Post by: Perd Hapley on November 10, 2006, 03:44:19 AM
A distraught fistful looks about for some place to attach the noose he has already secured about his neck.
Post by: wingnutx on November 10, 2006, 05:21:27 AM
Post by: Antibubba on November 10, 2006, 07:11:15 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 10, 2006, 07:25:50 AM
What does it matter whether it's a choice? How does that make it right or wrong? Where's the proof that it's not chosen?
Post by: The Rabbi on November 10, 2006, 07:59:38 AM
Who's bedroom is the GOP in? I mean, really, even if sodomy is outlawed, who's going to be looking in your bedroom? When did this ever happen?
What does it matter whether it's a choice? How does that make it right or wrong? Where's the proof that it's not chosen?
What does it matter whether it's a choice? How does that make it right or wrong? Where's the proof that it's not chosen?
I think that was Bowers vs Georgia on the state's sodomy statute. Of course that was a put-up job by homosexual activists. I doubt anyone was prosecuted under the statute for 100 years.
Post by: wingnutx on November 10, 2006, 08:04:07 AM
Post by: Azrael256 on November 10, 2006, 08:14:35 AM
Quote
I doubt anyone was prosecuted under the statute for 100 years.
You might be surprised. Maybe not within the last couple of decades, but I know of prosecutions under that law in Georgia as recently as the lat 1960s.
Post by: auschip on November 10, 2006, 08:28:46 AM
Where's the proof that it's not chosen?
Same place as the proof that a mass of cells in a woman's womb can think?
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 10, 2006, 08:40:34 AM
When I say no one will be looking in your bedroom, I mean it quite literally. I oppose laws against homosexuality, but I challenge the notion that any govt. has ever spied into people's homes to enforce such a law. Enforcement would have been carried out when such a "crime" was done in public (such as a public park after dusk) or in a bath-house sort of environment.
Post by: Joe Demko on November 10, 2006, 10:36:12 AM
As for homosexuality being a choice, did you choose to be heterosexual? When did you choose? What made you opt for the one over the other? Could you now decide not to be heterosexual?
Post by: auschip on November 10, 2006, 10:53:07 AM
Auschip, the burden of proof is on those claiming that the law does not apply to humans in utero.
When I say no one will be looking in your bedroom, I mean it quite literally. I oppose laws against homosexuality, but I challenge the notion that any govt. has ever spied into people's homes to enforce such a law. Enforcement would have been carried out when such a "crime" was done in public (such as a public park after dusk) or in a bath-house sort of environment.
When I say no one will be looking in your bedroom, I mean it quite literally. I oppose laws against homosexuality, but I challenge the notion that any govt. has ever spied into people's homes to enforce such a law. Enforcement would have been carried out when such a "crime" was done in public (such as a public park after dusk) or in a bath-house sort of environment.
History tells us otherwise. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf
In Lawrence vs. Texas, two gay men say the state of Texas deprived them of privacy rights and equal protection under the law when they were arrested in 1998 for having sex in a Houston home.
A neighbor had reported a "weapons disturbance" at the home of John G. Lawrence, and when police arrived they only found two men having sex. Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, were held overnight in jail and later fined $200 each for violating the states Homosexual Conduct law. The neighbor was later convicted of filing a false police report.
Post by: Ned Hamford on November 10, 2006, 11:31:29 AM
In Lawrence vs. Texas, two gay men say the state of Texas deprived them of privacy rights and equal protection under the law when they were arrested in 1998 for having sex in a Houston home.
A neighbor had reported a "weapons disturbance" at the home of John G. Lawrence, and when police arrived they only found two men having sex. Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, were held overnight in jail and later fined $200 each for violating the states Homosexual Conduct law. The neighbor was later convicted of filing a false police report.
[/quote]
I would love to hear the process driven explanation of this occurance.
Imagine the looks on the faces of the assumedly adrenaline pumped officers who had kicked in the door expecting someone inside to have a weapon drawn. :insert crude joke here:
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 10, 2006, 11:34:44 AM
Quote from: Joe Demko
As for homosexuality being a choice, did you choose to be heterosexual? When did you choose? What made you opt for the one over the other? Could you now decide not to be heterosexual?
Your questions assume that the two sexual orientations are the same in this respect. That is the first weak point in your approach. You might as well ask someone why they opted for [insert odd sexual predeliction here]. You may as well ask a child why he chose to have an irrational fit of anger and break his bicycle. The child can't point out a time, place or set of reasons for the choice, but he is blamed for his behavior, nonetheless. No one imagines that he couldn't help himself. In any case, it was Antibubba who based his argument on determinism, so it is up to him to demonstrate:a) That homosexuality is determined by factors without the control of the homosexual.
b) That what is natural is always desirable.
As to the last question, we know that some people switch between orientations. We also know that some homosexuals have deliberately changed their orientation.
Post by: m1911owner on November 10, 2006, 01:18:03 PM
Post by: Guest on November 10, 2006, 01:26:47 PM
So, if people don't "choose" to be pedophiles, then pedophilia should be legalized?
Two consenting adults != a crime with a victim.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 10, 2006, 01:29:37 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 10, 2006, 01:32:11 PM
So, if people don't "choose" to be pedophiles, then pedophilia should be legalized?
Sure. It's all about diversity and tolerance and not discriminating against anyone based on sexual preferences they didn't choose. [/sarcasm]Seriously, the argument against pedophilia is that it violates the rights of the child, even if the child wants to participate. The child is considered incapable of giving consent. That means that all acts of pedophilia are unconsenting, thus pedophilia is a violation of the child's rights.
An interesting and prickly question arises when you accept the premise that homosexuality is beyond the choice of the homosexual. If this is the case, then the homosexual is incapable of giving consent to acts of homosexuality, much as the child is incapable of giving consent in acts of pedophilia. That would tend to make all acts of homosexuality unconsenting, thus a violation of the homosexual's rights.
Discuss.
Post by: Iain on November 10, 2006, 01:49:08 PM
By your logic all heterosexuals would be incapable of giving consent.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 10, 2006, 01:53:17 PM
We can't compare the two in terms of crime and victims.
We can compare them in terms of whether the homosexual or the pedophile is born that way.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 10, 2006, 02:24:55 PM
Eh?
By your logic all heterosexuals would be incapable of giving consent.
Exactly. All sex, of any type is, is unconsentual, at least according to that logic. Does anyone really choose to desire sex (of any form)?By your logic all heterosexuals would be incapable of giving consent.
That's why it's utterly pointless for the gay advocates to blather on about how homosexuality isn't a choice. That homosexuality is naturally occuring, even if true, is completely irrelevant.
I've heard that defense from pedophiles, too. Maybe it's true, maybe the pedophile by his nature is unable to choose anything else. But that doesn't change anything in related to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of pedophilia.
If "it's my nature" is an affirmative defense, then all manner of crimes could be justified.
Post by: Standing Wolf on November 10, 2006, 04:32:04 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 10, 2006, 06:25:03 PM
I think the problem some people have is expecting their chosen politicians to be absolute true believers in every political cause they pledge to support. I wish every politician I supported was like that, but in reality, they do what is necessary to get my vote.
Post by: Volt on November 10, 2006, 07:06:02 PM
Post by: wingnutx on November 10, 2006, 07:12:07 PM
So the question might be asked: Would an openly gay Republician be able to win an election? I think this might be possible. And it might be a way to get a Republician elected in districts that are considered safe seats for Democrats.
In Arizona it is.
Like I said, I'd love to vote for Steve May again.
Jim Kolbe was indeed a Rep in a Dem district, and the only openly gay Rep in congress. Not my favorite congressman, but could be a lot worse.
He retired this year.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 10, 2006, 08:31:47 PM
I've excerpted a few that appear to meet your criteria of being elected while openly homosexual. It is a surprisingly short list.
Quote
Catania was the first openly gay member of the D.C. Council and one of a small number of openly gay Republican office-holders.
Quote
Patrick Guerriero is an openly gay Republican politician in the United States who was the leader of the Log Cabin Republicans since January 1, 2003. Previously, he served three terms as a Massachusetts state representative and two as mayor of the city of Melrose.
The article doesn't specify whether he ran openly as a homosexual, but that seems to be the case.Quote
Steven Craig Gunderson....was one of the first openly gay members of Congress and was the first openly gay Republican representative.
This one doesn't say either.Quote
Koering is believed to be the first openly gay Republican elected official in Minnesota.
Post by: wingnutx on November 10, 2006, 09:02:43 PM
Post by: Cosmoline on November 10, 2006, 09:05:54 PM
I've heard that defense from pedophiles, too. Maybe it's true, maybe the pedophile by his nature is unable to choose anything else. But that doesn't change anything in related to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of pedophilia.
If "it's my nature" is an affirmative defense, then all manner of crimes could be justified.
If "it's my nature" is an affirmative defense, then all manner of crimes could be justified.
Lots of things that most people feel are "wrong" in a broad sense aren't illegal. My wardrobe, for example. But that doesn't mean there's a justification to outlaw it in the penal codes. In the case of pedophiles, the state has an interest in safeguarding minors. So it outlaws a range of conduct from child abuse to stat. rape. With adults, who is the state trying to protect?
Post by: Guest on November 10, 2006, 09:09:09 PM
Quote
I've heard that defense from pedophiles, too. Maybe it's true, maybe the pedophile by his nature is unable to choose anything else. But that doesn't change anything in related to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of pedophilia.
For the record, its not illegal to be a pedophile. It is illegal to molest children, but the desire to do so is not.
One can (theoretically) have a desire to have sexual contact with children, and so long as they do not act on that desire they are not commiting a crime, the "crime" in pedophilia is the actual act of victimizing a child. This is where laws concerning sodomy become different, there is no victim.
Post by: Hugh Damright on November 11, 2006, 06:43:22 AM
Quote
Would an openly gay Republican be able to win an election?
Yankees would elect a homosexual in the name of their false religion of egalitarianism, but I think Southerners would reject homosexual representatives in the name of Christianity.Quote
With adults, who is the state trying to protect?
I think the intent is to protect us all from a valueless, cultureless, and Godless society. And by the way, that Bill Maher guy seems like a flaming homosexual to me.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 11, 2006, 07:17:28 AM
Bill Maher does seem a little femme, but I hesitate to guess at his sexuality. To consider it makes my skin crawl.
Post by: Hugh Damright on November 11, 2006, 08:57:16 AM
Quote
Hugh, you remind me of a certain Southern luminary I studied briefly. Was it John Taylor of Caroline? Help me out here.
I don't know ... I had to Google "John Taylor" to see who he was ... my interest in government sprang from trying to understand what the Confederate flags that fly here represent, and also from trying to understand the Second Amendment and specifically the term "free State" ... and lately I get the impression that I am genetically predisposed to have a Southern view ... so although I am not familiar with John Taylor, he was a South Carolinian, so I would expect to have something in common ... in contrast, if you find someone from Massachusetts who I agree with then that would be shocking.
And I just figured if that Maher guy was going to call all the Republicans "homosexuals", that I'd turn it back on him. I think he must be a flaming homosexual man.
Post by: grampster on November 11, 2006, 09:09:25 AM
Freudian slip?
(Now that was funny....forgive me lord and all the little pygmies in Africa.)
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 11, 2006, 10:10:06 AM
Post by: wingnutx on November 11, 2006, 10:20:31 AM
Crazy kids and their slang these days.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 11, 2006, 01:53:27 PM
So, if people don't "choose" to be pedophiles, then pedophilia should be legalized?
Sure. It's all about diversity and tolerance and not discriminating against anyone based on sexual preferences they didn't choose. [/sarcasm]Seriously, the argument against pedophilia is that it violates the rights of the child, even if the child wants to participate. The child is considered incapable of giving consent. That means that all acts of pedophilia are unconsenting, thus pedophilia is a violation of the child's rights.
An interesting and prickly question arises when you accept the premise that homosexuality is beyond the choice of the homosexual. If this is the case, then the homosexual is incapable of giving consent to acts of homosexuality, much as the child is incapable of giving consent in acts of pedophilia. That would tend to make all acts of homosexuality unconsenting, thus a violation of the homosexual's rights.
Discuss.
I'll go further, if homosexuality is not a choice then it must be a disease. Who would choose such a lifestyle, the gay activists constantly ask us. So if it is so that no one would choose it, and they do so anyway, then it is obviously a disease that needs a cure. And it was so classified by the AMA until the mid-70s or so when the homosexual activists/terrorists invaded the AMA convention and pressed for a change in the language.
So if homsoexuality is a free choice, then it is wrong and worthy of moral censure. If it isn't, then it is a disease.
Post by: Joe Demko on November 11, 2006, 02:49:51 PM
Quote
I'll go further, if homosexuality is not a choice then it must be a disease.
False dichotomy. All the rest of your line of reasoning is, therefore, not worth the bother of refuting.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 11, 2006, 03:22:37 PM
Quote
I'll go further, if homosexuality is not a choice then it must be a disease.
False dichotomy. All the rest of your line of reasoning is, therefore, not worth the bother of refuting.
Nothing false about it.
And if you cant refute it then stay out.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 11, 2006, 03:57:27 PM
We have laws in place to protect people from the dangerous consequences of many activities. For instance, laws against smoking or driving without a seatbelt are justified under the grounds that they represent a risk to the individual who practices those behaviors. Banning homosexual acts can be justified similarly. Also, there are all manor of laws and ordinances that exist to protect the public health from the high risk of disease that certain actions might present to the public. Prohibiting male homosexual sex could be argued as being in the interest of preserving public health. Had such laws been in place in the 1980's, countless deaths from HIV and AIDs may well have been prevented.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not personally opposed to homosexuality. Nor am I especially supportive of homosexuality. I'm just trying to play devils advocate, pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies in the accepted and prevalent PC views on homosexuality. Many of the arguments in favor of pro-gay lawmaking are convoluted, and many that aren't have interesting interactions with other convoluted law from other aspects of public life. It's an interesting mental exercise to trace out their full implications.
Post by: Trunion on November 11, 2006, 04:11:36 PM
I've heard that defense from pedophiles, too. Maybe it's true, maybe the pedophile by his nature is unable to choose anything else. But that doesn't change anything in related to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of pedophilia.
If "it's my nature" is an affirmative defense, then all manner of crimes could be justified.
If "it's my nature" is an affirmative defense, then all manner of crimes could be justified.
Lots of things that most people feel are "wrong" in a broad sense aren't illegal. My wardrobe, for example. But that doesn't mean there's a justification to outlaw it in the penal codes. In the case of pedophiles, the state has an interest in safeguarding minors. So it outlaws a range of conduct from child abuse to stat. rape. With adults, who is the state trying to protect?
Your wardbrobe cannot be "wrong" as there is no moral issue surronding "style".
The State is trying to protect the State! Faggotry is an abomination for judgement will (and may already be) fall on a land.
How can the act of one man screwing another man in the butt be right? Bunch of sickos, fags are, and so are those who accept what they do.
That wasn't civil...(OV)
Post by: The Rabbi on November 11, 2006, 05:01:17 PM
Post by: Guest on November 11, 2006, 05:25:12 PM
Nothing false about it.
And if you cant refute it then stay out.
And if you cant refute it then stay out.
False Dichotomy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
Saying that something must be either a choice or a disease *is* a false dichotomy. By your logic being tall would be a disease.
To put it simply, you say that if a thing is not white it must therefore be black, when in truth it can also be yellow.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 11, 2006, 05:40:26 PM
Ditto with my assertion.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 11, 2006, 05:59:59 PM
Post by: Guest on November 11, 2006, 06:03:16 PM
Someone is either right handed or left handed (excepting ambidextrous of course). Please show why that is a false dichotomy.
Ditto with my assertion.
Ditto with my assertion.
Well the inclusion of being ambidextrous means it isnt a false dicotomy because people do only have two hands.
The assertation that anything that isnt a choice is a disease and visa versa is deeply flawed because there are several other posibilities. I already gave you one example of a flaw in this reasoning, it is obvious to me that you have chosen to be willfully ignorant rather than have a discussion like an adult. That is of course your choice, but it makes having a discussion with you pointless. I think you would prefer to play in your own sandbox, so I will just leave you to it.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 11, 2006, 06:12:59 PM
Someone is either right handed or left handed (excepting ambidextrous of course). Please show why that is a false dichotomy.
Ditto with my assertion.
Ditto with my assertion.
Well the inclusion of being ambidextrous means it isnt a false dicotomy because people do only have two hands.
The assertation that anything that isnt a choice is a disease and visa versa is deeply flawed because there are several other posibilities. I already gave you one example of a flaw in this reasoning, it is obvious to me that you have chosen to be willfully ignorant rather than have a discussion like an adult. That is of course your choice, but it makes having a discussion with you pointless. I think you would prefer to play in your own sandbox, so I will just leave you to it.
Post by: Guest on November 11, 2006, 06:24:50 PM
Are you this rude, hostile, and insulting towards everyone you disagree with, or just to Rabbi and myself?
I dont really think I was rude, hostile, or insulting towards Rabbi. He is an intelligent man and almost certainly does understand the simple concept of a false dichotomy, he is trying to illustrate a point through pretending that he doesnt understand it. Like I said, thats a valid choice and I choose not to participate in it as I think its childish.
The reason I was firm with you in the past should be obvious, but if you have any questions about it feel free to PM me and I will spell it all out for you.
Post by: Cosmoline on November 11, 2006, 06:31:37 PM
If it isn't, then it is a disease.
But not a *crime*
Anyway, I can give you hundreds of pages of proof positive that hetro marriage itself is a mental illness. What else would drive otherwise sane adults to act like screaming children. And I don't mean that in some metaphoric sense. They SCREAM LIKE CHILDREN. And cry, and hit each other. Do divorce work for a year and you'll be ready to put them all in the funny farm
Post by: Stand_watie on November 11, 2006, 06:49:36 PM
I'm not sure of the exact meaning of "false dichotomy", but the notion that that which is not choice is "disease" is faulty logic. My eye color is neither choice nor disease.
That said, if we were to assume that homosexual orientation were of nature rather than choice, it isn't a proof that homosexual (or any other) actions are moral.
I personally believe that there is a distinct possibility that the "thorn in the flesh" that St. Paul constantly wrestled with was the physical lusts of a homosexual orientation. I say that not as a slur against Paul -wrestling with a temptation (even if you sometimes fail) is a greater moral accomplishment than being lucky enough not to have that temptation to start with.
Moses was a murderer, king David an adulterer and a murderer. Paul a murderer and possibly homosexual. Martin Luther a heavy drinker and an anti-semite of the first order.
Many humans have murderous and rapist orientations by nature, just as many humans have benevolent, and kindhearted orientations by nature. How we act with or against our natural orientation (with the exception of the severely retarded and the genuinely crazy) is what defines us morally. All of us have failed miserably except one.
Different people have different lusts.
James 1
But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Post by: Cosmoline on November 11, 2006, 07:12:30 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 11, 2006, 07:19:36 PM
1. Headless Thompson Gunner, I like you man, but please chill on this grudge with c_yeager. C, you were a little harsh on Rabbi, and it's "vice versa" and "assertion." Isn't it?
2. Rabbi, I agree that homosexuality is a disorder of some kind, which was well-recognized prior to this benighted and regressive era. However, you do suggest a false dichotomy. If homosexuality is not a choice, there exists the theoretical possibility, for the sake of discussion, that it is a naturally-occuring and healthy condition.
3. Trunion, as a deacon of an unbelievably conservative Holiness church (some of you really have no idea), let me just say that your comments, while essentially true, are expressed in an ugly fashion. Christ himself was blunt at times, but without being so crass. And I'm sure you're aware that he aimed his invective at the self-righteous, not the flagrant libertine.
Post by: Stand_watie on November 11, 2006, 07:21:31 PM
But how far can the moral yardstick take us? By a conservative Muslim's standards, no infidel can be moral. I know hardcore socialists who firmly believe going to church and believing in the divine is itself immoral, because it distracts from your duties to the state. You have to use some other set of considerations besides simple morality to determine what is actually illegal.
I'm not sure to who you're responding.
If it is to me, I'd say that "morality" should not be the yardstick by which an action should be judged to be legal or not.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 11, 2006, 07:42:17 PM
But how far can the moral yardstick take us? By a conservative Muslim's standards, no infidel can be moral. I know hardcore socialists who firmly believe going to church and believing in the divine is itself immoral, because it distracts from your duties to the state. You have to use some other set of considerations besides simple morality to determine what is actually illegal.
I'm not sure to who you're responding.
If it is to me, I'd say that "morality" should not be the yardstick by which an action should be judged to be legal or not.
In a just society, laws are based upon a sound code of morality. In a dictatorship, laws are based upon the whim of a dictator without regard to any sort of morality.
The real question is which particular morality is the best basis for law and order in a society. America has traditionally used a moral system that says that liberty is paramount, and that crimes are defined according to the traditional Judeo Christian ethic and English common law. The Muslims have another set of morality they adhere to, and the socialists have yet another (when they bothered to adhere to any moral code at all).
The American moral code has proven over the years to be one of the most successful ever conceived by mankind. That's why I take such strong exeption to the leftist activists who are always trying to redefine what's right and wrong, what's proper and improper. Undermining our moral code is NOT a good idea.
Post by: Vodka7 on November 11, 2006, 07:52:04 PM
What gets me angry is when Americans say that marriage is a sacred institution, and I get even angrier when the people saying it are divorced, have cheated on their spouse, had children out of wedlock, are living unmarried, or are buying meth from gay hookers. Let's be honest, those who actually *treat* marriage as a sacred institution are in a very small minority. In the words of Dave Chappelle, the real problem people have with gay marriage, all talk of choice and disease and morality aside, is that they think "that [stuff] is gross."
As for fistful's original topic, I don't think republicans as a whole would have any more trouble voting for a gay candidate than democrats would. As we saw in this election, some states went red, some states went blue, and just about every state voted to ban gay marriage. It seems like America as a whole has a problem with gay marriage and that it doesn't divide neatly down the party line.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 11, 2006, 08:04:42 PM
I keep being surprised by how many people confuse morality with legality. With such a strong libertarian influence on this board, it shouldn't be so marked. Stand_watie wasn't talking about legal issues, but moral ones. I would also like to say that there is nothing simple about morality and furthermore, there is no other basis for law but morality. In the case of homosexuality, while we can disagree on its moral standing, it is also immoral to persecute homosexuals. Here we see the proper moral basis of law, the moral concept of rights.
Stand_watie,
While I find it entirely possible that Paul had homosexual urges, just as anybody might, there seems to be little reason to suppose that he did. In addition, his letters seem to make clear that one reason he was not married because he was NOT troubled by lustful thoughts.
Post by: Stand_watie on November 11, 2006, 08:06:11 PM
But how far can the moral yardstick take us? By a conservative Muslim's standards, no infidel can be moral. I know hardcore socialists who firmly believe going to church and believing in the divine is itself immoral, because it distracts from your duties to the state. You have to use some other set of considerations besides simple morality to determine what is actually illegal.
I'm not sure to who you're responding.
If it is to me, I'd say that "morality" should not be the yardstick by which an action should be judged to be legal or not.
The real question is which particular morality is the best basis for law and order in a society. America has traditionally used a moral system that says that liberty is paramount, and that crimes are defined according to the traditional Judeo Christian ethic and English common law. The Muslims have another set of morality they adhere to, and the socialists have yet another (when they bothered to adhere to any moral code at all).
In a just society, laws are based upon a sound code of morality. In a dictatorship, laws are based upon the whim of a dictator without regard to any sort of morality.
The American moral code has proven over the years to be one of the most successful ever conceived by mankind. That's why I take such strong exeption to the leftist activists who are always trying to redefine what's right and wrong, what's proper and improper. Undermining our moral code is NOT a good idea.
I'm not sure whether we disagree upon whether or not morality should be the basis of law, or which morality is correct.
My belief is that restrictions of law should hinge upon harm to human beings by other human beings, rather than personal beliefs regarding morality.
I also believe that for a person who's faith and concience dictates to them that morality requires them to eat a particular diet, their morality is genuinely contingent upon what they eat. Do you believe dietary restrictions should be a matter of law?
I'll refer you to the apostle Paul - who, in this statement is speaking not as a Jew, but as a Christian...A circumspect Christian though.. a Christian who is carefully thinking through the consequences of his actions as if he were a Jewish lawyer. No surprise considering Paul's upbringing...
1 Corinthians 8
.. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall..
Post by: Cosmoline on November 11, 2006, 08:06:59 PM
The state's power in splits should be restricted to child custody issues (which are already determined by separate codes from the divorce laws in all 50 states), and in resolving any contractual disputes arising from nuptial agreements. If you go in with no agreement, you only get to take what you came in with. Nothing more. For the women who cry and scream about alimony and getting some kind of compensation for being housewives, tough! They should have thought of that before they did it. Get it in writing, or go to the hot place
But then I'm rather cynical on this subject.I'm also curious as to whether those who think homosexuality is a disease or sin also want to go back to the sodomy laws. To me, it's rather clear. If the state can bang down the door and arrest you for that, they can arrest you for having lethal weapons as well. The state becomes a nanny overseeing your "moral health."
Post by: Hugh Damright on November 11, 2006, 08:19:20 PM
Quote
I'm also curious as to whether those who think homosexuality is a disease or sin also want to go back to the sodomy laws. To me, it's rather clear. If the state can bang down the door and arrest you for that, they can arrest you for having lethal weapons as well. The state becomes a nanny overseeing your "moral health." A state like that needs a nuke down its gullet.
Yes, Virginians want sodomy laws. But that doesn't mean that we want to go around banging down doors. And I absolutely disagree that we cannot have sodomy laws without having despotic gun laws. Virginians can have sodomy laws without having despotic gun laws. We like guns; we don't like homosexuality. How in the world do people assume that if we want sodomy laws then we must want gun laws?
Post by: Stand_watie on November 11, 2006, 08:43:27 PM
...Stand_watie,
While I find it entirely possible that Paul had homosexual urges, just as anybody might, there seems to be little reason to suppose that he did. In addition, his letters seem to make clear that one reason he was not married because he was NOT troubled by lustful thoughts.
While I find it entirely possible that Paul had homosexual urges, just as anybody might, there seems to be little reason to suppose that he did. In addition, his letters seem to make clear that one reason he was not married because he was NOT troubled by lustful thoughts.
I accept that your position is that of the vast majority of Christians.
I do not ask you to accept that my possibility (note that I do not pretend to know the truth) is correct, but simply that my hypothesis is not made with ill-intention towards G-d, Christianity, the apostle Paul or homosexuals.
It is simply a hypothesis.
I did note from Scripture that Paul's relationship with Timothy was kinder and more loving and decent than heterosexual men are most commonly with one another - not to suggest for a moment that it was a homosexual relationship - just to observe that it might be easier for a man who had a natural inclination towards emotional intimacy towards other men to achieve that particular bonding with another man than those of us who are similarly inclined in regards to women.
Certainly Christ had that intimacy with his disciples, and I'm sure there was no "sexual tension" there..so perhaps I'm reading more into a time peculiar cultural phenomenon than I should (see quote at end of post). I admit a very valid possibility that our own "macho" culture deprives us of emotional intimacy with other men, and perhaps is a root cause of sexual intimacy replacing emotional intimacy. I'll take a risk and suggest that there would be a lot less sexual homosexuality in the world today if we were able to achieve this level of physical and emotional intimacy in our culture.
John 13
"When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved."
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 11, 2006, 08:48:50 PM
Quote
I'm also curious as to whether those who think homosexuality is a disease or sin also want to go back to the sodomy laws.
You're talking about millions of Americans of various religious and political beliefs - even the Dalai Lama believes that homosexuality is wrong, or so I hear. Naturally, there will be a range of opinions on sodomy laws from such a group.
Post by: Hugh Damright on November 11, 2006, 09:24:56 PM
Quote
You know, there was a time in living memory when a majority of people thought interracial marriage was an abomination and should be outlawed.
I think the majority of people still feel that way, at least in my region. But the real abomination is the US forcing their view of marriage on the States when they have no such right.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 11, 2006, 09:32:04 PM
Quote
You know, there was a time in living memory when a majority of people thought interracial marriage was an abomination and should be outlawed.
As long as we understand that, just because one thing is mistakenly held to be wrong, does not mean that all other wrong things are right. Quote
What gets me angry is when Americans say that marriage is a sacred institution, and I get even angrier when the people saying it are divorced, have cheated on their spouse, had children out of wedlock, are living unmarried, or are buying meth from gay hookers. Let's be honest, those who actually *treat* marriage as a sacred institution are in a very small minority. In the words of Dave Chappelle, the real problem people have with gay marriage, all talk of choice and disease and morality aside, is that they think "that s**t is gross."
Ranch dressing is gross, but I don't claim that it is morally repugnant. I understand why hypocrites anger you, but are you saying that you are angry at the notion that marriage is sacred? I don't quite understand. You are right about the small minority part. My pastor tells me that preaching against divorce and especially against re-marriage is the hardest and most offensive subject. He preaches against everything from homosexuality to abortion to dancing to wearing gender-innappropriate clothing, but no subject steps on more toes than divorce.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 11, 2006, 09:39:17 PM
My belief is that restrictions of law should hinge upon harm to human beings by other human beings, rather than personal beliefs regarding morality.
But you are basing your political opinion on your own, personal moral beliefs. All laws have such a basis. Even if we base our laws on the well-being of the nation (as in fascist states) or in a desire for material equality (as in socialist states), there is a moral concept at work. The American tradition is perhaps even more grounded in morality, in that our belief in the freedom to do immoral things is a moral concept.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 11, 2006, 09:59:11 PM
There is no reason at all to suppose that Paul's paternalistic relationship with Timothy is evidence of homosexuality. As you seem to understand, men in our own culture must constantly be about proving their man-hood through gruff behavior, so as not to look like fairies. The men of Christ's and Paul's culture had no such silly picture of Man as some brute being, and were therefore not afraid of jeopardizing their image by being close and affectionate in a Platonic fashion.
John 13
"When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved."
Quite right. Love is not always sexual or romantic. And if I understand right, "leaning on Jesus' bosom" simply meant that John was Jesus' right side at the table and therefore lying on his side, propped up on his left elbow, with his back toward Christ's chest.
"When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved."
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 11, 2006, 10:01:22 PM
Quote
You know, there was a time in living memory when a majority of people thought interracial marriage was an abomination and should be outlawed.
I think the majority of people still feel that way, at least in my region.
Post by: Vodka7 on November 11, 2006, 11:11:23 PM
Ranch dressing is gross, but I don't claim that it is morally repugnant. I understand why hypocrites anger you, but are you saying that you are angry at the notion that marriage is sacred? I don't quite understand.
That's a good question, and one I'm not sure I can answer well. I can definitely say that I do believe marriage should be a sacred pact between a man and a woman united in love and in faith in front of their community and in front of God.
But, I also believe that there should be options for gay couples and unmarried couples to receive the benefits that married people do. I further believe that "seperate but equal" was a disaster the first time we tried it and will not work out any better if we decide to install civil unions for one group of people and marriages for another group.
So even though I don't believe in gay marriage, I support it politlcally because I want to keep a religious minority from using the government to deny the priviledges they enjoy to a minority (I guess that's the liberal in me coming out.)
I've seen religion change our laws (ask me about buying beer on a Sunday), but I've never seen our laws change any religion. The conversations I have with you on this board reinforce that--regardless of how the states or nation move, you have a centered code of beliefs that is stronger than popular opinion.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 12, 2006, 04:32:52 AM
Someone is either right handed or left handed (excepting ambidextrous of course). Please show why that is a false dichotomy.
Ditto with my assertion.
Ditto with my assertion.
Well the inclusion of being ambidextrous means it isnt a false dicotomy because people do only have two hands.
The assertation that anything that isnt a choice is a disease and visa versa is deeply flawed because there are several other posibilities. I already gave you one example of a flaw in this reasoning, it is obvious to me that you have chosen to be willfully ignorant rather than have a discussion like an adult. That is of course your choice, but it makes having a discussion with you pointless. I think you would prefer to play in your own sandbox, so I will just leave you to it.
It owuld very easy for you to refute what I said by providing a third alternative. But rather than do it in a civilized manner you make all kinds of accusations. THat is not THR.
Someone suggested as a third alternative that it was a naturally occurring healthy phenomenon. I doubt it. Every species has as its prime directive to survive. Homosexuality is a bar to that directive. Further, homosexual behavior has been linked to a very large number of ailments, AIDS being onlythe most prominent. How can such a "lifestyle" be considered healthy, much less normal?
Post by: Joe Demko on November 12, 2006, 04:47:40 AM
Quote
It owuld very easy for you to refute what I said by providing a third alternative
There's nothing there to refute. Your statement is not only a false dichotomy but begs the question that homosexuality is bad. Begin again, give the underpinnings of why you believe homosexuality is bad, logically state the case for why you believe it is a disease, and then there will be something for discussion.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 12, 2006, 06:25:44 AM
Post by: Nightfall on November 12, 2006, 07:24:03 AM
Furthermore, I wonder why those who support anti-homosexuality laws under the guise of "unhealthy behavior" don't support laws against not maintaining a healthy immune system, for example?
Post by: Oleg Volk on November 12, 2006, 08:03:04 AM
Quote
Further, homosexual behavior has been linked to a very large number of ailments, AIDS being onlythe most prominent. How can such a "lifestyle" be considered healthy, much less normal?
If that's the yardstick, let's consider smoking or eating deep-fried foods -- some of the same complaints apply, yet making them illegal is considered an infringement of individual rights.
Post by: Hugh Damright on November 12, 2006, 10:21:36 AM
Quote
I'd like to interject and inquire as to what definition of "sodomy" those who support banning it hold to?
I don't really want to bring up all the sick perverted things that people do, I'll just say that it should be up to Virginians to decide what we consider to be sick and perverted in Virginia. I think we are be a better judge of such things than the US Supreme Court, and I don't remember Virginia delegating the US jurisdiction over sexual acts in the first place. Quote
I wonder why those who support anti-homosexuality laws under the guise of "unhealthy behavior" don't support laws against not maintaining a healthy immune system, for example?
Quote
let's consider smoking or eating deep-fried foods -- some of the same complaints apply, yet making them illegal is considered an infringement of individual rights.
I believe that, in a free State, all men being equal, sovereignty resides in the collective, yet individuals retain certain basic sovereignties like the right to life, limb, and property ... I do not believe that free government requires that individuals retain the right to commit homosexual acts or the right to eat frech fries, I think such things are fair game ...of course, Virginians would ban homosexual acts and not ban french fries, simply because we don't like homosexual acts and we do like french fries. And that is how a free people define their society and culture.I think there is a health factor, but I do not think that is the only factor, and I do not think that if we ban one thing because it is unhealthy then we have to ban all unhealthy things, just like if we ban homosexual acts on moral reasons it doesn't follow that we have to ban every immoral act.
I once made a brief attempt to see if laws against homosexual acts actually reduce the level of AIDS ... I turned to Iran, where homosexual acts result in a death penalty, and tried to see if they had lower levels of AIDS than other Countries in that region ... but I saw no correlation and it seems that drug use (sharing needles) is a more serious health issue.
Post by: Cosmoline on November 12, 2006, 11:38:49 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 12, 2006, 11:44:47 AM
The practical answer is: of course they are, they do it all the time, in all sorts of fashions. But then, is it still a free society once they've freely chosen to impose whatever restriction upon freedom they had in mind?
Post by: Hugh Damright on November 12, 2006, 12:20:30 PM
Quote
there are certain bounds the state cannot move beyond, no matter what the majority believes.
I agree. For instance, if any State decided to cut off people's hands for shoplifting, then I think the other States would say "no way, you cannot take away a persons right to life, limb, and property". But I absolutely disagree that a State cannot move so far as to ban homosexual acts, and I think a State that cannot move that far cannot move at all and I don't see what makes it a "free State" or even a State.Quote
In a free society, are the citizens free to chose laws that make them "unfree"?
I think by "free society" you mean "libertarian society" where the objective is the highest degree of individual liberty ... but Virginia is not a libertarian State, it is a Commonwealth, a "free State" ... of course, a free State cannot do certain things and remain a free State ... for instance, if Virginians chose a King, then we would no longer be a free State because we would no longer have free government - Virginia would be a monarchial State ... and there are a number of things which a free State cannot do and expect to remain a free State, such as combine all government into one branch, or allow ex post facto laws, or disarm the people .... these things are political rights, necessary to the security of free government ... but, of course, free government is not so free that the majority can put the minority to death, or have cruel and unusual punishments ... in a free State individuals reserve certain rights, for instance the right to life, limb, and property ... but if a free State cannot ban homosexual acts, then that doesn't sound like free government, it sounds like a State that is under the thumb of some libertarian monarch.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 12, 2006, 01:04:43 PM
Quote
Further, homosexual behavior has been linked to a very large number of ailments, AIDS being onlythe most prominent. How can such a "lifestyle" be considered healthy, much less normal?
If that's the yardstick, let's consider smoking or eating deep-fried foods -- some of the same complaints apply, yet making them illegal is considered an infringement of individual rights.
If that's the yardstick for what? I'm not arguing that homosexuality should be illegal. I am arguing that it is not a "normal healthy lifestyle" as was maintained in one post.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 12, 2006, 01:10:52 PM
But, I also believe that there should be options for gay couples and unmarried couples to receive the benefits that married people do.
Why? Why should "gay and unmarried couples" have the benefits of marriage without being married? The option for having the benefit of marriage is obvious - get married. And getting married implies pairing with a partner of the opposite sex. This is what marriage is. Any attempt at marriage without a heterosexual combination is a non sequitir. It is like sighting in a gun that does not exist. I might as well demand to marry myself, and with govt. approval. And even if we were to make some revolutionary change to marriage, libertarian principles would dictate that govt. not be at the forefront of it, pushing a minority view on an unwilling populace. Quote
I further believe that "seperate but equal" was a disaster the first time we tried it and will not work out any better if we decide to install civil unions for one group of people and marriages for another group.
In a way, that is insightful, but on the other hand, your argument assumes that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual ones. This is insupportable. Let me head off at the pass the obnoxious comparison to inter-racial marriage. Firstly, whether such marriages are legal or moral has no bearing on homosexual marriage, or polygamy, for that matter. Recognizing one does not mean we must recognize the other. Secondly, taboos against inter-racial marriage are unique to various times and places, and such marriages have been perfectly well-accepted in just as many times and places. Read any Shakespeare, lately? But name a society that has ever been so intent on absurdity as to think that homosexuality and heterosexuality were the same sort of relationship? It is an absurd thought. Quote
So even though I don't believe in gay marriage, I support it politlcally because I want to keep a religious minority from using the government to deny the priviledges they enjoy to a minority (I guess that's the liberal in me coming out.)
What religious minority? State amendments against homosexual marriage have been passed with about 70% of the vote in one state after another. It is quite clear that the minority imposing a viewpoint are those favoring homosexual marriage. And who is denying privileges? The homosexual limits himself. If he wishes to enjoy the benefits of marriage, he has only to get married. And marriage is simply not a homosexual relationship. Post by: Cosmoline on November 12, 2006, 01:31:45 PM
I agree. For instance, if any State decided to cut off people's hands for shoplifting, then I think the other States would say "no way, you cannot take away a persons right to life, limb, and property". But I absolutely disagree that a State cannot move so far as to ban homosexual acts, and I think a State that cannot move that far cannot move at all and I don't see what makes it a "free State" or even a State.
Actually, it would be entirely appropriate to subject all felons to the death penalty. At common law, ALL felonies were in fact punished by death. Some sentences were commuted to "transportation" stateside or Australia, to lashes, or to terms in prison. But the fact remains that at the time of the Republic's founding, the default punishment for all felonies was death. If you're talking about just cutting hands off and letting them live, then there might be C&U objections. But really they did far worse at the time of the founding. A few dozen supersonic lashes will open a man's back up like a can of spam.
We may be at cross purposes regarding the term "state." I'm using it in the broad sense, to mean governmental power. If you're talking about the several States, then I'm more inclined to agree that the federal government does not have the power to micro-manage what they make legal and illegal. That's a principle of federalism, and unless there's a very clear Constitutional amendment on point that the states have ratified, they need to stay out of the matter. Thus, Roe v. Wade may have been right in principle but it was wrong on the law.
Post by: Stand_watie on November 12, 2006, 01:38:35 PM
I take issue with the homosexual Paul because I feel he is the creature of leftist "Bible scholars" who don't like God's teaching on women in the New Testament. They blame the messenger, Paul, painting him as a woman-hating homosexual. If there is some extra-Biblical evidence for this, I would consider it, but the scripture itself simply doesn't suggest it...
I've no gripe with your disagreement with my hypothesis, but I came to that hypothesis independantly of the knowledge that anyone else had posited it, be they left, right or center.
Quote
But you are basing your political opinion on your own, personal moral beliefs. All laws have such a basis. Even if we base our laws on the well-being of the nation (as in fascist states) or in a desire for material equality (as in socialist states), there is a moral concept at work. The American tradition is perhaps even more grounded in morality, in that our belief in the freedom to do immoral things is a moral concept
That definition of "morality" is so broad I guess I'd have to say I agree with you in that sense that "morality" is a prerequisite basis for law. Freedom is a moral concept I suppose..It doesn't follow though that morality beyond certain broad concepts should be the basis of law.
As an example, I believe it's (generally, with notable exceptions) immoral for me to wear a hat in church, but I don't advocate a law making that moral belief a requirement for others.
Post by: Volt on November 12, 2006, 02:42:18 PM
We keep pushing the state to be the controller of everything. Is not the blessing and is not the granting of a marriage the position and responsibility of your church? Now marriage is in the control and concerns of the State. What happened here? Why is there an unequal tax rate dependent on this sort of thing? Why has the State become deeply tangled with this subject? Why do we tangle the State with this? What business does someones church have in sloughing off its' responsibilities to everyone elses State? The Church needs to concern itself with its' business and the State needs to concern itself with its' business. We must ask ourselves what are the responsibilities that are between my family and myself? What are the responsibilities that are between my church and me? What are the responsibilities that are between my neighbors and me, then my town, then my county, then my state, then my country?
We now default every single issue that we must bear to the federal or more and more to the world level and then do not even consider that an issue might be more appropriately addressed by those institutions that are closer to our actual individual lives. By keeping our issues at the federal and world level we impose upon ourselves a poorly tailored one size must fit all situation that stifles everyone and pleases no one.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 12, 2006, 02:44:47 PM
Post by: Nightfall on November 12, 2006, 03:04:25 PM
Post by: Volt on November 12, 2006, 03:10:03 PM
Bingo.
Post by: Vodka7 on November 12, 2006, 04:12:45 PM
Quote
Why? Why should "gay and unmarried couples" have the benefits of marriage without being married?
I don't believe there should ever be a legal benefit to having participated in a religious ceremony, but there is. My argument is that people who don't want (or aren't allowed) to desecrate a religious ceremony for whatever reasons should still have a route to the legal benefits that are granted to those who wish to partake in it.Quote
Your argument assumes that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual ones
Yes it does, and you're pretty skilled at distilling an argument to the point of contention. I believe a homosexual relationship is equivalent to a heterosexual relationship in all but the mechanics of child production (but not raising.) You don't. Neither of us will ever be able to persuade the other, but I do enjoy debating with you, because I get to see someone intelligently defend a position I disagree with.I don't think there's anything obnoxious about my comparison of gay and interracial marriage. Ignore the fact that interracial marriages have in some cultures been more accepted than they were forty years ago in America, and consider that until the past two centuries women peasants were considered second class citizens in the entire world. I really, really didn't want to bring this one up, but just about every culture for the history of the world was A-OK with slavery until about two-three centuries ago.
You're trying to distance homosexuality from woman's rights and civil rights. I can't say why, and I don't want to insult you by trying to recreate your position for myself. I think gays should have all the rights women and blacks do. You disagree.
Quote
What religious minority?
Typo, sorry, I meant religious majority.Post by: Perd Hapley on November 12, 2006, 06:09:20 PM
I came to that hypothesis [that Paul may have had homosexual urges] independantly of the knowledge that anyone else had posited it, be they left, right or center.
Purely on the basis of the reasons already stated? Well, I guess one thorn is as good a guess as another. Quote
That definition of "morality" is so broad I guess I'd have to say I agree with you in that sense that "morality" is a prerequisite basis for law. Freedom is a moral concept I suppose..It doesn't follow though that morality beyond certain broad concepts should be the basis of law.
It has nothing to do with broad or narrow concepts. It's a matter of categories. Whereas my sexual morality forbids anything other than a loving sexual relationship within marriage, the same moral code forbids government intervention, in domestic affairs, except to protect the rights of the individual. Govt. involvement in marriage, it seems to me, should only streamline pre-existing govt. involvement around a common social arrangement in terms of special considerations regarding tax-codes, inheritance, etc. Not to add to govt. intervention, but to make such intervention less obtrusive. Quote
As an example, I believe it's (generally, with notable exceptions) immoral for me to wear a hat in church, but I don't advocate a law making that moral belief a requirement for others.
Why? However you answer that question, it will be a morality-based argument. Post by: Hugh Damright on November 12, 2006, 06:55:52 PM
Post by: Cosmoline on November 12, 2006, 07:25:34 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 12, 2006, 07:37:19 PM
There must be rules ... for instance, in Virginia you cannot marry your sister, you cannot marry multiple partners, you cannot marry someone of the same gender .... and in this sense, marriage is a State institution, not just because of property rights, but because of State sovereignty and the need to define institutions such as marriage.
This is the crux of the issue. Should there be rules governing who can and who can't marry? If so, who should those rules allow to marry?In the past, society has decided that there should be rules, and that those rules should exclude minors, relatives, and same-sex couples. Gay activists now want us to change part of those rules.
Here's another interesting thought: The traditional rules do not discriminate against or exclude gays from marriage. Gays are as free to marry as straights, under the exact same rules and restrictions. Any man, gay or straight, is free to marry a woman. Any woman, gay or straight, is free to marry a man.
Post by: Hugh Damright on November 12, 2006, 07:47:36 PM
Quote
Should there be rules governing who can and who can't marry? If so, who should those rules allow to marry?
I reckon that things like that are up to the people of each State to decide for themselves. I believe that Virginians feel it our duty to define marriage within Virginia. We think there should be rules.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 13, 2006, 07:14:23 AM
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=3371.0
Post by: Guest on November 13, 2006, 08:05:01 AM
Pursuit of a mutually loving and benificial relationship is as base a right as any. If you honestly believe you are not infringing on someone's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" by stopping them from having a relationship with someone who can actually fulfill their emotional and physical needs, then...
Sure, Virginians think homosexual sex is icky. That's good for them, they're free to hold that opinion. They're free to preach about it in their churches all they want, too. But sex is a vital part of any healthy love relationship, and outlawing homosexual sex is de-facto outlawing any type of homosexual relationships.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 13, 2006, 08:08:13 AM
Post by: Guest on November 13, 2006, 08:18:29 AM
Post by: Hugh Damright on November 13, 2006, 09:30:30 AM
Quote
The outlawing of homosexual acts would act as a de-facto law against homosexual relationships in general.
You might feel that there is a base right to homosexual relationships in general for the pursuit of happiness, but Virginians don't see it that way and it's our State. We just amended our Constitution last week to say there there will be no recognized homosexual relationship in our State ... no homosexual marriage, no "union", nothing of the sort.
Post by: Guest on November 13, 2006, 10:04:16 AM
If you cannot see outlawing a large subset of society the right to pursue a romantic relationship with someone they are actually capable of having such a relationship with as completely discriminatory, without constitutional merit, and entirely unjustified... I guess it just seems obvious to me.
Post by: Guest on November 13, 2006, 10:39:53 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 13, 2006, 10:47:32 AM
Post by: Nightfall on November 13, 2006, 10:53:25 AM
You might feel that there is a base right to homosexual relationships in general for the pursuit of happiness, but Virginians don't see it that way and it's our State. We just amended our Constitution last week to say there there will be no recognized homosexual relationship in our State ... no homosexual marriage, no "union", nothing of the sort.
Some Virginians don't, some do. This life-long Virginian sure doesn't, and voted against said silly Amendment. Tyranny under the guise of the democratic will of the majority is still tyranny.
Post by: Guest on November 13, 2006, 10:54:16 AM
Quote
You're quite backwards, there. Our current debate is not about making HM illegal - it's about giving it govt. endorsement or support.
If this was a response to me, I am directing my arguments towards Mr. Damright's assertion that his state has the "freedom" to make homosexual acts illegal. I apologize for any confusion.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 13, 2006, 11:09:29 AM
Post by: Guest on November 13, 2006, 11:30:23 AM
You're quite backwards, there. Our current debate is not about making HM illegal - it's about giving it govt. endorsement or support. It's about govt. saying that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality or that men are equivalent to women, even in marriage.
Why does the government have a say in this at all? Why is it that conservatives are actually voting in favor of government control over something that is so fundamentally personal and/or religious in nature? What is the governments stake in this? What is your stake in it?
Post by: The Rabbi on November 13, 2006, 11:39:07 AM
Steering clear of the marriage argument for now, my argument is that outlawing homosexual acts is an infringment of the liberties we are federally guaranteed and that the federal government should not allow Virginians to do so. Not that you are claiming anything else, but to reiterate, we are not a direct democracy and the states are not allowed the power to infringe upon the federally recognized rights of others no matter how popular doing so would be to the residents of said state.
I dont know there is a "right" to homosexual sex. Nor do I see how a strict Constitutionalist could create such a right.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 13, 2006, 11:42:24 AM
What is your stake in it?
I got to live here.As I've suggested elsewhere (in this thread actually), there is a perfectly legitimate way for the state to handle these using a partnership agreement formula. Call it "domestic partnerships" and they are governmed by either agreement or a default contract, much like UCC.
The fact that this would not be acceptable to the homosexual lobby (and I would bet it wont be) tells me that their concerns have nothing to do with liberty, pursuit of happiness or rights. Their concern is that their "lifestyle" should be legitimated. That is unacceptable to the majority (and a big majority btw) of people in this state, probably in others as well.
Post by: Guest on November 13, 2006, 11:45:10 AM
I dont know there is a "right" to homosexual sex. Nor do I see how a strict Constitutionalist could create such a right.
A strict constitutionalist would state that the constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights, but rather a list of rules that protect rights. The fact that homosexuality (or marriage in general) is not mentioned does not mean that it isnt a right, but rather that the government does not have the authority to regulate it. This means that it is a right that is specifically deligated to the states to regulate. Wether or not the states have the right to regulate it is a valid question. The constitution does protect the freedom of religion, and there is a long history of marriage being a religious institution. This would imply that the government should not have any involvement in it whatseover. Since religion itself isnt defined, one could very easily express that their personal belief system not only allows but require, the marriage of man to man or woman to woman and the government would not have the right to deny them this practice.
Quote
I got to live here.
Gay people getting married to each other makes this difficult for you?
Quote
As I've suggested elsewhere (in this thread actually), there is a perfectly legitimate way for the state to handle these using a partnership agreement formula. Call it "domestic partnerships" and they are governmed by either agreement or a default contract, much like UCC.
The fact that this would not be acceptable to the homosexual lobby (and I would bet it wont be) tells me that their concerns have nothing to do with liberty, pursuit of happiness or rights. Their concern is that their "lifestyle" should be legitimated. That is unacceptable to the majority (and a big majority btw) of people in this state, probably in others as well.
The fact that this would not be acceptable to the homosexual lobby (and I would bet it wont be) tells me that their concerns have nothing to do with liberty, pursuit of happiness or rights. Their concern is that their "lifestyle" should be legitimated. That is unacceptable to the majority (and a big majority btw) of people in this state, probably in others as well.
The fact that this solution *is* acceptable to you says the exact same thing. The reason that your solution inacceptable to the "homosexual lobby" is the exact same reason that it is acceptable to you.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 13, 2006, 12:04:58 PM
Quote
...This would imply that the government should not have any involvement in it whatseover. Since religious itself isnt defined, one could very easily express that their personal belief system not only allows but require, the marriage of man to man or woman to woman and the government would not have the right to deny them this practice....
Government grants special privileges upon married couples, and imposes special requirements certain institutions and organizations when dealing with married couples vs single individuals. Taxes, inheritance, insurance benefits, next of kin rights, child care, dependency, and so forth are all areas of public life in which existing law differentiates between who is and who isn't married. The argument that government has no place regulating marriages falls apart in the face of these areas of the law and of public life where marriage makes a difference. So long as the government recognizes marriage, then society has an interest in defining what marriage is. Else anyone can call himself/herself "married" (using some trumped up "church" to make it "official") and then use that status to leverage some sort of action out of another, based upon the legal special treatment of marriage.
The government has a very sound interest in defining what marriage is, for so long a time as marriage is something the law takes into account. If you want to de-regulate marriage, you have to simultaneously reform a wide large of our existing laws and institutions.
Post by: Joe Demko on November 13, 2006, 12:13:55 PM
Quote
I got to live here.
How do homosexuals having relationships with each other and forming "civil unions" have anyting to do with that? I've read through your contributions tothis thread and to the linked thread started by winston Smith and, frankly, you haven't had much to say other than that you think homosexuals are icky.
Post by: Guest on November 13, 2006, 12:24:21 PM
Quote
...This would imply that the government should not have any involvement in it whatseover. Since religious itself isnt defined, one could very easily express that their personal belief system not only allows but require, the marriage of man to man or woman to woman and the government would not have the right to deny them this practice....
Government grants special privileges upon married couples, and imposes special requirements certain institutions and organizations when dealing with married couples vs single individuals. Taxes, inheritance, insurance benefits, next of kin rights, and so forth are all areas of public life in which existing law differentiates between who is and who isn't married. The argument that government has no place regulating marriages falls apart in the face of these areas of the law and of public life where marriage makes a difference.
You are actually arguing that the government has the right to regulate marriage because the government does regulate marriage. By that argument all gun control is constitutional by the simple fact that the controlls were passed by the government.
Even if we were to assume that the existing priviledges confered onto married couples were legal that along does not give the government the right to place restrictions on marriage. For example, if the government passed a law granting a $1 per year stipend for gun owners for ammunition expenses, that would not give the government the right to decide who was allowed to become a gun owner. Just because the government has decided of their own accord to confer benefits onto married couples does not by itself give the government the right to decide who those couples are.
The day that people have to start passing laws to protect "society" is the day that that supposed society has ceased to become representative. Societies do not need protecting unless they are imposed and an imposed society is just a nice way of saying "tyranny".
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 13, 2006, 12:42:15 PM
Why is it that conservatives are actually voting in favor of government control over something that is so fundamentally personal and/or religious in nature? What is the governments stake in this? What is your stake in it?
Conservatives, in this case, are not voting to give government any additional control. It is the other side that seeks to regulate homosexual relationships by including them in marriage laws. The conservatives are simply asking that the laws not be expanded. But marriage is not as private as you claim, nor so religious. While marriage has its private elements, it is equally public. It may not be important to you that Joe and Mary, or Jim and Steven, are having sex or writing each other sweet little love notes, but it may well be a public concern who's kids belong to whom and who inherits whose property, who is dependent on whom, etc. If Jim and Steve wish to set up such affairs between themselves, let them do so, but why do they get special consideration? Marriage is useful to us as a society. Shacking up with a homosexual lover is not. What is my stake in two men having sex with each other? Not much. That's why govt. shouldn't be involved in it.
Post by: Hugh Damright on November 13, 2006, 12:42:48 PM
Quote
it is a right that is specifically deligated to the states to regulate. Wether or not the states have the right to regulate it is a valid question.
Is it a valid question? To ask if a State has a right to exercise its rights? What kind of right is it that there is no right to exercise? Maybe we're talking about whether a State has a moral right to exercise certain political rights ... but any way you cut it, it seems to me that it is not a valid question because it attempts to deny and disparage the States' rights.
"The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives." Ronald Reagan, Executive Order on Federalism
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 13, 2006, 12:46:27 PM
Quote
Why? Why should "gay and unmarried couples" have the benefits of marriage without being married?
I don't believe there should ever be a legal benefit to having participated in a religious ceremony, but there is. My argument is that people who don't want (or aren't allowed) to desecrate a religious ceremony for whatever reasons should still have a route to the legal benefits that are granted to those who wish to partake in it.Quote
Quote
Your argument assumes that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual ones
Yes it does, and you're pretty skilled at distilling an argument to the point of contention. I believe a homosexual relationship is equivalent to a heterosexual relationship in all but the mechanics of child production (but not raising.) You don't. Neither of us will ever be able to persuade the other, but I do enjoy debating with you, because I get to see someone intelligently defend a position I disagree with.Homosexual relationships, no matter how valuable they may be to some individuals, don't do these things. While it can be argued that the above are not sufficient reasons for govt. involvement, it cannot be argued that homosexual marriages would fit any of those reasons and therefore justify govt. involvement. They are not a better way to produce children than other arrangements. They are not a better way to raise children than other arrangements. They are not a better way to provide for children. If they are, it certainly remains to be demonstrated. So why am I asked to lend govt. support to them? Why am I asked to call them marriages when they don't look, walk or quack like marriages?
Quote
I don't think there's anything obnoxious about my comparison of gay and interracial marriage&.You're trying to distance homosexuality from woman's rights and civil rights. I can't say why, and I don't want to insult you by trying to recreate your position for myself. I think gays should have all the rights women and blacks do. You disagree.
Not at all. Homosexuals should have every right that blacks and whites and men and women do. We all have a right to enter our house of worship and have a wedding ceremony with anyone who will have us, or with a toaster or a building or a turtle or an abstract concept or the entire nation of Germany. There is no right, however, for any group to appropriate the benefits or the legal category of marriage to a relationship that isn't a marriage. While we can argue about whether government should recognize marriages that include multiple wives, 13-year-olds, cousins, Pakistanis, Blacks, etc., homosexual marriage is an obvious non sequitir. Why? Why can't a bride be replaced by a second groom? Why can't a "male" groom be replaced by a "masculine" lesbian? Isn't gender a mere social construction that I should be free to choose? No, it's not. The reason why I'd prefer some distance between the issues of women's rights, Black rights, and homosexual rights is simply that there ought to be some distance. Racial differences are not the same as sexual differences. Sexual differences are not the same as differences in sexual behavior or orientation. These issues have been conflated in recent decades, hence our confusion. Lately, scientists and social commentators have begun to point out that there is no such thing as race. There is no Black gene or Native-American gene. What we call race is simply a collection of various physical features to which we assign a value. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that race doesn't exist, it seems clear that racial differences are superficial and worth no more than the value placed on them. For decades, the Western World has been trying to treat sexual differences in the same way. It is only in the past decade that we have begun to acknowledge our failure in this. No matter how much we attempt to deny reality, men and women are different sides of the same species, inescapably bound to one another. So, we can exchange a Black groom for a White one, but it is bountifully clear that any attempt to exchange a male groom for a female groom is going to yield an entirely different sort of relationship. So, if there is some reason to recognize homosexual marriage, let it be shown. It will not do to recognize it on the merits of actual marriage, which it clearly is not.
Post by: Guest on November 13, 2006, 12:46:50 PM
Is it a valid question? To ask if a State has a right to exercise its rights? What kind of right is it that there is no right to exercise? Maybe we're talking about whether a State has a moral right to exercise certain political rights ... but any way you cut it, it seems to me that it is not a valid question because it attempts to deny and disparage the States' rights.
The right of a state to pass laws is limited by both their own state constitutions and by the federal constitution. For example, a state does not have the right to pass a law restricting the free practice of religion or speach. The question is wether or not marriage is an expression of the free practice of a persons religion.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 13, 2006, 12:49:02 PM
Quote
You are actually arguing that the government has the right to regulate marriage because the government does regulate marriage. By that argument all gun control is constitutional by the simple fact that the controlls were passed by the government.
Even if we were to assume that the existing priviledges confered onto married couples were legal that along does not give the government the right to place restrictions on marriage. For example, if the government passed a law granting a $1 per year stipend for gun owners for ammunition expenses, that would not give the government the right to decide who was allowed to become a gun owner. Just because the government has decided of their own accord to confer benefits onto married couples does not by itself give the government the right to decide who those couples are.
You've got it backwards. Society has already decided that marriage is a state issue. It's a done deal. The definition of marriage and it's relevance to public life goes back far into history. It predates the constitution, and it predates English common law our civil laws are founded upon. Marriage has always been a state issue, and it has always been one man married to woman*. This is why the state has a stake in marriage, and why the civil laws surrounding marriage are constitutionally sound. Prohibitions against gay marriage are just as well-founded and legal/constitutional as prohibitions against murder and theft.Even if we were to assume that the existing priviledges confered onto married couples were legal that along does not give the government the right to place restrictions on marriage. For example, if the government passed a law granting a $1 per year stipend for gun owners for ammunition expenses, that would not give the government the right to decide who was allowed to become a gun owner. Just because the government has decided of their own accord to confer benefits onto married couples does not by itself give the government the right to decide who those couples are.
To my knowledge, no state ever delegated the authority to the Federal government to change this. Absent such authority, any attempts by the Fed to redefine marriage is inherently unconstitutional.
What the gay activists (and you as well, I infer) are asking us to do is to overrule our existing laws and practices, along with their centuries of legal and constitutional standing, to their own exclusive benefit. They wish to leverage their status as "married" so that they can legally force society to grant them them considerations that society grants to all married couples The civil institutions surrounding marriage were never intended to be used in such a fashion.
For the Fed to force us all to recognize gay marriage would be a gross abuse of power.
* Plus various other requirements irrelevant to this discussion: both spouses must not be married already, both must be adults, both must be unrelated, both must have the explicit intention of remaining married for their natural lives, and so on. If any particular "marriage" fails to meet these requirements, then it isn't legally a marriage.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 13, 2006, 12:54:36 PM
Quote
I got to live here.
How do homosexuals having relationships with each other and forming "civil unions" have anyting to do with that? I've read through your contributions tothis thread and to the linked thread started by winston Smith and, frankly, you haven't had much to say other than that you think homosexuals are icky.CYeager wrote:
Quote
You are actually arguing that the government has the right to regulate marriage because the government does regulate marriage. By that argument all gun control is constitutional by the simple fact that the controlls were passed by the government.
He completely missed the Headless One's point. It has nothing to do with current practice (although I would also argue that recognizing marriage and kinship is a traditional function of government and thus a legitimate one). It is an issue of property and personal rights and all societies have differentiated between married people and unmarried people. They differentiate based on inheritance and otehr rights. If homosexual unions are recognized and accorded the same status,why not any relationship at all? If Fistful's job offers him full medical benefits then maybe he and I need to declare ourselves "in a relationship" so I can get free medical coverage. And why stop at two people? Maybe 3 or more. Everyone on the board can get the benefit of Fistful's health insurance by being "married" to him (note to Fistful: get bigger bed). It is absurd.Post by: Guest on November 13, 2006, 01:00:41 PM
Quote
You've got it backwards. Society has already decided that marriage is a state issue. It's a done deal. The definition of marriage and it's relevance to public life goes back far into history. It predates the constitution, and it predates English common law our civil laws are founded upon. Marriage has always been a state issue, and it has always been one man married to woman*. This is why the state has a stake in marriage, and why the civil laws surrounding marriage are constitutionally sound. Prohibitions against gay marriage are just as well-founded and legal/constitutional as prohibitions against murder and theft.
Actually marriage long predates the existance of the state, that alone implies that the state does not have a natural right to control it. Furthermore marriage has NOT always been one man married to one woman, the oldest forms of marriage were polygamous (sp?) in nature. Really the oldest forms of marriage predate the judeo-christian ideal of marriage and, homosexuality was a commonly accepted practice in many of these pre-christian cultures among those who were married, usually to multiple people. The whole one man one woman sexually exclusive marriage is a manufactured product of the Judeo Christian culture and as such is a religious excercise.
Reaching into non-christian tradition will not be doing your argument any favors as most of those traditions had definitions of marriage that would not benefit your conclusions.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 13, 2006, 01:02:54 PM
Quote
If Fistful's job offers him full medical benefits then maybe he and I need to declare ourselves "in a relationship" so I can get free medical coverage. And why stop at two people? Maybe 3 or more. Everyone on the board can get the benefit of Fistful's health insurance by being "married" to him (note to Fistful: get bigger bed). It is absurd.
Outstanding! I don't have health coverage, so I'm especially pleased to call myself one of fistful's new husbands. Which plan are we on, and what are the policy numbers? I'm overdue for a checkup.I must respectfully insist that our marriage be one of those 1950's TV show marriages where each spouse has his or her own bed.
Post by: Guest on November 13, 2006, 01:11:09 PM
Quote
If Fistful's job offers him full medical benefits then maybe he and I need to declare ourselves "in a relationship" so I can get free medical coverage. And why stop at two people? Maybe 3 or more. Everyone on the board can get the benefit of Fistful's health insurance by being "married" to him (note to Fistful: get bigger bed). It is absurd.
Why shoudlnt fistful's employer have the right to deciding who they pay benefits for? Why should the government be involved in that business relationship between two private entities?
Heh, i guess if we decide that the government can choose the terms of a romantic relationship that they should be able to decide the terms of business relationships as well. Hello socialism.
Post by: Joe Demko on November 13, 2006, 01:12:00 PM
Quote
If that is all you have gotten out of my posts then maybe you'd best not respond.
Ithat is all I have gotten out of your posts, then maybe you'd best do a mre competent job of clarifying your position. If it makes you feel better, assume I'm catastrophically retarded. I've read through your posts twice and that is still the overall impression I get. Do, please, calrify it for my substandard intellect?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 13, 2006, 01:18:09 PM
Quote
You've got it backwards. Society has already decided that marriage is a state issue. It's a done deal. The definition of marriage and it's relevance to public life goes back far into history. It predates the constitution, and it predates English common law our civil laws are founded upon. Marriage has always been a state issue, and it has always been one man married to woman*. This is why the state has a stake in marriage, and why the civil laws surrounding marriage are constitutionally sound. Prohibitions against gay marriage are just as well-founded and legal/constitutional as prohibitions against murder and theft.
Actually marriage long predates the existance of the state, that alone implies that the state does not have a natural right to control it.
If the government has no authority to control marriage, then how is it that you assert that the government has the authority to force the people to abandon their longstanding institution of marriage, then force the people to adopt a new institution of marriage against their will?
Furthermore marriage has NOT always been one man married to one woman, the oldest forms of marriage were polygamous (sp?) in nature. Really the oldest forms of marriage predate the judeo-christian ideal of marriage and, homosexuality was a commonly accepted practice in many of these pre-christian cultures among those who were married, usually to multiple people. The whole one man one woman sexually exclusive marriage is a manufactured product of the Judeo Christian culture and as such is a religious excercise.
Reaching into non-christian tradition will not be doing your argument any favors as most of those traditions had definitions of marriage that would not benefit your conclusions.
I'm not arguing that there are all sorts of interesting and diverse living arrangements documented throughout antiquity. I do dispute your contention that these were marriages, as the term applies to this discussion.
Reaching into non-christian tradition will not be doing your argument any favors as most of those traditions had definitions of marriage that would not benefit your conclusions.
Post by: Guest on November 13, 2006, 01:22:37 PM
Quote
If that is all you have gotten out of my posts then maybe you'd best not respond.
In fairness to Joe, thats about all I have gotten out of your posts as well. Maybe you'd best not post them untill you can come up with more.
The arguments on this issue here can pretty easily be distilled down to this:
Anti Gay Marriage: Gays are icky and it is bad for our society to allow them legitimacty.
Pro Gay Marriage: It isnt up to us what icky things are allowed to happen.
Noone is going to see eye to eye on this one as its a question of how people view the role of their government. I prefer a government that doesnt play any role at all in how people choose to live their lives, and i do not believe that it is even possible for a society to be damaged by behavior that doesnt have actual victims. This means that I dont care who people want to marry, what drugs they want to do, or what possessions they wish to have. Others view this role of government differently, which is perfectly fine because dissagreement is why our system of government works. Ultimately this gets decided by politicians, voters, or the pointy end of a sword, just like all things.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 13, 2006, 01:25:06 PM
Quote
If Fistful's job offers him full medical benefits then maybe he and I need to declare ourselves "in a relationship" so I can get free medical coverage. And why stop at two people? Maybe 3 or more. Everyone on the board can get the benefit of Fistful's health insurance by being "married" to him (note to Fistful: get bigger bed). It is absurd.
Why shoudlnt fistful's employer have the right to deciding who they pay benefits for? Why should the government be involved in that business relationship between two private entities?
Under existing law, if I can find some church to marry me to fistful, and then convince some court to recognize our "marriage", then that employer would be contractually (and in some states, legally) obligated to provide for my own healthcare, even though that was never the intention of either the employer nor the employee at the time.
Even if you accept the notion that the Fed has the power to redefine marriage in this fashion (which it doesn't) then you're still faced with the problem of forcing the people to reconcile their longstanding civil institutions which are built around the notion of marriage. Forcing fistful's employer to renegotiate his way out of his (suddenly mutated) prior contracts isn't something the Fed should do. And these sorts of employment contracts are the lease of the legal entanglements that would ensue.
Post by: Guest on November 13, 2006, 01:26:23 PM
Quote
If the government has no authority to control marriage, then how is it that you assert that the government has the authority to force the people to abandon their longstanding institution of marriage, then force the people to adopt a new institution of marriage against their will?
How does two men getting married force you to abandom YOUR longstanding institution of marriage? Your religion and your traditions are your business, and allowing others to live outside of those beliefs does not challenge your own beliefs.
Quote
I'm not arguing that there are all sorts of interesting and diverse living arrangements documented throughout antiquity. I do dispute your contention that these were marriages, as the term applies to this discussion.
So why dont you tell me where and when your concept of marriage started as it applies to this discussion.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 13, 2006, 01:27:42 PM
The arguments on this issue here can pretty easily be distilled down to this:
Anti Gay Marriage: Gays are icky and it is bad for our society to allow them legitimacty.
Pro Gay Marriage: It isnt up to us what icky things are allowed to happen.
Anti Gay Marriage: Gays are icky and it is bad for our society to allow them legitimacty.
Pro Gay Marriage: It isnt up to us what icky things are allowed to happen.
If you say so...
Post by: Guest on November 13, 2006, 01:32:11 PM
The arguments on this issue here can pretty easily be distilled down to this:
Anti Gay Marriage: Gays are icky and it is bad for our society to allow them legitimacty.
Pro Gay Marriage: It isnt up to us what icky things are allowed to happen.
Anti Gay Marriage: Gays are icky and it is bad for our society to allow them legitimacty.
Pro Gay Marriage: It isnt up to us what icky things are allowed to happen.
If you say so...Can you quote for me where you or myself posted an argument that fell outside that statement?
Post by: Hugh Damright on November 13, 2006, 01:44:45 PM
Quote
If the government has no authority to control marriage, then how is it that you assert that the government has the authority to force the people to abandon their longstanding institution of marriage, then force the people to adopt a new institution of marriage against their will?
I was thinking the same thing ... how is it that government is supposed to be too weak to define marriage with the consent of the people, yet strong enough to define marriage to include homosexual marriage against the will of the people? But I think the answer is because this view in question is a yankee view and naturally it denies and disparages free government ...it tries to force foreign views on the States like a monarch ... how did Jefferson put it ..."Should the whole body of New England continue in oppositition to these principles of government, either knowingly or through delusion, our government will be a very uneasy one. It can never be harmonious & solid, while so respectable a portion of its citizens support principles which go directly to a change of the federal Constitution, to sink the State governments, consolidate them into one, and to monarchize that."
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 13, 2006, 02:13:30 PM
Quote
The whole one man one woman sexually exclusive marriage is a manufactured product of the Judeo Christian culture and as such is a religious excercise.
That doesn't seem right to me. Source? This bickering about precedent gets us nowhere. Homosexual relationships are not now and have not previously been considered marriage because they are not. There are a whole range of marriages it would make a great deal more sense to allow before homosexual ones. Marriages with close relations. Marriages with multiple brides and grooms. Marriages with small children. Marriages with people who are already married to other people. All of these fit the concept of marriage, roughly, even if they would not be a good idea. Homosexual couplings don't even come close. It is not a question of morality. It is a question of facing reality. Quote
The arguments on this issue here can pretty easily be distilled down to this:
Anti Gay Marriage: Gays are icky and it is bad for our society to allow them legitimacty.
Pro Gay Marriage: It isnt up to us what icky things are allowed to happen.
And this can be distilled into you sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting, "I'm not listening!" It could also be distilled into you giving up any defense of your irrational position.
Anti Gay Marriage: Gays are icky and it is bad for our society to allow them legitimacty.
Pro Gay Marriage: It isnt up to us what icky things are allowed to happen.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 13, 2006, 03:38:33 PM
The arguments on this issue here can pretty easily be distilled down to this:
Anti Gay Marriage: Gays are icky and it is bad for our society to allow them legitimacty.
Pro Gay Marriage: It isnt up to us what icky things are allowed to happen.
Anti Gay Marriage: Gays are icky and it is bad for our society to allow them legitimacty.
Pro Gay Marriage: It isnt up to us what icky things are allowed to happen.
If you say so...Can you quote for me where you or myself posted an argument that fell outside that statement?
It strikes me as a pointless exercise, but I know that if I don't you'll assume there aren't any. So...Howsabout the argument that it's illegal for the Fed to redefine marriage:
Prohibitions against gay marriage are just as well-founded and legal/constitutional as prohibitions against murder and theft.
To my knowledge, no state ever delegated the authority to the Federal government to change this. Absent such authority, any attempts by the Fed to redefine marriage is inherently unconstitutional....
...For the Fed to force us all to recognize gay marriage would be a gross abuse of power.
To my knowledge, no state ever delegated the authority to the Federal government to change this. Absent such authority, any attempts by the Fed to redefine marriage is inherently unconstitutional....
...For the Fed to force us all to recognize gay marriage would be a gross abuse of power.
You're exactly right on this point. The state has no control over what marriage is and who can be married. That determinant has already been made, and the government has no authority to alter it. Now you simply need to reconcile your conclusion with your premise.
If the government has no authority to control marriage, then how is it that you assert that the government has the authority to force the people to abandon their longstanding institution of marriage, then force the people to adopt a new institution of marriage against their will?
If the government has no authority to control marriage, then how is it that you assert that the government has the authority to force the people to abandon their longstanding institution of marriage, then force the people to adopt a new institution of marriage against their will?
Or how about arguing the absurdity of your position of no rules on marriage:
Outstanding! I don't have health coverage, so I'm especially pleased to call myself one of fistful's new husbands. Which plan are we on, and what are the policy numbers? I'm overdue for a checkup.
I must respectfully insist that our marriage be one of those 1950's TV show marriages where each spouse has his or her own bed.
I must respectfully insist that our marriage be one of those 1950's TV show marriages where each spouse has his or her own bed.
Or maybe debunking the argument that homosexuals have no choice about their lifestyle, therefore it should be justification for social engineering:
...Does anyone really choose to desire sex (of any form)?
That's why it's utterly pointless for the gay advocates to blather on about how homosexuality isn't a choice. That homosexuality is naturally occuring, even if true, is completely irrelevant.
I've heard that defense from pedophiles, too. Maybe it's true, maybe the pedophile by his nature is unable to choose anything else. But that doesn't change anything in related to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of pedophilia.
If "it's my nature" is an affirmative defense, then all manner of crimes could be justified.
That's why it's utterly pointless for the gay advocates to blather on about how homosexuality isn't a choice. That homosexuality is naturally occuring, even if true, is completely irrelevant.
I've heard that defense from pedophiles, too. Maybe it's true, maybe the pedophile by his nature is unable to choose anything else. But that doesn't change anything in related to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of pedophilia.
If "it's my nature" is an affirmative defense, then all manner of crimes could be justified.
Moving along to the argument that homosexual marriage is already perfectly legal, that all laws apply equally to gays as to straights, which refutes the notion that we need to alter our laws to make them "fair":
Here's another interesting thought: The traditional rules do not discriminate against or exclude gays from marriage. Gays are as free to marry as straights, under the exact same rules and restrictions. Any man, gay or straight, is free to marry a woman. Any woman, gay or straight, is free to marry a man.
Hmm... It looks like a cursory skimming of the thread turned up at least 5 posts that offer arguments that don't fit your statement. And that's interpreting "bad for society" liberally. A detailed reading of the entire thread, or a more narrow interpretation of your vacuous "bad for society" phrase might turn up a few more. But that sounds too much like work, so I'll pass.
And I didn't even bother to reread your comments. You appear to be stipulating that the entirety of your position is "It isn't up to us what icky things are allowed to happen." Who am I to disagree with your own interpretation of your remarks?
Post by: Guest on November 13, 2006, 03:55:42 PM
Quote
Howsabout the argument that it's illegal for the Fed to redefine marriage:
Which is founded on nothing.
The state has NOT previously defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, current innitiatives are trying to change this.
Quote
Or how about arguing the absurdity of your position of no rules on marriage:
...
Outstanding! I don't have health coverage, so I'm especially pleased to call myself one of fistful's new husbands. Which plan are we on, and what are the policy numbers? I'm overdue for a checkup.
I must respectfully insist that our marriage be one of those 1950's TV show marriages where each spouse has his or her own bed.
...
Outstanding! I don't have health coverage, so I'm especially pleased to call myself one of fistful's new husbands. Which plan are we on, and what are the policy numbers? I'm overdue for a checkup.
I must respectfully insist that our marriage be one of those 1950's TV show marriages where each spouse has his or her own bed.
A) This debate isnt about polygamy last time I checked.
B) Why is a man claiming spousal insurance support any more absurd than a woman claiming the same? Husbands are often covered under their wive's insurance coverage, why is it more absurd for a man to be on his husbands insurance coverage?
C) Not even on point because we are talking about state-authorized gay marriage, not about wether private companies choose to cover "domestic partners" (although many already do).
Quote
Or maybe debunking the argument that homosexuals have no choice about their lifestyle, therefore it should be justification for social engineering:
Let me just answer by quoting your own words:
Quote
That homosexuality is naturally occuring, even if true, is completely irrelevant.
Quote
Moving along to the argument that homosexual marriage is already perfectly legal, that all laws apply equally to gays as to straights, which refutes the notion that we need to alter our laws to make them "fair":
Here's another interesting thought: The traditional rules do not discriminate against or exclude gays from marriage. Gays are as free to marry as straights, under the exact same rules and restrictions. Any man, gay or straight, is free to marry a woman. Any woman, gay or straight, is free to marry a man.
Here's another interesting thought: The traditional rules do not discriminate against or exclude gays from marriage. Gays are as free to marry as straights, under the exact same rules and restrictions. Any man, gay or straight, is free to marry a woman. Any woman, gay or straight, is free to marry a man.
Which is also completely off point because this discussion is about same-sex marriages.
I guess I was wrong, I was giving you too much credit. Your stance isnt based on the idea that homosexuality is wrong. It is based on off-point non-arguments and rhetoric. Thats a big shame because I actually had some respect for the idea that homosexuality is wrong because i happen to partially agree with it, I just dont think the state has any stake in right or wrong when noone is victized by that imoral act.
Post by: Guest on November 13, 2006, 03:57:56 PM
Quote
And this can be distilled into you sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting, "I'm not listening!" It could also be distilled into you giving up any defense of your irrational position.
I'm listening, I just havent heard anything that makes any sense yet. I hardly think that the stance that the government shouldnt be legislating victimless immoral behavior is irrational, in fact arguing otherwise strikes me as the near definition of irrational behavior for a person that pretends to love the "land of the free". If we were having this discussion in a mosque in Bagdad, then maybe my side would be irrational.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 13, 2006, 04:32:45 PM
Quote
Quote
Howsabout the argument that it's illegal for the Fed to redefine marriage:
Which is founded on nothing.
The state has NOT previously defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, current innitiatives are trying to change this.
It is founded upon the very real premises of limited, constitutionally restrained Federal government. It simply isn't the Fed's job to force new social institutions, such as gay marriage, down the throats of the people. You're flat out wrong when you say this position is "founded on nothing."Howsabout the argument that it's illegal for the Fed to redefine marriage:
Which is founded on nothing.
The state has NOT previously defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, current innitiatives are trying to change this.
Quote
Quote
Or how about arguing the absurdity of your position of no rules on marriage:
...
Outstanding! I don't have health coverage, so I'm especially pleased to call myself one of fistful's new husbands. Which plan are we on, and what are the policy numbers? I'm overdue for a checkup.
I must respectfully insist that our marriage be one of those 1950's TV show marriages where each spouse has his or her own bed.
A) This debate isnt about polygamy last time I checked.
B) Who is a man claiming spousal insurance support any more absurd than a woman claiming the same? Husbands are often covered under their wive's insurance coverage, why is it more absurd for a man to be on his husbands insurance coverage?
C) Not even on point because we are talking about state-authorized gay marriage, not about wether private companies choose to cover "domestic partners" (although many already do).
A) The debate is about redefining marriage. If one side can change it to serve their own personal interests (as in gay marriage), then so can I. Of course, I wouldn't bother, 'cause I'm not into wielding the courts and the law against those from whom I want to extort some benefit. But that certainly doesn't mean that others won't.Or how about arguing the absurdity of your position of no rules on marriage:
...
Outstanding! I don't have health coverage, so I'm especially pleased to call myself one of fistful's new husbands. Which plan are we on, and what are the policy numbers? I'm overdue for a checkup.
I must respectfully insist that our marriage be one of those 1950's TV show marriages where each spouse has his or her own bed.
A) This debate isnt about polygamy last time I checked.
B) Who is a man claiming spousal insurance support any more absurd than a woman claiming the same? Husbands are often covered under their wive's insurance coverage, why is it more absurd for a man to be on his husbands insurance coverage?
C) Not even on point because we are talking about state-authorized gay marriage, not about wether private companies choose to cover "domestic partners" (although many already do).
B) A man claiming insurance support because he thinks he's married to another man whose coverage extends to a spouse is absurd. A woman claiming benefits extended to her husband's spouse is not absurd. The obvious distinction is that the man and the woman are actually married, whereas the man and the man are not. Now if two men wish to negotiate for joint health coverage on the basis of rational self interest with the provider (as opposed to forcing the provided to provide because of some activist court ruling on gay marriage) then that would be another matter entirely.
C)Perfectly on point, because many, possibly even most, employers are contractually obligated to provide certain benefits to the spouses of their employees. By creating an entire new class of "spouses" which the employers must now provide for, a class which couldn't have been contemplated at the time the contracts were entered into, you've created a situation in which the Fed is basically rewriting private contracts. That isn't just absurd, that's illegal. Totalitarianism ain't cool, and avoiding totalitarianism is darned relevant to me.
Quote
Quote
Or maybe debunking the argument that homosexuals have no choice about their lifestyle, therefore it should be justification for social engineering:
Let me just answer by quoting your own words:
Quote
That homosexuality is naturally occuring, even if true, is completely irrelevant.
You haven't articulated any sort of coherent thought here. To say that this is a refutation of my argument is a bit of a stretch.Or maybe debunking the argument that homosexuals have no choice about their lifestyle, therefore it should be justification for social engineering:
Let me just answer by quoting your own words:
Quote
That homosexuality is naturally occuring, even if true, is completely irrelevant.
Let me just reiterate that one common argument in favor of gay marriage is that it isn't the choice of the homosexual to be gay, there fore it should be illegal. Pointing out the absurdity of this notion is perfectly reasonable.
Quote
Quote
Moving along to the argument that homosexual marriage is already perfectly legal, that all laws apply equally to gays as to straights, which refutes the notion that we need to alter our laws to make them "fair":
Which is also completely off point because this discussion is about same-sex marriages.
Here's where you really start to dig deep looking for a valid point, and come up short. Moving along to the argument that homosexual marriage is already perfectly legal, that all laws apply equally to gays as to straights, which refutes the notion that we need to alter our laws to make them "fair":
Which is also completely off point because this discussion is about same-sex marriages.
In this point I discuss the fairness of the existing system with regards to who can and who can't marry. If one of the arguments in favor of a position is that the current system is not fair, and if it is demonstrated that it is in fact fair (i.e that they're wrong) then this is a very relevant point to bring up. It eliminates one supposed impetus for needing to make a change.
Quote
I guess I was wrong, I was giving you too much credit. Your stance isnt based on the idea that homosexuality is wrong. It is based on off-point non-arguments and rhetoric. Thats a bid shame because I actually had some respect for the idea that homosexuality is wrong because i happen to agree with it, I just dont think the state has any stake in right or wrong when noone is victized by that imoral act.
Nope, I'm not basing my position and arguments on the notion that homosexuality is wrong. My position is based upon the notion that allowing activists to redefine marriage to include homosexuals is:A) Illegal
B) Unconstitutional
C) Absurd
D) Unnecessary
E) And yes, "bad for society" - (but per your request, I didn't quote any of those particular arguments)
We'll leave it as an exercise for the readers (if there are still any left) to decide who's been given too much credit and who hasn't.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 13, 2006, 04:34:02 PM
Toodles, y'all.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 13, 2006, 05:18:35 PM
I'm listening, I just havent heard anything that makes any sense yet.
Well, see my sig line - the first part. But "making sense" of our arguments is one thing. Falsely claiming that they are based on "Gays are icky" despite reams of argument with an entirely different basis is another.
Quote
I hardly think that the stance that the government shouldnt be legislating victimless immoral behavior is irrational
Did you mean "legislating against victimless..."? That has nothing to do with the homosexual marriage issue. Homosexuals are perfectly free to carry on their "victimless immoral behavior" with or without HM. And I think I've already made one or two short posts to explain to you that there is no effort to legislate against HM. All we seek to do is keep HM from being smuggled into existing marriage laws.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 13, 2006, 05:22:26 PM
Can you quote for me where you or myself posted an argument that fell outside that statement?
Unlike HTG, I'm not going to assume a burden of proof which is yours. Can you demonstrate where I, HTG, Rabbi or others have used "Gays are icky" as a basis for our position on HM? We might have made such a comment, but please demonstrate how we have used it as an argument as you claim.
I'm gonna go smack HTG in the head for taking the bait, now. If he doesn't shoot me first.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 13, 2006, 07:54:19 PM
Quote
I just dont think the state has any stake in right or wrong when noone is victized by that imoral act.
Hey, there's another statement from c_y that knocks the struts out from under homosexual marriage. There is no reason for govt. to recognize private sexual behavior that doesn't affect the rest of us.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 14, 2006, 04:42:10 AM
Quote
Howsabout the argument that it's illegal for the Fed to redefine marriage:
Which is founded on nothing.
The state has NOT previously defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, current innitiatives are trying to change this.
This is simply incorrect. I half-remembered a case from Mr.Allison, my 7th grade history teacher on the Mormons and looked it up. Indeed, Reynolds vs U.S. from 1878, Congress defined marriage for the territories.
Post by: roo_ster on November 14, 2006, 06:08:36 AM
... but if a free State cannot ban homosexual acts, then that doesn't sound like free government, it sounds like a State that is under the thumb of some libertarian monarch.
Well, many libertarians do seek a scrapping of the COTUS and their various state constitutions. Oh, many libertarian arguments call on the language of the COTUS, but they are more than willing to deep-six it in order to argue for their positions. HM is just one case.
Post by: Hugh Damright on November 14, 2006, 07:47:06 AM
Quote
Well, many libertarians do seek a scrapping of the COTUS and their various state constitutions.
And that's why I think "libertarian" is just a five syllable word for "yankee". Post by: BrokenPaw on November 14, 2006, 08:33:19 AM
First of all, I would like to dispense with semantic nonsense like "civil union" versus "marriage". For the purposes of this debate, we are discussing the legally-recognized union of two consenting adults. Quibbling over whether one term or another should be used is a canard, and detracts from the actual argument. If you prefer, you may pronounce "marriage" as "siv-ill yoon-yun"; perhaps that will help.
The primary arguments I have heard in favor of banning gay marriage (on this thread as well as others) are:
- Marriage is defined in the Bible (or other scripture) as the joining of one man and one woman.
- The purpose for marriage is for the creation and care of children.
- The benefits bestowed by the government to married couples are there to assist in the care and raising of children.
- Gay marriage will place an undue burden on the insurance industry by forcing the carrier to give benefits to a gay partner.
- Gay marriage is different from the societally-accepted norm, and allowing it would be forcing society to accept something different from what it accepts now.
Now. The scriptural basis for the definition of marriage is not one that can be supported in a debate about governmental control over the activities of free individuals. The reason for that is because to do so would be an all-or-nothing step; either the government enforces every tenet of the Bible (or the Koran, or the Talmud) or it cannot legitimately enforce any of them with scripture being the basis of that enforcement.
We cannot define marriage as something that exists solely for the purposes of creating and caring for children, because to do so would invalidate the marriage of sterile people, post-menopause women, and even people who simply choose not to have children.
The idea that government benefits to married couples exist to help encourage the care and raising of children is specious, because it fails to account for the fact that plenty of childless couples are reaping those benefits right this very second.
The insurance industry would not have to provide spousal benefits if it were not required to do so by the government. So suggesting that the government must step in to protect the industry from the consequences of a policy that the government forced into place is ludicrous, circular logic. It is the same logic that says that the state has a right to mandate motorcycle-helmet laws because the state has already mandated that hospitals care for people who have been turned into vegetables through the lack of wearing helmets. If the state were not a nanny-state, guaranteeing that everyone would have care no matter what, then suddenly there's no burden on anyone else if a fool suffers severe brain trauma as a consequence of his foolishness. Likewise, if the government did not mandate spousal coverage from insurance companies, no company would be burdened by "having" to cover a gay partner. But some would, and they would do great business by having more customers.
Just because something is different from how it's been done, doesn't mean it is wrong. As others have pointed out, one-man, one-woman marriage has not been the norm, the world over, since time began. Polygamy has been in fashion at times. Homosexual activity was perfectly acceptable in some well-known and well-respected historical societies. Judeo-Christian monogamy is a relative newcomer to the "that's the way it's always been, so that's the way it always shall be" game.
A gauntlet:
I would like someone (anyone) to explain how it is that a man marrying a man (or a woman marrying a woman) impinges on the rights of anyone else. Here is the difficult part: You're not allowed to use things like government-mandated spousal benefits or any other government-mandated regulations that affect you in order to support your argument. Because government regulations that adversely affect you as a consequence of another person's free exercise of will is a problem that needs to be corrected by repealing such inimical legislation, not by passing further legislation to prevent that free exercise of will.
Because the opposite infringement is already occurring. A gay man, who is the dearest person in the world to another gay man, can be barred from visiting his partner in the hospital room, if the patient is unconscious and the patient's parents (or other next of kin) does not approve of the relationship. If the two men were allowed to be married under law, the partners would be considered next of kin, and would be allowed to see one another regardless of the wishes of the family. So under current circumstance, the will of two free adults to exercise their right to free association can be abrogated by the whim of a single other adult, for any (or no) reason at all. And that is a travesty.
The current system allows the rights of free men and women to be infringed upon by others.
But I defy anyone here to tell me that a man being married to a man somehow infringes on anyone else's rights.
And that is what the government is for; to protect the right to free exercise of will, so long as that exercise does not interfere with another's rights. All other government controls on people's lives are counter to the very premise of the Constitution.
So. Can anyone tell me how the marriage of a gay couple violates someone else's rights? Anyone?
-BP
[edited because my grammar was on vacation]
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 14, 2006, 09:06:48 AM
The primary arguments I have heard in favor of banning gay marriage (on this thread as well as others) are:
You've completely ignored the fact that the Fed isn't empowered to redefine marriage for the country and then force that new definition down the throats of a people against their will.- Marriage is defined in the Bible (or other scripture) as the joining of one man and one woman.
- The purpose for marriage is for the creation and care of children.
- The benefits bestowed by the government to married couples are there to assist in the care and raising of children.
- Gay marriage will place an undue burden on the insurance industry by forcing the carrier to give benefits to a gay partner.
- Gay marriage is different from the societally-accepted norm, and allowing it would be forcing society to accept something different from what it accepts now.
A gauntlet:
I would like someone (anyone) to explain how it is that a man marrying a man (or a woman marrying a woman) impinges on the rights of anyone else. Here is the difficult part: You're not allowed to use things like government-mandated spousal benefits or any other government-mandated regulations that affect you in order to support your argument. Because government regulations that adversely affect you as a consequence of another person's free exercise of will is a problem that needs to be corrected by repealing such inimical legislation, not by passing further legislation to prevent that free exercise of will.
Again, you ignore the obvious violation of rights that occurs when the Fed oversteps its authority. Unless and until the Fed is delegated the appropriate power, they simply cannot institute gay marriage without violating everyone's rights. Totalitarianism ain't cool.I would like someone (anyone) to explain how it is that a man marrying a man (or a woman marrying a woman) impinges on the rights of anyone else. Here is the difficult part: You're not allowed to use things like government-mandated spousal benefits or any other government-mandated regulations that affect you in order to support your argument. Because government regulations that adversely affect you as a consequence of another person's free exercise of will is a problem that needs to be corrected by repealing such inimical legislation, not by passing further legislation to prevent that free exercise of will.
Because the opposite infringement is already occurring. A gay man, who is the dearest person in the world to another gay man, can be barred from visiting his partner in the hospital room, if the patient is unconscious and the patient's parents (or other next of kin) does not approve of the relationship. If the two men were allowed to be married under law, the partners would be considered next of kin, and would be allowed to see one another regardless of the wishes of the family. So under current circumstance, the will of two free adults to exercise their right to free association can be abrogated by the whim of a single other adult, for any (or no) reason at all. And that is a travesty.
Not true. Marriage is as available to gay men and women as it is to straight men and women, and under the exact same conditions. The fact is that marriage means one man and one woman. That's neither discriminatory nor a violation of rights, it's simply a fact of life. It's akin to saying that the grass is green - a simple statement of fact, with no moral judgement implied and no negative connotations imposed. If someone were to come along and claim his rights were violated because grass isn't red and he must live in a world where grass is red in order to be happy, well such is simply too bad for him. Such is the consequence of pinning his happiness upon an unreality. Grass is green, and marriage is man and woman.There's nothing that says a gay couple can't live out there lives in perfect happiness together. They can have whatever religious ceremony they want. They can live together under whatever arrangement they like. If they have problems with next of kin rights, a quick trip to an attorney's office can fix that. In fact, an attorney can quickly and easily draw up documents that confer EVERY right married couples have to a gay couple. Nothing about the current arrangement prevents gay man and man or gay woman and woman from pursuing whatever happiness they wish in this life.
Post by: Nightfall on November 14, 2006, 10:08:31 AM
Quote
You've completely ignored the fact that the Fed isn't empowered to redefine marriage for the country and then force that new definition down the throats of a people against their will.
Quote
Unless and until the Fed is delegated the appropriate power, they simply cannot institute gay marriage without violating everyone's rights. Totalitarianism ain't cool.
Yet it doesn't occur to you that shoving one definition of marriage down the throats of various people with differing religious beliefs as to the appropriate nature of that union is totalitarianism? That allowing only traditional Judeo-Christian marriages violates the rights of various people, such as under the 1st Amendment?
Post by: The Rabbi on November 14, 2006, 10:22:14 AM
Go review the Reynolds case I cited above.
Post by: BrokenPaw on November 14, 2006, 10:32:09 AM
Quote
You've completely ignored the fact that the Fed isn't empowered to redefine marriage for the country and then force that new definition down the throats of a people against their will.
You say that the FedGov isn't empowered to redefine marriage. My point is that FedGov has no business defining marriage at all.You mention that gay couples can go to a lawyer and draw up documents to accomplish the same benefits that a straight couple can accomplish through marriage. It stands to reason, then, that a straight couple could go to the same lawyer and have the same docs drawn up. If that's the case, then what we have is this:
FedGov recognizes special privileges for these two adults because they applied for and received a $25 marriage license. FedGov recognizes special privileges for these two adults, but in order to obtain that recognition, the couple had to spend several hundred dollars in lawyer's fees. And the only difference between the two is that in one case, both partners were the same sex.
If the government wants to regulate who can be legally united with whom, then that regulation cannot be sex-based, or it is discriminatory. The argument that "Gay men can marry, as long as it's a woman, so there's no discrimination" is flawed; it's not about marrying a woman. It's about marrying the person you love enough to make a lifelong commitment to.
If you define "marriage" as "one man, one woman", then you are implicitly applying a particular faith's definition to that term. There are other belief systems that make no such distinction. As such, to require that FedGov's definition conform to the definition used by those of a particular faith, you have to require the government to endorse a particular faith over another; something that it cannot do.
So remove the word "Marriage" from the governmental lexicon completely: let consenting adults who wish to have next-of-kin and inheritance rights (and what-have-you) as a symbol of their commitment to one another do so by getting the appropriate legal documents drawn up. If they want to be married in the eyes of their faith, let them go find a church that's willing to marry them and a reception hall that's willing to bill them thousands.
There. No one's rights are violated.
HTG, I understand what you're saying, but (with all respect) you haven't demonstrated that putting gay unions on equal legal footing with straight unions has the effect of infringing upon anyone else's rights. The closest you went to that particular argument was:
Quote
Unless and until the Fed is delegated the appropriate power, they simply cannot institute gay marriage without violating everyone's rights. Totalitarianism ain't cool.
And I respond by saying: The Constitution grants no power to the Federal Government to define marriage in the first place. As such, for there to be a federal recognition of "one man, one woman" as the definition would be the overstepping of bounds. The less invasive FedGov stance would be to have no stance at all, thus leaving that to the individual states.How is it more totalitarian to grant more freedom to more adults?
Respectfully,
-BP
Post by: The Rabbi on November 14, 2006, 10:38:14 AM
I think I'll have to state this several dozen more times before someone notices.
Post by: BrokenPaw on November 14, 2006, 11:12:33 AM
Quote
Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.
Wow. So something that is odious to northern- and western-Europeans, but which was a feature of the obviously far-less civilized Asiatic and African people's cultures, is something that is obviously in need of outright suppression.
Further insight from Reynolds (emphasis mine):
Quote
Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in
most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal.
most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal.
If it's a civil contract, it should be governed by contract law, not by faith-based (and therefore discriminatory) definition.
Further:
Quote
Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.
So practices must be demonstrably harmful. That is, malum in se. That is, damaging to the rights of another.
Quote
A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does.
So unless two men wishing to marry do so with criminal intent (again, malum in se must apply; none of that "it's criminal because it's banned" nonsense), then there is no reason to prevent it.
Finally:
Quote
To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
Precisely. To make professed doctrines of religious belief ("Gay marriage is wrong") superior to the law of the land ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people") would be to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself, and to define that things he does not agree with should be banned. Totalitarian, indeed.
Or was I supposed to get something different from the Reynolds case?
-BP
Post by: The Rabbi on November 14, 2006, 11:35:26 AM
Sorry, but Reynolds is not some internet post. It is the decision of the USC on the matter and is binding law. Whether you disagree with it or not is sort of immaterial. But there is no way to argue, in light of Reynolds, that the state does not have the power to regulate marriage. It is clear from Reynolds that this is the case.
As for your "faith-based" comment: it is totally off the mark. A person can get married by whatever faith he wants, indeed by no faith at all, and be considered married, as long as the marriage does not violate the law.
Post by: BrokenPaw on November 14, 2006, 12:12:27 PM
Quote
I am totally unsurprised that someone fully committed to his own point of view would dismiss all evidence to the contrary.
If you are ever in the Northern Virginia area, please let me know. There's a kettle I'd like to introduce you to. You teeter perilously close to ad hominem, sir. You do not know my mind. You do not know whether I am fully committed, or merely unconvinced by your unconvincing arguments. Perhaps I agree with you and simply wish you would explain your point with more clarity. Until you know my mind, I will thank you to make no further assumptions and cast no more imprecations about it.I think you mistake the purpose of my last post. I was agreeing that the Reynolds decision says that the government can regulate action that is born of religious belief. I was further stating that the reason for a government to regulate action is to protect the rights of its citizens.
The Reynolds decision calls out specific reasons, related to polygamy, why the government felt the need to ban it. Those reasons, by and large, dealt with the presumed harmfulness that a polygamous household would have on children. While the correctness of that point might be open to debate, it's also completely irrelevant to whether two men or two women should be able to marry. Because absent some rather impressive gymnastics, a gay couple is not going to have a child that would then be damaged by the alleged perfidy of their lifestyle.
You still have not demonstrated how government recognition of the legal union between a man and another man violates, in any way, the rights of another (any other) person.
Until you do, you have nothing more of value to add to this debate. If you find that you cannot, then your premise is flawed and you should concede the point.
For your convenience, I'll restate the challenge:
I defy you, or anyone else, to demonstrate that a gay marriage has a malum in se effect upon the rights of any other person.
Or you could avoid the question. Again.
I'll wait while you pick.
Before you pick, consider that right now, certain types of guns are banned in the United States. Many people believe, with a depth of conviction equal to that of any religious fanatic, that to lift such a ban would somehow adversely affect their supposed "right" to feel safe. Yet would you argue that a repeal of such a ban, in and of itself, infringes upon anyone's rights? Would you argue that, once the ban was lifted, the fact that I (or someone else) purchased a now-legal item from the previously-banned list somehow interfered with anyone else's rights?
This is about grownups. Doing what they wish. Consensually. Harming no one else. And being prohibited from doing so because: some people don't like it. You have yet to demonstrate that this assertion is materially incorrect.
-BP
Post by: Nightfall on November 14, 2006, 12:16:51 PM
No one is shoving anything down anyone's throat (except the homosexuals).
Except for those who wish for everyone to accept a Judeo-Christian definition of marriage, even if that is in direct contradiction to their religious or other beliefs, right?
Quote
Marriage as one man one woman has been the law here forever, as it was in common law before that.
Yeah, that fact and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee... er, if you have a time machine too. Interracial marriage bans had been the law 'forever' too. I take it you find that an acceptable reason to prevent two adults from marrying because their skin color is different?
Post by: The Rabbi on November 14, 2006, 12:48:36 PM
Further, if the country's system of laws and society is not based on "Judeo Christian" beliefs (whatever those are supposed to be) and Western culture, then what is it based on?
Further, please cite a common law precedent for banning miscegenation.
BrokenPaw: I do not know the mind of the man holding a gun to my head either. But what I do know about the situation is enough to make reasonable guesses. Your post revealed enough of your thought to confirm it for me.
Post by: Nightfall on November 14, 2006, 03:25:27 PM
I take issue with your characterization of "Judeo-Christian" beliefs. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I was under the impression that both Christianity and Judaism held that a marriage was a union of one man, and one woman. Hence my referring to it as Judeo-Christian. Am I wrong?Quote
Further, if the country's system of laws and society is not based on "Judeo Christian" beliefs (whatever those are supposed to be) and Western culture, then what is it based on?
Well, since everybody talks about this being the land of the free, how much they love freedom, how our troops defend freedom, etc. while they wave their little American flags, I figured, ya know, freedom. Quote
Further, please cite a common law precedent for banning miscegenation.
Dunno where I'd look, not much of a lawyer. At any rate, I'd be surprised to find it.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 14, 2006, 03:44:30 PM
I take issue with your characterization of "Judeo-Christian" beliefs. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I was under the impression that both Christianity and Judaism held that a marriage was a union of one man, and one woman. Hence my referring to it as Judeo-Christian. Am I wrong?Monogomy seems to come from the Romans more than anything else..
Quote
Further, if the country's system of laws and society is not based on "Judeo Christian" beliefs (whatever those are supposed to be) and Western culture, then what is it based on?
Well, since everybody talks about this being the land of the free, how much they love freedom, how our troops defend freedom, etc. while they wave their little American flags, I figured, ya know, freedom. Quote
Further, please cite a common law precedent for banning miscegenation.
Dunno where I'd look, not much of a lawyer. At any rate, I'd be surprised to find it.Post by: Preacherman on November 14, 2006, 05:04:16 PM
I'm closing this one down. Please read (or re-read) the 'stickied' threads at the top of the Roundtable home page, and observe their strictures on politeness and mutual respect.