My view on gay rights in a recent interview: Brainless leftist questioner: Gee maxpi, do you think that men should be allowed to marry men? maxpi: do I believe that sex addicted men should be encouraged to f%^k each other in their hairy, stinking, @ssholes and form a horribly diseased subculture that has the potential to force every straight male out of the best jobs because sex is such a strong networking tool? Brainless leftist questioner: That's not what I said!! maxpi: yes it is!! Brainless leftist questioner: you're a homophobe!! maxpi: uhh, let's see, do I want a horrendously diseased subculture in my country.... let me think about it... NO!! Does that make it a phobia? Brainless leftist questioner: You're a right wing dick!! Go touch yourself and think of Sarah Palin!! maxpi: try to stay on topic and answer the questions... Brainless leftist questioner: Hate monger!!
maxpi - as american I am sure you feel protected by the constitution. Now - lets say that sodomy among males is a risky activity. Would you like to see is prosecuted as a criminal act? I am a libertarian and a Christian. I just not see how I can legislate against sodomy without legislating against adultery as well. I am completely against Gay marriage... but as an american I feel it is important that we should also be free of government intrusion into our private lives. just wondering your thoughts.
We have government intrusion in our lives anyway though. Commandments 6, 7,and 8 are Thou shall not kill Thou shall not commit adultery Thou shall not steal. We have laws against stealing and killing, why not with adultery? Adultery is a sin that most people do not want to give up which is why we dont have laws against it. But adultery hurts people emotionally alot more than stealing, so why is stealing illegal and not adultery?
This may help explain a few things ... <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v-63cTYJDCA&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v-63cTYJDCA&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object> ....the same can be said for religion and by countless degrees more over millennium. So why..." dont we have laws against it?"
The only civilized, free position is to get rid of all marriage in the legal context. Remember the "seperation of church and state"? Well, marriage is fundamentally a religious concept. Hence, there should not be any seperate legal status for it, or any state recognition or facilitation of it. If people want to have ceremonies to signify their commitment as ordained by their religion which they have the inallieable right to practice, then so be it... If they want to consider themselves "married" and live together from that point on, fine... But there should not be some seperate legal status called "marriage" with different laws, taxation, etc etc When people ask if I'm against gay marriage, I say absolutely, just as I am against straight marriage... Really these days marriage has really just become another instrument of wealth transfer for the progressive socialist agenda. Divorce rates are close to 80% within 10 years. When people get divorced, money is generally taken from men and given to women. Then if money is not continually paid to the woman from the man, he will go to jail (child support, alimony, etc) and have his assets stolen. It then gives the state the power to dictate the lives of the family. People also hire lawyers, pay court costs, and these departments have a justification for their existence and increased budget share. It also obviously incentivises divorces... The best thing we can do for families is to take the law out of marriage. The government has fucked up family, just like it has fucked up everything else that it has touched.
Well because sooner or later you may not agree with the people in charge of making the laws. What if zealous atheist like some of the ones on et got to make the rules - what if muslims got to make the rules... what if pre marital sex were banned.. then marital oral sex got banned, then all sorts of foreplay.. what if there were no touching on dates... what if women had to wear burkas. At some point you would say -- who the hell are you to makes rules for me. I am still pissed of the CA liberals made me wear a motorcycle helmet. IMO those things are dangerous in beach traffic. What if some commies tries to create socialized medicine? and old people did not get medicine? or pre mature babies even if their parents paid for insurance? What if they tried to ban guns and your right to criticize free speech or criticize Homo sexual behavior. The more areas in which you allow government to legislate... the closer you are to red china or the third reich or taliban. Progressives whether they be Nazis or , commies or socialists and Religious Zealouts are all very bad... especially if you are not in the ruling elite. So sure it might be nice to let your pastor makes the rules... but after he dies what if a the taliban makes the rules. The only safe way to be - is not allow extreme progressives or extreme religious groups infringe our constitutional liberties.
I actually agree with this. The term marriage should be dissolved, as it is a biblical concept, and basically the state should recognise that 2 people entered into some sort of civil agreement, whether they are man or woman they should get the same tax purposes, but gays should not be able to force a biblical term onto their union.
Disregarding the one-sided partisan comments which demonstrates a common lack of insight through most of your confused ideas, you've managed to show why the country was not founded on a christian or any other religion. You could have saved all that self-contradictory anger against those who do not share your superstitious beliefs, by just posting with some remedial work, the concluding sentence. "The only safe way to be - is not allow <strike>extreme progressives or extreme</strike> any extremists or religious groups infringe our constitutional liberties." Nothing much wrong there, but it is worth noting the Constitution refers specifically to constraining religion, not progression or liberty. In context, progressives are those who favor a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties. For you though, even being correct by mistake is a progressive step in the right direction.