Stem-Cells, degenerate Gay Lesbo rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ??
POSTED BY: JaynezTown
UPDATED: Sunday, December 1, 2024 16:44
VIEWED: 31108
PAGE 3 of 20
Quote:Unfortunately, I don't really have time to sift through these giant point and counter-point style posts right now, so I'll simply say that in fact with the recent politicization of the gay marriage arguments, there have already been attempts by polygamists to seek state sanctioning of their polygamy. So this slippery slope exists and is currently in practice working its way through the courts as we speak.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
This is the boggie-man that the anti-gay rights people have brought up time and time again. There is no slop here. No-one is trying to bring back polygamy (which is still practiced in many countries around the world by the way), nor is anyone even talking about incest.
Incidentally, I am in favor of extending state sanction to marriage between homosexuals. And perhaps when society has matured a little more we can. But today, we condemn a man for refusing a court order to remove the Ten Commandments from a court house, but not a Mayor who commits 5000 counts of a felony by signing marriage licenses he has no right to sign. The media can't seem to recognize that the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was not an example of mass pedophilia, but rather gay perverts abusing the priesthood to impose themselves on impressionable young men, in the same way that straight perverts have been known to impose themselves on impressionable young women. The gay community cannot seem to express themselves without stripping down to a pink thong and dry humping each other on a float in full view of children or openingly having sex in the parking lot of Disney World. And when anyone criticizes the gay community they are labeled homophobes, when in reality there is a lot about the gay community that needs to be criticized and aired out before we pull it into the mainstream of American families. Society simply does not seem to have the framework or the maturity to deal with this issue right now.
As far as the civil rights comparison goes, there isn’t one. The civil rights problem (Jim Crow, Loving vs Virginia, etc) was about inequitable application of the law. The law was being interpreted or applied differently based on skin color. In the case of gay marriage the question is about the introduction of new law, not the inequitable application of current law. Gay people are not being prevented from marrying. They are perfectly allowed under the law to marry in the same exact manner as anyone else. So it is clearly not a civil rights issue, but an issue of the introduction of new law extending current marriage law, and that is something that must be dealt with through legislation.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"As far as the civil rights comparison goes, there isn’t one. The civil rights problem (Jim Crow, Loving vs Virginia, etc) was about inequitable application of the law."
On a state level, Jim Crow WAS the law of the land. This was not unequal application of existing laws, these were laws passed specifically to discriminate against Coloreds and Negroes.
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/landmark/plessy.html
"After the Civil War, the South enacted black codes to keep their former slaves under tight control. For example, some states prohibited blacks, who were not a party to a suit, from testifying in court. Others subjected blacks to criminal penalties for breaching labor contracts. In contrast, whites were only liable in a civil suit for the same action. To strike down these black codes, the nation passed the Fourteenth Amendment (July, 1868), which prohibits states from denying "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson
"After the end of Reconstruction in 1877 with the withdrawal of federal troops, these efforts (of equality) were increasingly being reversed. With the end of federal control over southern governments and with the end of northern interest in protecting the rights of blacks, southern state governments began passing "Jim Crow" laws designed to prohibit blacks from using the same public accommodations as whites."
By the ruling of Plessy v Ferguson (May 1896), the US Supreme Court upheld state apartheid laws.
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/landmark/plessy.html
"On June 7, 1892, Homer Plessy, a 30-year-old shoemaker, boarded a passenger train of the East Louisiana Railway and took a seat in the "white" railcar. When he refused a conductor's orders to move to the "colored" railcar, Plessy was forcibly removed and jailed.
Plessy argued that the Louisiana statute violated, among others, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. After the state courts found the railcar statute to be constitutional, Plessy petitioned the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court rulings.
"The object of the Fourteenth Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based on color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to the either ... if the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of voluntary consent of the individuals."
The lone dissenting vote was cast by Justice John Marshall Harlan. In his dissenting brief, he wrote, "I am of opinion that the statute of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberty of citizens, white and black, in that state and hostile to both the spirit and letter of the Constitution of the United States."
"it must be the result of voluntary consent of the individuals" The problem with this point is that by having ENFORCED separation of whites from others, there could not be even voluntary association. But I guess that bit of logic escaped the Supremes of the day.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As to another one of your 'points':
Quote:I would be happy to have some of whatever you are smoking, dude!
Gay people are not being prevented from marrying. They are perfectly allowed under the law to marry in the same exact manner as anyone else.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok. You guys know I'm long-winded, but tonight I had really hoped to spend a little time with my hetero hubby (hubba hubba!), so I really will be brief.
The people who are making an argument against gay marriage have no argument of which I am aware, at least, none that holds water.
Marriage for hundreds of years had nothing whatever to do with love. It had to do with linking families for political or business purposes through the generation of offspring. If you were lucky, you found each other tolerable or occasioanlly quite compatible, but those were the exception, not the rule.
Love came into the picture fairly recently, as in, after the colonization of America. And our concept of family has changed with the times as well, today being surrounded with almost frilly ideals of love and support and companionship rather than the heavier duty and free-labor-provider it used to be.
Today, marriage and family are, for most Americans, defined in an ideal sense as bonds of love, fidelity, mutual affection and support. Money is not supposed to mean anything anymore, although our legal system has ensured that it will always be the elephant in the room that nobody talks about.
But I am here to tell you that gay and lesbian couples who wish to get married aren't just in it for the sex. After all, they can get the sex anyway. And they're not just in it for the tax incentives, insurance benefits, and legal life-partner simplifications that come with the package, although those are nice to have as I'm sure we heteros could quickly tell them.
What do they want out of it? The same things that we all want: the symbolic (and legal) joining of two people, their hearts and lives, in the sight of God if they wish (their God loves them no matter who they are, your God will not be forced to participate), for the purpose of living out their lives together in mutual affection and support, perhaps to raise families (yes, amazingly, gays and lesbians can still have offspring and even raise them without *gulp* eating the young!), just as I do with my husband.
No churches will be forced to marry people if they don't want to. (Do you think gays or lesbians even WANT to be married in the midst of such misunderstanding and contempt as they would find in the pulpits of anti-gay churches?) But Unitarian Churches, and the other freedom-loving churches like them, will finally have the same legal weight behind ALL of their ceremonies that Methodist or Lutheran churches carry behind all of theirs. This is not hostile takeover of a righteous hets-only club. This is a call for equality. And it must be fought for and won.
There is no such thing as a weed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Your post is a fine historical discussion of Jim Crows laws, but the fact remains that the Jim Crow laws were examples of an inequitable application of law. These laws being the law of the land does not imply that they offer equal protection. These laws specifically targeted certain groups and that is an inequitable application of law. It is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
Originally posted by rue:
On a state level, Jim Crow WAS the law of the land. This was not unequal application of existing laws, these were laws passed specifically to discriminate against Coloreds and Negroes.
Quote:I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't smoke. Show me a law that says that a man cannot marry a woman because one or both of them are gay. To my knowledge, no such law exists. The current marriage law is applied equitably.
Originally posted by rue:
As to another one of your 'points':Quote:I would be happy to have some of whatever you are smoking, dude!
Gay people are not being prevented from marrying. They are perfectly allowed under the law to marry in the same exact manner as anyone else.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Gay people are not being prevented from marrying.
Oh, I get what you're saying. Gays can marry just like anyone else - heterosexually! You're right, man. There is no law that keeps them from heterosexual marriage. I can picture it - a gay marrying a lesbian is all right because marriage is about having kids! Wow. What a concept. That's deep.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
)was about inequitable application of the law
Not about inequitable laws, eh? OK, You don't smoke. Whatca drinking?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes. Exactly. Now you’re catching on. Marriage has a definition in our society. It has had that definition for a very long time. And until now has never been questioned. Suddenly now, you want to change that definition. Fine. Get legislation for it and I’ll probably support it. But the fact remains, that the gay marriage issue is NOT a issue of the inequitable application of law, but the ADDITION of NEW law to expand the current definition of marriage.
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Gay people are not being prevented from marrying.
Oh, I get what you're saying. Gays can marry just like anyone else - heterosexually! You're right, man. There is no law that keeps them from heterosexual marriage. I can picture it - a gay marrying a lesbian is all right because marriage is about having kids! Wow. What a concept. That's deep.
And the answer to your second question is Scotch. Single malt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Was there a legal definition of marriage as 'between a man and a woman' before this became an issue? Not that I know of. While states have recently passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman (kind of like the discriminatory Jim Crow laws that were enacted in the south), it is those restrictions which are new.
I like Ben Nevis myself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The federal definition of marriage was common law until 1996. Show me an example of same sex marriage before then or law that in any way recognized same-sex marriage. The concept of marriage has always been between opposite sexes. The idea of same-sex is alien to the definition. That's why it is always qualified as "gay" marriage or "same-sex" marriage, it is never just marriage, because marriage has always implied opposite sexes. This isn't something that was invented in 1996, and it's disingenuous of you to imply so. The legal definition of marriage follows logically the historical and cultural definition going back to pre-historical times. The idea that this is a "new" development is lunacy and completely contrary to the facts.
Glenfiddich Special Reserve. 12 year or preferably 18 year old. I like to go to Scotland at least once every 2 years to buy it from the distillery in Banffshire.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME