Question: Now that expensive militaristic fascism is going out, will these boards still retain their vitriol?

Malbad kinda beat me to the punch, but imma say it anyways.

You got "The Law" and you got "What's Right"...

And very, very fucking rarely do those two things coincide.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

The your comparing apples to steak. Adoption is also a legal concept grounded in traditional common law legal precedents. If such a stupid law were to pass, it would be Consitutionally valid, but that does not make it right. The standard for adoption should be the best interests of the child, not the social arrangment of the parents.

Argue the adoption issue all you want, I for one have no problem with gay folks adopting kids. A loving home is a loving home and damn sight better then "the system". The advantage of Civil Unions for gay couples would include parental rights that are rarely seen outside marriage.

---

Yes, it was indeed an over-the-top hypothetical; I brought it up to illustrate the point that the group getting the "separate but equal" (more like "lesser-than-equal") treatment would indeed have a right to howl about their treatment and lesser legal status.

It's good to see that you are in favor of legal adoptions by loving parents of any stripe, though. On that we can agree.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

But isn't this missing the conflict: that heterosexuality and homosexuality are viewed as being distinct - in nature and value. It's not a discrimination of wording but a discrimination of.. spirit, if you will. Homosexual relationships, by being barred from marriage, are being distinguished from heterosexual ones.

---

Thats the counter argument.

Many people don't feel that way, thats the political question, one answered in nearly every state as being no distinction.

---

I'm confused. No distinction? Why then ban gays from marriage?

Quote:

---

The legal question is that there is no distinction, marriage is between a man and woman.

---

So there can be no inclusive way of amending that? If it is worded that way, truly, I find it to be wrongly so. Much like any law that in the past criminalized homosexual activity.

And should that REALLY be up to the people to decide, when the values upon which they decide are not necessarily rational?

Quote:

---

I oppose gay marriage on many grounds...legal, moral, political, ethical, survival (of the species).

---

Legal - well, that's the entire subject of the debate, so it's like saying "I'm against it, because I'm against it." Many people want the legal situationt to change because it creates a moral and ethical distinction between heterosexual relationships and homosexual ones.

Moral - I am hesitant to ask why. You do not say religious, you say moral. What is immoral about gay marriage or homosexuality that is not defined to be so by religion?

Political - what political consequences do you fear in connection to gay marriage?

Ethical - I point toward the moral aspect of it. What about it is unethical? I'm honestly confused.


Survival - Uh. Do you think homosexuality will spread if gay marriage were legal? Do you think less babies will be born? How do you see it affecting the fate of our species?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

It's good to see that you are in favor of legal adoptions by loving parents of any stripe, though. On that we can agree.

---

I foster puppies for adoption to loving homes, which are kind of like kids with fur, so I appreciate a good home. I encourage Civil Unions in part because it will make gay households more stable for adopted children.

Would limiting adoption to same sex couples be discrimination? Yes. But just because there is discrimination, it does not make something unconstitutional.

But your talking about limiting a right or denying it to another. In the case of marriage, there is no such limitation or denial. Gay and straight people have EXACTLY the same rights and restrictions on marriage. Both can marry folks of the opposite sex and neither can marry folks of the same sex. There is no basis for a discrimination claim.

If the law allowed lesbian marriages but not male-male marriages, then there would be unconstitutional discrimination, not because they are gay, but on the basis of gender.

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"Gay and straight people have EXACTLY the same rights and restrictions on marriage."

You must have missed my earlier post b/c you failed to address it.

The argument is fallacious on its face. To say that just b/c a law applies equally to all it's not discriminatory - is wrong. One example: slavery. If there were laws allowing slaves to own slaves I could make the same argument. See - the law doesn't discriminate between slaves and non-slaves for the purpose of owning slaves, and that makes it non-discriminatory. I hope you can see the issue.

The same argument applies to banning same-sex marriages. The law itself is discriminatory, not its application.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

In many peoples minds...

Gays marrying is the equivilant of a brother and sister getting married, or little Johnny "marrying" the family dog.

I doubt that idea is going to change any time soon.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

But that's a religious view.

The Consitutional mandate of 'equal protection under the law' needs to hold sway.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So there can be no inclusive way of amending that? If it is worded that way, truly, I find it to be wrongly so. Much like any law that in the past criminalized homosexual activity.

---

Your example does not work. In the past homosexual activity was criminal. What changed was not the definition of sodomy, but rather the definition of criminal behaivor, which has always been subject to revision because of the changing nature of society (for example, computer fraud was not a crime in 16th Century Britain, fishing from horseback was a crime in 19th Century Pennsylvania).

Can the definition of marriage be amended? Yes. That is the role of the legislature. But in that sense this becomes a political question, not a legal one. Legally the definition is well settled and absent Constitutional conflict, there is no basis for revision.

Quote:

---

And should that REALLY be up to the people to decide, when the values upon which they decide are not necessarily rational?

---

They are rational. For most folks is a religeous issue...just like polygamy and pedophilia (and murder and theft and right and wrong). God says "man and woman". Thats rational because God also says "pay taxes" and "love thy neighbor". Sure God also said "don't eat pork" but faith is subject to revision, just like marriage is.

And if you want a rational Godless argument...then polygamy and pedophilia both lend themselves to the issue. The same argument in favor of gay marriage applies to polygamy and consential underage marriages as well (and PN... we've seen you looking fondly at your neighbor's dog).

And should any of that REALLY be up to the people? Thats the same question asked by King George, my friend...its kind of what we do here. Our whole way of life is based on the idea that people can decide for themselves what should be REALLY up to the people.

Quote:

---

Moral - I am hesitant to ask why. You do not say religious, you say moral. What is immoral about gay marriage or homosexuality that is not defined to be so by religion?

---

What is immoral about ANYTHING that is not defined to be so by religion. We start with 'thou shalt not kill' and move all the way down to 'thou shalt not park on the right side of the street during snow emergencies'. Along the way we generally decided bacon was ok and being gay was a choice and not some satanic compulsion.

Even if you are choosing to reject faith and still live a good life...religion still helps you figure out that "a good life" does not include child rape and having improper tags on your car.

Quote:

---

Political - what political consequences do you fear in connection to gay marriage?

---

In this case I oppose gay rights because, like all such interest groupls, they can suddenly become benefits or additional protections not available to non members.

Quote:

---

Ethical - I point toward the moral aspect of it. What about it is unethical? I'm honestly confused.

---

It would not be ethical for me to support something to which I am morally opposed.

Quote:

---

Survival - Uh. Do you think homosexuality will spread if gay marriage were legal? Do you think less babies will be born? How do you see it affecting the fate of our species?

---

Boy meets girl...sex...babies.
Boy meets boy...sex...no babies.

Sure, girl meets girl...turkey baster...babies, but not so many as when 98% are doing it the old fashioned way.

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME