Election Thread 2016

[Yoshi]

Because the Federal gov. GIVES them the authority to do things they didn't talk about. I don't know of a single place in the entire constitution, amendments or otherwise that say the States are above the Fed. The states give no power to the Fed. It's the other way around. That's why the states cannot choose to ignore amendments with out Washington say so or impose their laws on other states or impose laws on DC. States actual have 0 authority apart from what the const. gives them. The 10th amendment simply states things left out of the constitution can be handled by the states, it never says things left can or should only forever and ever be handled by the states. We are reading the same constitution right?

That's an amazing bastardization of the intent of the authors. Next time you read it, try not to skip the "we the people" part. That's who is supposed to hold the power, not a bunch of bureaucratic assholes who have never had a real job or contributed anything else of value in their lives.

[Yoshi]

..except when it's voter fraud or welfare fraud - because even though those things are statistically insignificant, I hate poors.

If your argument were that we can't accurately measure the amount of potential gay marriages, it would hold more water. We've already covered that you can't possibly measure voter fraud within the current system. Welfare fraud is only a problem because welfare is. That's an easy one to solve.

[Yoshi]

A disproportionate amount of resources should go into protecting the rights of small minorities of people, because they are the ones most likely to be marginalized.

I assume that applies to the Klan too, right? Weren't you just saying they shouldn't have the right to move to a state that fits them better? That's the bitch about going out of your way to protect the fringe. There's one on the other side too.

[Yoshi]

if you were really for this, you would be for the fed going ahead and making gay marriage ok.

Cause we both know the republican party waste a shit ton of money and time fighting it.

You can't tell me that you'd rather that effort go somewhere else.

It's a lot like eight people arguing with me at the same time. Imagine what you could be accomplishing instead of entertaining me with the 1,000th most important issue of the election and the one I actually agree with Obama. Maybe you should be writing him or your Congressman.

[Diff-chan]

I assume that applies to the Klan too, right? Weren't you just saying they shouldn't have the right to move to a state that fits them better? That's the bitch about going out of your way to protect the fringe. There's one on the other side too.

Absolutely - of course a member of the Klan is afforded all rights that anyone else gets. It goes without saying.

You are twisting my words - I said a Klansman has no right to move to a state because that state treats black people worse. The obvious reason for this is that no state should be treating black people worse than any other (or using that as a selling point - "come on down, we disenfranchise minorities!").

"Fitting him better" does not mean that it does so by infringing on the rights of other people.

[FirstBlood]

I cannot fathom how anyone could ever look at the way homosexuals are treated in this country and everywhere else in the world and say it's the 1000th most important issue anywhere.

These are human beings that want to be treated like human beings, nothing more.

[Yoshi]

And obviously gay marriage is not a right, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Frankly I'm not sure why any type of state marriage would be considered a right. If churches want to have some ceremony, they are guaranteed the right to do so, but where is marriage defined as a right?

[FirstBlood]

I don't care what you define it as.

We're letting two people in love have it and denying two other people in love the same exact thing because we hate them. That has to end.

[Fe 26]

And obviously gay marriage is not a right, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Frankly I'm not sure why any type of state marriage would be considered a right. If churches want to have some ceremony, they are guaranteed the right to do so, but where is marriage defined as a right?

The government supports marriage because for the most part, it is good for society. For whatever reason, two people pairing off ends up being more productive for the rest of us than various forms of single life.


Besides, what does this have to do with anything? Did you write your congressmen to let them know you want them to abolish government approved marriage? I hope you have if you are really using that as your defense for not supporting gay marriage.

[Diff-chan]

And obviously gay marriage is not a right, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Frankly I'm not sure why any type of state marriage would be considered a right. If churches want to have some ceremony, they are guaranteed the right to do so, but where is marriage defined as a right?

My counter to that would be that it is up to the people to decide what is and isn't a right. I'd be fine with a hands-off approach myself.

Except... marriage is codified into law. With regards to marriage, there are issues of spousal privilege, asset beneficiaries, job benefits, etc., that need a legal resolution.