Gheys Want to Marry

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You are not even making sense. Marriage is not a "right" Any benefits of marriage are granted only by the state in contractural law, as you note above. My contention is that state created privileges cannot be denied to certain people based on sexual descrimination. Either apply the privilege of marriage equally, or eliminate it entirely. There is no other acceptable choice FOR THE GOVERNMENT. Churches, being private can descriminate and mistreat and deny privileges to other humans all their God allows them to.

I make solid sense. Government, while limited by inherent "human rights" is still the manner by which we provide concrete avenues to its philosophical construct. The argument for gay marriage is that the "rights" of marriage and its benefits are being denied to gays. Privileges, on the other hand, are not inate, and can be denied or limited until earned.

Yes, there is a higher source for rights than governments created by people. The PEOPLE are the higher power. I do not assume that the "higher source" is an imaginary God from one of the world's thousands of religions also created by people. An atheist has exactly the same rights as any other person from exactly the same source. Perhaps YOU believe YOUR rights come from a God. OK, then the athiests come from that same GOD unless the GOD you worship is descriminatory, or did not create athiests, maybe they were created by another religion's God?

In our system, the people are the higher political power, but not the source of natural rights. That is not a matter of personal opinion. That is what is stated in the Declaration of Independence, and from where our legal definition arises.

as I have said, there are no Gay "rights" They have the same rights as humans as anyone else. Thise rights comes form being human. Marriage is a set of privileges granted by the state or federal government. Even to the point of immigration benefits for, or in anticipation of, a marriage.

The Declaration of Independence was letter to the King. It is not the "basis" of anything. The constitution is that. That the consittution acknowlegses "a" God does not make it so, nor does it make any other part of the constitution null and void. It is clear in its intent that "rights" do NOT come from government. Their source is really not important in any case. Only that they are NOT from government and government cannot infringe on them.

It's clear that you are arguing from emotion and preference rather than fact. You also have no real knowledge of the impact and authority of the founding documents of the Unied States. Forgive me, but I prefer to support my position from the perspective and within the context of the actual legal process, history and using valid legal and philosophical sources and concepts.

You are using only your feelings and opinions about the topic, based on falsehoods. I cannot debate on that level.

It is evident you cannot debate on that level. For the Declaarion of Independence to be the basis of anything would have negated the need for the constitution 13 years later and all the meetings in between. Preposterous.

The Declaration was an announcemnet to the King of England. The King of England was/is the "keeper of the Faith" the head of the Anglican church ever since the Coatholic Religion didn't agree with Henry the VIII so he dumped the Catholic beliefs in deference to his own which now became the Anglican churches...see how that works? The King was not only the King, he was, essentially, the "Pope" of the Anglican faith. Wouldn't it be clever of Jefferson to maybe mention GOD in the letter? Yikes. I do not buy into the notion that "Jefferson mentioned God in a letter to the head of the Church, therefore there IS a God" Sorry.

You and I are not on the same page re this issue. In fact, you are not on the same page as anyone on this board, pro or con, re this issue. You have the right to your views, however you wish to form them. But, it will do no good for us to discuss it further since we cannot even begin at the same point and agree on what sources of law and which philosophies are essential to the historical debate.

BTW, I'm not a Christian and I have never been a Christian, so the Bible doesn't play into my personal views. I do, however, acknowledge that it does factor into the debate and the history of the debate, as well as the history of the union.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Barza Woman

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Disagree about hate crimes and it doesn't matter what the NY legislature says. I believe in strict, severe and reliable punishment. I do nlot belive a Gay man or black man or ...whatever...is in any way more capable of suffering from crime than I am or my family is. It is a preposterous and insulting concept that one human is more capbale than another of emotions and fears. Stupid idea.

Now if New York wants to make enhanced punishment across the board for all crminals, I am all for it. You support "equal protection"? So do I.

You are free to disagree. That's what a free society is all about. I encourage you to vote for representatives, or run for office, or support/oppose legislation, or write letters to the editor, or post your thoughts on the Internet - in keeping with your beliefs. And I for one am interested in hearing your views, even when I disagree with them.

It doesn't matter to you what the NY legislature says, you live in Vermont. I offered the text from NY as a statement that I felt explains and justifies why it's important to have such legislation.

Note that Vermont has a Hate Crimes law, 13 V.S.A. §1454-1457:

Any crime committed in Vermont that is maliciously motivated by the victim’s actual, or perceived, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age, service in the armed forces of the United States, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity is a hate crime.

You may not like this law or agree with it, but it does apply in your state and you are bound by it as other residents are.

Note that it does not single out one group for special protection. Rather, it asserts that any crime motivated by a victim's belonging to any distinct group is a hate crime. If someone picked on you because you are a straight white male, that would be a hate crime. Hence there is no issue here with "equal protection" under the law - this statute is fair and square offering equal protection.

Thus the debate is not over constitutionality of such a law. The debate is over the advisability of having such a law. You believe it is unadvisable, which is your right. I disagree with you, which is my right. I believe this differing attitude may have to do with our life experiences. If you come from a group that has never been victimized perhaps it's easier to dismiss legal protections that you've never felt you've needed or benefited from. The history of this country is that targeted groups HAVE suffered persecution. Hate crime laws in all 50 states and federal law have taken that reality into account. That's what we should expect the law to do - recognize real social injustices and take steps to remedy them.

I am a female, a non-White Arab, a Palestinian, and a Muslim, and I also disagree with hate crime laws. So, perhaps the fact that I come from several groups that have been victimized gives my view more weight than that of someone who doesn't belong to any such group?

[Danno 1,228]

gay marriage advocates can whine all they want. Most states have banned gay marriage in their state constitutions. Getting around that will be monumental, and the push back will be more than they can overcome. If they can't get people in Cali to approve of it, they don't have much hope in the rest of the US any time soon, thank God.

Evidence?

[Danno 1,228]

How about government not interfere at all in how people choose to associate with each other?

Don't incentivize anything, don't disincentivize anything... just stay out of it.

What if I want to marry a sheep or goat? Should that be legal too?

It should be neither legal nor illegal.

What a man does with a goat in the privacy of his closet it nobodys business.

Why do people always say this "in the privacy of their home/ closet"?

If you really are for people being free to do as they want, why Judge them?

Why push your code of morality on them? Who are you to say they can't love their goat, wife, brother in public?

Why must it be in private?

Do you have sexual hang-ups which causes you to force others into a closet?

Sex is normal and natural ... don't oppress people by forcing them into a closet when they "express" themselves or love.

Your double and triple standards are glaring.

-True Liberal

-

[Danno 1,228]

How about government not interfere at all in how people choose to associate with each other?

Don't incentivize anything, don't disincentivize anything... just stay out of it.

This logic only works when one considers marriage License to be no more than say a "notice of achievement".

But marriage and how it is involved in the state and states business is very complicated.

Laws concerning Child custody, Divorce, alimony, inheritance, contractual obligations or just a few.

It's quite a bit more than just "incentives" (tax code).

To "Just stay out of it" is not an option.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

How about government not interfere at all in how people choose to associate with each other?

Don't incentivize anything, don't disincentivize anything... just stay out of it.

What if I want to marry a sheep or goat? Should that be legal too?

It should be neither legal nor illegal.

What a man does with a goat in the privacy of his closet it nobodys business.

Why do people always say this "in the privacy of their home/ closet"?

If you really are for people being free to do as they want, why Judge them?

Why push your code of morality on them? Who are you to say they can't love their goat, wife, brother in public?

Why must it be in private?

Do you have sexual hang-ups which causes you to force others into a closet?

Sex is normal and natural ... don't oppress people by forcing them into a closet when they "express" themselves or love.

Your double and triple standards are glaring.

-True Liberal

-

I don't believe in rape or murder either. Is that forcing my code of morality on them too? Or is that a quadruple standard?

[Danno 1,228]

How about government not interfere at all in how people choose to associate with each other?

Don't incentivize anything, don't disincentivize anything... just stay out of it.

What if I want to marry a sheep or goat? Should that be legal too?

It should be neither legal nor illegal.

What a man does with a goat in the privacy of his closet it nobodys business.

Why do people always say this "in the privacy of their home/ closet"?

If you really are for people being free to do as they want, why Judge them?

Why push your code of morality on them? Who are you to say they can't love their goat, wife, brother in public?

Why must it be in private?

Do you have sexual hang-ups which causes you to force others into a closet?

Sex is normal and natural ... don't oppress people by forcing them into a closet when they "express" themselves or love.

Your double and triple standards are glaring.

-True Liberal

-

I don't believe in rape or murder either. Is that forcing my code of morality on them too? Or is that a quadruple standard?

Well I would hope not, in that case someone is being injured.

[mawilson 2,133]

Neanderthals were human. They didn't have marriage, taxes, estates, or laws, ergo, no human rights. That's the problem; when you have no laws or regulations over a social interaction, no boundaries exist, therefore, no protections for status or ownership exist, therefore, no rights exist. Why would I have to consider you married if there are no rules as to what marriage is? What would I need to respect your property or rights if there are no limitations to my rights? Laws and the enforcement of them keep us from being a society where no "human rights" are recognized or even considered. Laws take the merely philosophical and create social boundaries that allow us to put the abstract into concrete tems. I doubt that a true libertarian wants no laws. If so, they would be an anarchist instead of a libertarian.

"Human rights" is only an abstract social construct until you set down legal limitations that define rights and responsibilities. What defines "human" is still an abstract social construct, when you consider the debate over when human life begins. The founding documents of this country are bound by "inalienable human rights", but the definition and extent of those rights, and their effects on the rights of others evolve as our responsibilities to each other are defined. Gay marriage being the same as hetro marriage is not a construct that can be forced on the law or the populace and be readily accepted.

The social fabric of any society is built upon the foundation of basic family kinship units, however they are defined. At this time, our basic family kinship unit is defined as a man, a woman, and child(ren). Most people are still reluctant to include same sex units in the social context of marriage because, whether you recognize it or not, dissolving that definition under the nebulous concept of "human rights" opens the door to an all inclusive definition of marriage, making marriage meaningless for everyone, in the long run.

I like your explanation; however same-sex marriage is legal today in several states and countries

around the world (including Canada), and as far as anyone can tell, the social fabric of their societies

has not unravelled.

Of course, it may be a gradual process, so I will stay alert and keep you informed of any developments,

but as of today, marriage is no more meaningless in Canada than it is in the US just because gays and

lesbians are allowed to marry.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

BTW, I'm not a Christian and I have never been a Christian, so the Bible doesn't play into my personal views. I do, however, acknowledge that it does factor into the debate and the history of the debate, as well as the history of the union.

Why do you hate Christians?

[Economist 0]

Why do people always say this "in the privacy of their home/ closet"?

If you really are for people being free to do as they want, why Judge them?

Why push your code of morality on them? Who are you to say they can't love their goat, wife, brother in public?

Why must it be in private?

Do you have sexual hang-ups which causes you to force others into a closet?

Sex is normal and natural ... don't oppress people by forcing them into a closet when they "express" themselves or love.

Your double and triple standards are glaring.

-True Liberal

-

Yes, sex is normal and natural...but homosexuality is not normal and it is not natural.

Are you ok with someone excrimenting in public? Why not? Why push YOUR moral values on someone thats just doing something "normal & natural" Cause it makes you sick, right? Sure the liberals could say...do you have a hang up about poop which causes you to force others into a bathroom?

You think you are a "true liberal" but you are a hypocrite. You judge us who are against homosexual marriage telling us to keep our beliefs to ourselves while in the same breath telling us not to judge them. You liberals are all for freedom of expression unless they express different views than you.

Just look at that homosexual perez hilton and the whole miss america thing. He asked her a simple question and because the answer was different than what he wanted, he went on his website the next day and said filthy things about her. Just like a typical liberal.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Are you ok with someone excrimenting in public?

If they can figure out what it means to excriment (sp) and how to excriment (sp), then by all means.

[Economist 0]

I like your explanation; however same-sex marriage is legal today in several states and countries

around the world (including Canada), and as far as anyone can tell, the social fabric of their societies

has not unravelled.

Of course, it may be a gradual process, so I will stay alert and keep you informed of any developments,

but as of today, marriage is no more meaningless in Canada than it is in the US just because gays and

lesbians are allowed to marry.

In greece, about 2000 years ago, men used to take young boys as lovers and it was widely accepted. Took 100s of years for that to unravel.

In america for 350 some years slavery was also ok and widely socially accepted.

i guess the question is...how sick and depraved does a society have to get before its too sick? And then when you get to that point, maybe they are calling YOU the conservative and the ones who should be more open minded.

Conservatives generally have a higher moral standard than liberals. Liberals want bring that standard down so they dont feel as immoral.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Are you ok with someone excrimenting in public?

If they can figure out what it means to excriment (sp) and how to excriment (sp), then by all means.

This isn't Dharavi.

[Economist 0]

Are you ok with someone excrimenting in public?

If they can figure out what it means to excriment (sp) and how to excriment (sp), then by all means.

Ug...seriously? fine...I spelled it wrong... excrement.

Why dont you call these guys?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Are you ok with someone excrimenting in public?

If they can figure out what it means to excriment (sp) and how to excriment (sp), then by all means.

Ug...seriously? fine...I spelled it wrong... excrement.

So what's the word you intendedto use?

"excrementing"?