What's the left going to do once gay marriage is legal?

As a Liberal it is tough to decide what the next pet issue is. But in my view:
The War on Women--still going strong
The War on Uterus Freedom--still going strong
The War on Social Security--still going strong
The War on Medicare--still going strong
The War on Unions--still going strong
The War on Human Right of Healthcare--still going strong
The War on "Obamacare"--still going strong
The War on The Reality of Climate Change--still going strong
The War on Non Evangicial Christians--still going strong
The War on Progressive Voters--still going strong


I mean there are so many issues to pick from. Then again we Liberals might just decide to make it legal for a person to marry their pet goat

 

How is marriage religious? 0.o

Nearly every culture has marriage of some form.

 

Yes, and it's a religious ceremony, just by different religions. Marriage is intrinsically tied to religious practices.

 

Wildly different religions which have never made contact would have no reason to create this same institution.

 

Clinton's point went right over your head. What I believe she meant was that, in order for a child to grow into a well-balanced adult, it needs socializing from as many varied sources as possible. The "village" analogy is perfectly apt-as opposed to, say, home schooling which seemingly invariably stems from a religious bias.

 

You didn't fight for women's rights. Republicans did voting rights. You guys do abortion. Different. Instead of saying women's health, or women's rights, say "we fought tooth and nail for abortion". See? Accurate.

Now go and claim credit for the Republicans work and tell me how parties have switched without being able to reference a change in party platform.

 

So nobody got married before 1781? What ever did we do? Exactly what libertarians want to go back to -- marry in a church or a mosque, before your friends and neighbors. Athiests will come up with an alternative as well. I think I hospital would except a marriage certification from any religious institution and whatever the athiest come up with.

That's the trouble I have with brainwashed statists, though, they literally cannot imagine that a problem can be solved without a government to fix it for them. There are all sorts of civic and religious groups who could marry people, and getting others to recognize the certificate is not anything more than a negotiation.

 

"Better yet, the government should just not acknowledge marriage officially at all."

sorry, misread that, thought you meant you wanted to ban gov marriage

 

It seems to me the reasons we are paying more attention to this issue have little to do with a tend or emotional fixation. It is simply the new civil rights issue, and happens to be in the SCOTUS. When they we dealing with Obamacare, THAT was the big deal.

Perhaps it is a terrible thing to you, and thus paid more attention.....but that is just you.

 

Once equality is applied to marriage, what will the right have to pule and snivel about?

 

Womens Private Parts?

 

Not real equality, just selective equality. In many states people aren't allowed to marry their first cousins, however the "equality" activists never brought this up - probably because two cousins marrying seems 'ickier' than the thought of two attractive women sleeping together (or if you're a straight woman, two shirtless attractive men).

Therefore the gay marriage issue was more marketable as a Democratic political strategy under the "Equality (TM)" brand name.

 

That's an irrelevant issue. The reason why incestual marriages are often discouraged and illegal is that any children produced by such a coupling will be prone to genetic disorders; i.e., it causes tangible harm to other human beings.

Moreover, it has nothing to do with whether gay couples are allowed to marry. The "slippery slope" to allowing a brother and sister to marry is allowing heterosexual traditional "one man, one woman" marriage in the first place. If you support "one man, one woman" marriage, then YOU have to make the case as to why a brother and sister aren't included in that "traditional marriage" definition.

The pro-equality side recognizes that society is capable of making rational decisions about how to define marriage based on the merits of each individual case, which is why we can say that same-sex marriage is the right course of action whereas allowing a man to marry a child or animal is never going to be legalized.

 

We will turn our collective attention to legalizing pot. As well as,. for anyone on the left who is not a complete hypocrite, abolishing laws that ban certain foods and drink.

 

So it was the "left" going from state to state with ballot proposals to ban gay marriage?
If was the "left" who demanded passage of DOMA?

Seems you have the dynamics reversed.

When you and yours decide some group needs to be oppressed be they black, Latin, women, gay, whatever it is that group responding to your repression that lights the fuse and the thing you call the "Left" is nothing more than the American sense of fair play and equality for all.

So, as long as you and yours look for some group to repress and that group is willing to fight back there will always be causes for your mythological "Left."

 

Well, since procreation is not required for marriage, an incest couple not being allowed to marry because they might have kids is a BS idea. Even if they want kids, they could adopt, or use a surigate, and not have to worry about defects in the child.

 

That's my sense, yes. Although to be fair, don't you think there are probably plenty of things that the government does better than the free market and civic minded philanthropy? Things like maintain roads, or guard borders. I'm not at all convinced that privatized roads or military could work anywhere near as well as they wold if they were governmentally run.

Hahaha! You're so Machiavellian.

I don't think you really have a sense of the person you're addressing. SpaceCricket has made that very point here in the thread on minimum wage.

There's a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The former is American. The latter is authoritarian. You want to tell us all what kind of country you desire to live in, and force the rest of us to live there.

 

The right doesn't have any better solutions; except for more government programs while decrying the sad state of entitlement mentality in the US.

 

Please, I know exactly who I am addressing.

I'm addressing people who think Bloomberg is a "leftist." Who think Obama is a "leftist." I'm addressing people who think Rubio and Christy have betrayed them.

I'm tell you there is no "left." It exists only in your imagination. Yeah, there are people like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kuchinich but to consider them a political force is to consider "The Mouse that Roared" a serious war novel.

Now it was you and yours who decided gay people needed to be repressed. and when they fought back it was you and yours who decided the noose needed to be tightened. It was not the imaginary "Left" that created all those referendums to repress the rights of gay people it was you and yours. But what you did do, though you didn't mean it, was force the great middle to actually think about the issue and after thinking about it America decided "no, this is America and in America we believe in freedom, fairness and equality and what you're doing denies these people all of these things."

So, move on to your next target. Raise your collective voices to repress another group based on their race, religion, gender, whatever and a brand new "Left" will appear and this new "Left" will consider the facts, oh so slowly, and come to the correct decision which, in your minds, will be "Left."

Because, if there is one thing you can count on in politics, the "Right" is always "WRONG."

 

The gays want the benefits associated with marriage...social security, insurance, death benefits.

The marriage certificate means nothing beyond money to them. What barrier was there to stop them from shacking up and living exactly like a husband and wife married couple, but without a marriage certificate?

Nothing...no barriers....they've been doing that for decades.

It's about the "spousal" benefits....

In the military alone, with the repeal of DADT and now the "spousal" benefits associated with legally recognized gay marriage; this will cost the taxpayers in the millions....as insurance benefits like Tricare will transfer over to the "spouse" of a married gay service member.

It's a money grab...not a social agenda.

Period.

 

That's not true, women in the military being barred from combat wasn't nearly as significantly addressed by the left as the gay issue, even though women are a much larger % of the population than gays.

Some people/gays might view the issue as an issue of equality, but the "gay agenda" isn't about equality, it's a political strategy. They chose the gay issue over more significant 'equality' issues like what I mentioned above because it's emotional appeal was useful for the left wing to win voters.

 

It has 'traditionally" been the right that insist on denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of women; allegedly, for the sake of morals.

 

I don't care if gays are allowed to marry or not, I support the repeal of DOMA because I don't believe the federal govt should have a say in whether or not states allow a couple to marry.

What I'm saying is, the whole gay political agenda is a marketing sham and not really about 'equality'.

 

Even gun lovers need a "profit" motive.

 

Lets just cut the crap and stop pretending that the opposition has been motivated by concern about marriage- the opposition has all been vehemently anti-gay. Marriage is just a side issue for them.

- - - Updated - - -

I am saying is that this 'whole gay political agenda' talking point is just a fiction created by people opposed to homosexuals, and who do not want homosexuals to be allowed to express themselves fully or be given equal rights.