Story Comments
Posted by: dandt1612 1 year, 6 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
dandt16121 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Punk? You're Clint Eastwood now. Sure if you want. Which trailer court was it again? Yours was the one with the car up on blocks parked in front and the dead dog chained to the porch. Nevermind, I'll just follow the smell of smoke from the methlab in the kitchen.
Reply-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
come on by we'll discuss that and a lot of other things..
you must be one of those elitist snobs.. thinking people in trailer courts are somehow less worthy than yourself....
I'm quite sure you know what meth and crack smell like..
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not anti-gay, just in favor of honoring the results of the electoral process in each state. As for the thought of being fascinated by your package, it's fascinating in the same way as electronic circuitry or a Swiss watch. It's interesting that something so tiny can be assembled with such precision as to remain functional.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Again. Your vanity is astounding.
Granting rights never should nor has been left to the people as a vote. For some reason, no one understands that you can't use a vote to grant human rights.
That is what we discovered during the civil rights movement. Remember? Loving v Virginia? Look it up.
Same thing. Even she said so right before she died.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Again, the authoritarian arrogance of the Left astounds me. The government is a social compact and society has the right to approve the terms of that compact through the democratic process. No society should be forced to amend laws that reflect traditional shared social values without its consent.
Reply-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Right, see my argument regarding tradition. For the longest time tradition said women could not own property or vote, and blacks were worth 3/5 of a person for taxation and census purposes. Traditions can and ultimately must change to fit our sense of equality and fairness. Social values change with the times. Societies should be forced to amend their laws when they are inequitable and wholly unfair.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
...and you are exactly the one to decide what is and is not fair. The Left sees the need to destroy all traditional morality, religion and traditions as the means to achieve open-mindedness. The result is a hollow, value-less society, out of touch with its roots.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bigurn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dan,
I understand your predicament. There are basically two options in governance: 1) The government decides. I think this is a slippery slope for all other decisions. Once you allow the government to impose laws without the consent of the people, you are on a track which ultimately leads to totalitarianism (but may stop short). 2) The people decide. This carries with it the "tyranny of the majority", where a portion of the population could be discriminated against.
The Founders consistently chose #2. They installed elected representatives to bring legislation on behalf of the minority to determine if laws needed to be enacted so that the majority doesn't always win. I think this is the best system, but it does have its negatives.
Reply -
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Agreed dandt1612, the people do not have the right to vote to determine who is allowed to wed. It should be and is rightly treated as a fundamental right under the laws of California. As California goes, so goes the nation. Some rights and civil institutions are not open for public debate. Nor should they be bastions for discrimination.
Children cannot wed because they cannot consent. Marrying blood relatives is a general health and safety concern. Polygamy is out because a marriage, by definition, is a solemn contract between two people. Hence, none of these red herring arguments against gay marriage make any sense.
Reply-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Marriage is also, by current definitions, between a man and a woman. I don't think you can take polygamy out of it, but I do think that polygamy should require consent of ALL parties, i.e. not be separate marriage contracts all involving the same man, but any man (or woman) should have to agree to the new spouse being added to the marriage.
Reply-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
However, you have too narrowly defined marriage. It is a civil arrangement between two people. Your argument does not address the why it is between two people, you merely state that that is the case. End of discussion.
To that end, I argue, not end of discussion. Marriage, as now accepted in two states is the union of two, non-blood relatives who have consented to enter into a communal living arrangement. Said arrangement is marriage. What do you have against two men or two women marrying?
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think he has something against same sex marriage. I do believe he is stating that the definition is bound to change as people begin to refuse the current mores of society, for example polygamy as wrong. I see nothing wrong with that belief or statement and see no reason a person cannot love multiple people and wish to enter into a voluntary civil contract similar to marriage with said multiple people. However, society by and large will disagree with me, I know. I believe the statements by will are trying to state that the mores of society are bound to change in this direction (not as a result of same sex marriage but as a natural evolution of society).
Go ahead Propeller, label me a left wing radical!
Reply -
-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nothing at all. No more than I have against polygamy by three (or more) willing individuals.
In fact, I'm singing during the signing of the register at my friends' (both male) wedding in a couple of weeks.
I wouldn't marry another man, nor would I add a third person to my marriage. Not because I myself am against it, but because my wife is uncomfortable with it. I could personally see myself quite enjoying a third (male or female) party in the marriage.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
joey-evans
david_nwpa
STONERS
hamy
Will1313
Dicax_Maximus
smithichie
Mdiar
mcarpentry
Wolfie2007
DropkickaLib
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.