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)
Once more change won't be pretty but I'd rather see people learn to adjust than force them to move to other states when they already have jobs, lives and friends and family where they live.
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Well, it would be fair in the sense that it would go both ways. They wouldn't be forced to move any more than the family that didn't want to be in a state that had same sex marriage. For that matter, the same as people moving wherever for whatever reason.
Maybe someone choses not to live in DC because thay want to carry a handgun, I don't know..... With your reasoning perhaps the states shouldn't have any laws of their own. That way, everyone would have all the same laws. What works out in wyoming or in the hills of West Virginia should work in the densest parts of NYC, right?
They wouldn't be forced to move any more than the family that didn't want to be in a state that had same sex marriage. For that matter, the same as people moving wherever for whatever reason.
Do you think anyone in Europe ever moves to a different country, province or city over seeing a same sex couple kiss? My first walk through Greenwich Village was a tad shocking and it wasn't the kissing that surprised me.
I did emerge just fine fully convinced we're sharing the planet with gay people. Perhaps others can also survive this revelation.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
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.!
I raised my children with the believe that. "We are THESE folks here, we ain't be wantin nuttin ta do wit dat . . .nuttin!" It's about installing believes in your children that there are standards we hold and believe, they have others. I never said I was pro this or pro that, I am involved in a hetero relationship that goes beyond the believes of the typical. I don't feel it warrents my prejudice, if it were federal law legal tomorrow, it would STILL, not be an option for me, that's all, why should I stop them though? As my example pointed out too, I don't take the old lady down town to the school play yard to smooch and slobber swap either, and if I did I would belong in jail and YOU would have to give your young daughter some tricky explanations with that too. Either ain't right. My personal believe is that man/woman is nature's way but it's my personal believe, not necessarily someone else's, especially if they're gay. I would vote yes to legallizing drugs & prostitution too. I don't drink now, yet alcohol's legal, if plural marriages, prostitution, drugs, gay marriages etc., I STILL wouldn't do none of it.
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.
Continuing the prohibition on gay marriage isn't going to change that. Gay makeoutery is perfectly legal today. Do you encounter it often enough for it to be considered a problem?
Quote:
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)
I disagree, to some extent, that this debate is going nowhere. Hopefully, we are all coming to understand eachother's positions. I understand that you're worried about your kids being exposed to homosexual activity; you should understand that I'm worried about unduly burdening people with law. Hopefully, we've corrected some of the misconceptions we formerly believed about eachother's positions.
What more can one ask for in a debate? We're not discussing absolute truths here, otherwise the solution would be simple and undeniable. We're talking about philosophical issues. The best we can hope for is to understand eachother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep
Well, it would be fair in the sense that it would go both ways. They wouldn't be forced to move any more than the family that didn't want to be in a state that had same sex marriage. For that matter, the same as people moving wherever for whatever reason.
Maybe someone choses not to live in DC because thay want to carry a handgun, I don't know..... With your reasoning perhaps the states shouldn't have any laws of their own. That way, everyone would have all the same laws. What works out in wyoming or in the hills of West Virginia should work in the densest parts of NYC, right?
The "inalienable rights" of a person should not depend on where they were born, their current residence, or any particular line on a map. Murder is a crime generally prosecuted at the state level. That doesn't mean that a state can issue a law decriminalizing murder. If a state passed a law decriminalizing murder, it would be struck down by federal courts, because such a law would violate the individual right to life.
There are numerous court cases declaring marriage to be an individual right, not a privilege of the state. The difference between a right and a privilege is that the state can arbitrarily deny you a privilege, they must show that the exercise of that right cannot be conducted without causing undue harm to others. With marriage being a right - not a privilege - the state needs a good reason to prevent one. The state could deny a license to a minor, or other person who is legally incapable of managing their own affairs. The state could deny a license to a person who was being forced to marry against their will. In these cases, the state could decide that the marriage itself would cause harm.
Matching genitalia simply isn't sufficient cause to deny this right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiHood
I raised my children with the believe that. "We are THESE folks here, we ain't be wantin nuttin ta do wit dat . . .nuttin!" It's about installing believes in your children that there are standards we hold and believe, they have others. I never said I was pro this or pro that, I am involved in a hetero relationship that goes beyond the believes of the typical. I don't feel it warrents my prejudice, if it were federal law legal tomorrow, it would STILL, not be an option for me, that's all, why should I stop them though? As my example pointed out too, I don't take the old lady down town to the school play yard to smooch and slobber swap either, and if I did I would belong in jail and YOU would have to give your young daughter some tricky explanations with that too. Either ain't right. My personal believe is that man/woman is nature's way but it's my personal believe, not necessarily someone else's, especially if they're gay. I would vote yes to legallizing drugs & prostitution too. I don't drink now, yet alcohol's legal, if plural marriages, prostitution, drugs, gay marriages etc., I STILL wouldn't do none of it.
Exactly. I don't wear a neon orange, 18" mohawk on my head and a 1/4x20 bolt through my nose, even though I'm perfectly within my rights to do so. Personally, I consider neon orange, 18" mohawks, overly large body piercings, and homosexual activities generally repulsive. But I have no right to prohibit any of these activities. (Outside my own house, that is... you come into my house with a mohawk and a bolt through your nose, I'm going to dig out my clippers and either a wrench or a big-ass magnet, whichever is closer. I'd just ask that my gay guests be quiet about it, keep it in the guest room, and wash the sheets when they were done.)
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Continuing the prohibition on gay marriage isn't going to change that. Gay makeoutery is perfectly legal today. Do you encounter it often enough for it to be considered a problem?
Not yet, but once it is commonly presented as "normal" and on the same level as conventional marriage, who knows?
I disagree, to some extent, that this debate is going nowhere. Hopefully, we are all coming to understand eachother's positions. I understand that you're worried about your kids being exposed to homosexual activity; you should understand that I'm worried about unduly burdening people with law. Hopefully, we've corrected some of the misconceptions we formerly believed about eachother's positions. I am certainly not suggesting we add any laws.
What more can one ask for in a debate? We're not discussing absolute truths here, otherwise the solution would be simple and undeniable. We're talking about philosophical issues. The best we can hope for is to understand eachother. True
The "inalienable rights" of a person should not depend on where they were born, their current residence, or any particular line on a map. Murder is a crime generally prosecuted at the state level. That doesn't mean that a state can issue a law decriminalizing murder. If a state passed a law decriminalizing murder, it would be struck down by federal courts, because such a law would violate the individual right to life. Murder is a cut and dry position (I think) so it doesn't really have a place (that I can see anyway) in this debate.
There are numerous court cases declaring marriage to be an individual right, not a privilege of the state. The difference between a right and a privilege is that the state can arbitrarily deny you a privilege, they must show that the exercise of that right cannot be conducted without causing undue harm to others. With marriage being a right - not a privilege - the state needs a good reason to prevent one. The state could deny a license to a minor, or other person who is legally incapable of managing their own affairs. The state could deny a license to a person who was being forced to marry against their will. In these cases, the state could decide that the marriage itself would cause harm. I am not out to necessarily change anything. I just think that there are those out there trying to promote homosexuality and it's practices as "normal" or natural which it's not. But, if there is going to be change in that direction, I think it should be at the state level.
Matching genitalia simply isn't sufficient cause to deny this right. Does polygamy count? What about people marrying animals? If you think no way because they aren't willing or whatever, ask PETA what they think about an animals ability to "choose". There are also folks who insist that animals always be referred to as "he" or "she" instead of "it". If they both get their way, what do you think COULD happen with marriage (eventually)? I just think that the direction we are going will destroy conventional marriage (more than it already is).
Exactly. I don't wear a neon orange, 18" mohawk on my head and a 1/4x20 bolt through my nose, even though I'm perfectly within my rights to do so. Personally, I consider neon orange, 18" mohawks, overly large body piercings, and homosexual activities generally repulsive. But I have no right to prohibit any of these activities. (Outside my own house, that is... you come into my house with a mohawk and a bolt through your nose, I'm going to dig out my clippers and either a wrench or a big-ass magnet, whichever is closer. I'd just ask that my gay guests be quiet about it, keep it in the guest room, and wash the sheets when they were done.)
Personal appearance choices (however strange) is something completely different than homosexuality.
you come into my house with a mohawk and a bolt through your nose, I'm going to dig out my clippers and either a wrench or a big-ass magnet, whichever is closer. I'd just ask that my gay guests be quiet about it, keep it in the guest room, and wash the sheets when they were done.)
a most reasonable accommodation IMO. Contrast that with a backward country approach....
Quote:
In 48 hours, the Ugandan Parliament may vote on a brutal new law that carries the death penalty for homosexuality. Thousands of Ugandans could face execution -- just for being gay.
We've helped stop this bill before, and we can do it again. After a massive global outcry last year, Ugandan President Museveni blocked the bill's progress. But political unrest is mounting in Uganda, and religious extremists in Parliament are hoping confusion and violence in the streets will distract the international community from a second push to pass this hate-filled law. We can show them that the world is still watching. If we block the vote for two more days until Parliament closes, the bill will expire forever.
We have no time to lose. Almost half a million of us have already joined the call -- let’s get to one million voices against Uganda's gay death penalty in the next 48 hours -- click here to take action, then forward this email to everyone:
For Frank and thousands of others, being gay in Uganda is already dangerous and terrifying. They are regularly harassed and beaten, and just months ago, gay rights activist, David Kato (pictured above), was brutally murdered in his own home. Now LGBT Ugandans are threatened by this draconian law which imposes life imprisonment for people convicted of same-sex relations and the death penalty for “serial offenders”. Even NGOs working to prevent the spread of HIV can be imprisoned for “promoting homosexuality” under this hate-filled law.
Right now, Uganda is in political turmoil -- in the wake of the Arab spring, people across the country are taking to the streets, protesting high food and gas prices. President Museveni has responded by violently cracking down on the opposition. This upheaval has provided religious extremists in Parliament the perfect chance to slip in the shelved anti-gay bill just days before Parliament closes and all proposed laws are wiped from the books.
Museveni backed away from this bill last year after international pressure threatened Uganda's aid and support. With violent protests sweeping the streets, Museveni is more vulnerable than ever. In the next 48 hours, let’s build a massive international outcry in support of respect for human rights, justice and tolerance and against the gay death penalty. Together we can save lives by stopping this bill -- sign below, then tell friends and family:
Murder is a cut and dry position (I think) so it doesn't really have a place (that I can see anyway) in this debate.
Which is exactly why I used it. It's a demonstration of law that is technically up to the states to create and enforce. If the states fail to do so, they violate individual liberties, and individuals can petition the federal government to compel the state to do so.
Quote:
Does polygamy count?
Generally, I'd say yes. However, recognition of polygamist rights would require massive alteration to laws and benefit structures. Our legal landscape is heavily reliant on the idea of monogamous marriage, and adapting it to recognize polygamist marriage would take a tremendous effort. Adapting government to recognize gay monogamous marriage is relatively simple - strike the terms "Husband" and "Wife", swapping them for "Spouse" and you're basically done.
Given the complexity of polygamous marriage, I think they would need to be treated similarly to contract law.
Quote:
What about people marrying animals? If you think no way because they aren't willing or whatever, ask PETA what they think about an animals ability to "choose". There are also folks who insist that animals always be referred to as "he" or "she" instead of "it". If they both get their way, what do you think COULD happen with marriage (eventually)?
Frankly, I don't give a rat's hindquarters about PETA's opinions. The courts do not recognize the ability of animals to enter into a contract, manage their own affairs, pay taxes, etc. Same thing with toasters, children, plots of land, etc.
A more compelling argument would be marriage to a corporation, as a corporation is considered a person for many legal purposes. But, while a corporation is legally responsible for its own actions, it cannot make its own decisions, and so is very much like a child. The difference is that a child can eventually become capable of managing its own affairs. A child who is permitted to marry becomes an emancipated minor, recognized to be capable of managing her own affairs. A corporation is always reliant on its board of directors as a sort of guardian. Unlike a child, the "guardian" of a corporation can arbitrarily order its death.
Personal appearance is a bit different than homosexuality, but the legal principles are very similar. Personal appearance is a form of speech. Homosexual activity can be considered a form of speech. Neither forms can be denied simply because they make other people uncomfortable. This is the central thesis of Freedom of Speech.
Quote:
I just think that the direction we are going will destroy conventional marriage (more than it already is).
Got to go wrench on a Jeep for awhile, but I want to comment on that idea in more depth when I return.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Linear Mode
