for restricting it to 2? You want to discriminate against committed relationships of 3 or more? Shame.

Privileges should not be extended to only whites, blacks, the rich, hetereosexuals, land owners, etc. I understand this conflicts with the religion of some people

It conflicts with LOGIC. A privilege, by definition, cannot apply to everyone, or it ceases to be a privilege.

 

[glummer]

as long as we're arguing about gay marriage, I have never heard one legal reason …

?? You’re confused. ALL the reasons are legal. It’s against the law. Perhaps you meant “logical reason?”

If they want to get married that's fine. It has no effect on you or me, and there is no reason not to let them get married.

It DOES affect you & me. We are legally required to treat them differently when they are “married." Employment, health insurance, liabilities in lawsuits; all are affected.

 

[noops]

can we try to get back on topic here?

 

[Helmetcase]

A) Circular argument; there are no “gay marriages” in the eyes of the law, until the law says so.

That's not a circular argument at all. Go look up the definition of circular argument please.

My point boils down to allowing the gov’t to do something for X that it won’t do for Y, if X and Y are reasonably determined to be different from each other. Substitute any X and Y you want;

At least you'll admit as much. What we're saying is that there's no good reason to do so. We don't allow our govt to do something different for different marriages, such as marriages between Chinese people and Italian people, or marriages between Catholic people and Jewish people. To do otherwise would be considered an egregious form of discrimination. I'd simply argue that there's no real sound reason not to do the same for gay people either. If anyone's engaging in circularity, it's you with the "well there are NO gay marriages, so we shouldn't recognize gay marriages" line.

Hetero unions are the foundation of society; without them there would be no human race.
Homo unions are socially worthless by comparison. (Careful: bait for cheap-shot-artists.)
They are VERY different, and treating them differently is perfectly reasonable.

No cheap shots needed: this is the sort of judgmental crap that most phobes ultimately get cornered into when all else fails. When I decided to marry my wife, I wasn't required to demonstrate how my union with her was beneficial or worthy in any way. There's no "social worth" metric or comparison required to be met when two hetero people marry. Why impose such a thing on gay marriages?

Your basic premises are flawed anyway; all that's required for the human race to continue is people making babies, which certainly doesn't require marriage. Marriage is an entirely invented institution, and a pretty recent one compared to the length of time humans have been on the planet. And homo unions aren't socially worthless by comparison--lots of hetero unions don't result in children. Homo marriages involve people being monogamous--again, isn't monogamy something you people usually want to encourage?

It conflicts with LOGIC. A privilege, by definition, cannot apply to everyone, or it ceases to be a privilege.

Baloney. How does that conflict with logic?

From Webster's definition of privilege:

a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor

Where in there does it say we have to limit the privilege to non-gay people for it to continue being a privilege? Where does it say the privilege needs be limited to a certain number of people? We don't limit driving privileges based on sexuality. We don't limit CCW privileges based on sexuality. Why should marriage be different? Unless you can come up with a good reason to not offer the privilege you ARE engaging in discriminatory behavior.

 

[Charles Martel]

Helmetcase,

Christofascist is an incendiary word typically only thrown about by John Edwards supporters and members of the Democratic Underground. Honestly, it is hard for me to believe, and honestly at least somewhat worrisome, that someone so virulently disposed could share my love for guns. It worries me that one of so intemperate a disposition should represent gun owners in public.

 

[Helmetcase]

Well, it worries me that so many people who think religion = govt share my love for the hobby as well.

I can ASSURE you that the image of gun owners is hurt a lot more by bigoted homophobes and religionists who reject science than it is by people like me. I see no problem with the term any more than I see a problem with the term Islamofascist. The dictatorial sanctimony of the religious right is much more intimately associated with gun owners than the contrarian view, and does our image a lot more damage, so do spare me that nonsensical claptrap.

We rightfully agitate for the protection of our rights; we should in turn be equally sensitive to cases of govt not respecting the rights of other groups.

 

[Charles Martel]

Well, it worries me that people who think religion = govt share my love for the hobby as well.

I know of no one on this thread who equated the two. It would seem that in addition to virulent seething hatred of Christians, you could also be characterized as paranoid. You're sounding more and more like a member of the DU. You go girl!

 

[Helmetcase]

I know of no one on this thread who equated the two.

And of course if it hasn't happened in this thread, it must not happen, right?

It would seem that in addition to virulent seething hatred of Christians, you could also be characterized as paranoid

I hate Christians? Since when? I think the only paranoia in this thread is coming from the guy whose only two posts here are attacking me. I can't wait for your third post.

You're sounding more and more like a member of the DU.

Ever visit the guns forum their? It's virulenty pro-gun with a few notable exceptions. The DU mods hate it for that reason. If you're trying to insult me here...that ain't gonna do it.

You go girl!

I'm not sure what exactly it takes to get banned here...but I gotta think you're going outta your way to find out.

 

[Charles Martel]

Typical. Someone says something you don't like and your first response, "BAN HIM!"

 

[Charles Martel]

DU = Democratic Underground

 

[Jeff White]

I think this one has run it's course.
Jeff