Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 05-09-2011, 11:40 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
The problem with the same sex marriage issue is very similar to the abortion issue. You can't just say "what's right is right." The reason is simple. With abortion, some think it is murder and some think it's not. When is it murder? We can all agree that murder is wrong but we have a hard time determining when it is murder. With same sex marriage, some think it is unnatural sort of like trying to plug two male (or female) extension plugs into each other. Not natural, therefore they may see it as very much like marrying any other "unnatural" thing. Others see it as perfectly natural. For some it is a religious thing that marriage is intended for the building of a family, having kids, etc... For some it is just as natural for a same sex family to adopt or whatever to build a family. It is no simply a "what's right is right" type of issue. Therefore, it should be left to the states.

My post is in no way intended to be for or against same sex marriage or abortion. I tried to simply illustrate why it is not a cut and dry issue. (Not trying to start other debates.)
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 12:12 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
I guess my take is that if a state wants to have marriage be between a man and a woman, so be it. If another state wants to have marriage between a man and a cantaloupe then so be it. Then folks have a choice.
Win Win, right?

Sounds to me like the only way you want it to be up to the states if is they all did the same thing right? That pretty much defeats the purpose.
They tried that with interracial marriage at one point. Didn't work out so well.


There are a number of limitations on our rights. We can't yell fire in a crowded theater, even though we have the right to free speech. Where our rights are limited are areas where, if we exercised such a right, we would violate the rights of others. Our rights are limited where the exercise causes harm to others without their consent.

What right does someone have that would be violated by the marriage of people with matching genitalia? By refusing to tolerate this exercise of rights, one is walking into another person's house and dictating to them how they may live their lives. That's not how we do things anywhere in America. There is no place (outside of prison) where this sort of intrusion is deemed appropriate.



I asked a question earlier. What of a case where a male marries a female, and then the male undergoes a sex-change operation? What is the status of the marriage when a judge signs off on switching M to F on this person's identification records? Is their marriage immediately nullified since they are now recognized by law as two women?

A few decades ago, under anti-miscegenation laws, what happened to a marriage when a person's distant ancestor was found to be black? How dark can a man be and still marry a white woman?

These are only tough questions when the distribution of rights is inequitable. These questions are only tough because the laws themselves violate the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded. Leaving the decision to the several states doesn't change the fact that a prohibition on gay marriage runs counter to liberty.

For the same reason that no state can declare murder to be lawful, there is no level of government where an unharmed person can rightfully assert his will on the non-infringing rights of others. Show how a gay couple getting married violates someone else's fundamental human rights, and we'll talk.
__________________

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 12:17 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
The problem with the same sex marriage issue is very similar to the abortion issue. You can't just say "what's right is right." The reason is simple. With abortion, some think it is murder and some think it's not. When is it murder? We can all agree that murder is wrong but we have a hard time determining when it is murder. With same sex marriage, some think it is unnatural sort of like trying to plug two male (or female) extension plugs into each other. Not natural, therefore they may see it as very much like marrying any other "unnatural" thing. Others see it as perfectly natural. For some it is a religious thing that marriage is intended for the building of a family, having kids, etc... For some it is just as natural for a same sex family to adopt or whatever to build a family. It is no simply a "what's right is right" type of issue. Therefore, it should be left to the states.

My post is in no way intended to be for or against same sex marriage or abortion. I tried to simply illustrate why it is not a cut and dry issue. (Not trying to start other debates.)
Pursuit of Happiness is a fundamental human right, alongside life and liberty. You are correct, the federal government has no business dictating natural vs unnatural. But that's irrelevant. The issue is whether one should be permitted to do something that causes no harm to themselves or others. The universal answer to that question in any nation that values liberty must be "Yes".

Framed this way, the issue is cut and dry.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 12:51 PM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Do you believe that public nudity should be legal everywhere because it doesn't "infringe" on anyone elses rights?
If not, then on what basis (considering your previous points)?
If so, then my next question would be do you have any children?
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 01:15 PM  
fustrated genius
 
HiHood's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,054 | Kudos: +100
FREE will among CONSENTING adults. Animals, children have no choice, animals because they don't have the same thought process and children because it has yet to develope. Like in their own home between two consenting adults, if I took my female spouse to the public libruary and flopped her on the table it would be indecent exposure, that's the nudity problem, it infringes, two men or women of legal adult age in their own home . . . who cares?, not my problem, have fun. Just cause I think it's stupid and unmoral doesn't mean they do. Abortion's problem is that if the unborn is a human, it is not willing to be killed and that's infringement of it's right to life. The question is not the same as this issue of should gay/lesbian marriages be allowed. As another poster said, marriage is not taken serious by most anyways and has been made a mockery (IMO) so MY feeling is "what's the difference?" I will NOT change, I will remain taking my vows sacred no matter what, gays or heteros can do what they want, I will not, should not and cannot dictate my morals to them anymore than they can change mine.
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 01:24 PM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiHood View Post
...... Like in their own home between two consenting adults, if I took my female spouse to the public libruary and flopped her on the table it would be indecent exposure, that's the nudity problem, it infringes, two men or women of legal adult age in their own home . . . who cares?, not my problem, have fun. Just cause I think it's stupid and unmoral doesn't mean they do. Abortion's problem is that if the unborn is a human, it is not willing to be killed and that's infringement of it's right to life. The question is not the same as this issue of should gay/lesbian marriages be allowed. As another poster said, marriage is not taken serious by most anyways and has been made a mockery (IMO) so MY feeling is "what's the difference?" I will NOT change, I will remain taking my vows sacred no matter what, gays or heteros can do what they want, I will not, should not and cannot dictate my morals to them anymore than they can change mine.
Nor do I have a problem with what folks do in the privacy of their own home. When I have a problem is when my 4 year old daughter asks me about the two guys making out, or the two women. THIS is when it affects me and my family. If anyone replies to your abortion remark, you will likely see the similarity between the two issues. I do not believe that either side is going to change their opinion. If someone is pro gay marriage then nothing I will say will change their mind. If someone is pro abortion, nothing either of us say will change their mind. However, if left to the states, then MOVE TO THE STATE YOU AGREE WITH IF IT IS THAT IMPORTANT TO YOU! WIN WIN FOR ALL CONCERNED.!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 02:18 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
Do you believe that public nudity should be legal everywhere because it doesn't "infringe" on anyone elses rights?
If not, then on what basis (considering your previous points)?
If so, then my next question would be do you have any children?
Two points - first and foremost, I don't think that society has overcome its prejudices to generally tolerate public nudity. That doesn't mean that society is currently in the right on this issue. For a long time, the majority of American society had not overcome its prejudice of washing their clothes in coin laundries that tolerated black customers. That doesn't mean that such prejudice was ever just or correct - it was always wrong. But such attitudes did exist at one point, and were incorporated into law.

Second, clothing serves to do more than just conceal the "naughty bits" from being seen by children. I would argue that the primary purpose of clothing is hygienic - preventing the transfer of... ahem... "biologically active material" from the orifices of one person coming in contact with other persons. Public restrooms typically provide disposable covers for toilet seats for hygienic purposes.

So to answer your question, public nudity generally *does* infringe on other people's rights, so the basic premise of your question is invalid.

But, there is a closely related issue - topless women. Men are generally free to be topless in public; women are generally prohibited from the same, due to society's latent prejudices. However, these unjust laws have been under attack for quite some time, and I would support this. New York has overturned them; women are free to expose their upper bodies in public.

Yes, I have children. While I would rather they didn't ogle a woman's breasts, I'd be more upset with that woman being arrested for public nudity over concerns for my children's well being.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 02:25 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
Nor do I have a problem with what folks do in the privacy of their own home. When I have a problem is when my 4 year old daughter asks me about the two guys making out, or the two women. THIS is when it affects me and my family. If anyone replies to your abortion remark, you will likely see the similarity between the two issues. I do not believe that either side is going to change their opinion. If someone is pro gay marriage then nothing I will say will change their mind. If someone is pro abortion, nothing either of us say will change their mind. However, if left to the states, then MOVE TO THE STATE YOU AGREE WITH IF IT IS THAT IMPORTANT TO YOU! WIN WIN FOR ALL CONCERNED.!
You know what else affects your family in the same fashion? When someone stand up on their soapbox and preaches a faith that you do not agree with. There is no constitutional guarantee that you will not be offended. Quite the contrary, there IS a constitutional guarantee that ensures that man has the right to stand on that soapbox and preach what you might deem to be blasphemy.

That a person's "speech" takes the form of preaching heresy; making out with another person, tree, or cantaloupe; stating the benefits of abortion; or declaring the Westboro Baptist Church to be a bunch of idiots is irrelevant - these "speakers" all have the right to their speech. You aren't required to listen, but you aren't permitted to stop any of them.

Furthermore, there's no law stating that only married couples are permitted to makeout in public. In fact, I'd wager that most public makeoutery is conducted by unmarried individuals.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 02:44 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
That doesn't even begin to address the problem of elderberry scented paternal influence on young impressionable minds.

Let me share the story of Duke the gay Marine. I worked with Duke and we knew people in common from High School. Duke had had his head readjusted by Nam after being raised by a Mother from Hell. (this was explained by our common friends). Duke added he's experienced two nervous breakdowns during the course of his marriage to a girl just like mom.

I missed these fun stages of his life and met Duke when he was in a loving committed relationship with Fred. Met Fred and understood why. He's the kind of man anyone would like, very caring and thoughtful and very unlike what Duke has previously experienced.

Over the next few years their relationship seemed perfect but a layoff & transfer moved me 50 miles away. I chanced to run into Duke at a mall about 5 years later. He was fine but told me things had indeed changed. Duke had discovered he was not gay at all (ouch!), he & Fred were just friends and Duke although now nearing 50 still had work to do on the basics.

I mention Duke the gay Marine because I think he explains much about the confusions life can bring and how frail our best attempts to do the right thing can turn out. I have huge empathy for Duke's difficult path thus far and knowing him I'd also have been happy if he and Fred had worked out & married.
When will Marriage be extended to everyone?-mb-c10.jpg 

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 02:44 PM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
Furthermore, there's no law stating that only married couples are permitted to makeout in public. In fact, I'd wager that most public makeoutery is conducted by unmarried individuals.
I would agree that most makeoutery (cool word!) is conducted by unmarried individuals. The makeoutery isn't what I would have trouble explaining, it would be if it were a same sex couple.

In reality this debate isn't going to go anywhere.
The fact of the matter is that there are people who want same sex relations to be seen as being "normal" or the same as male and female unions.
There are other folks who want there to be a solid distinction between the two (for whatever reasons). There is absolutely no way for the two ends to coincide with one another. (unless of course, it were up to the individual states)
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.