A New Stance on Morality

[Jimmyeatworld]

What are we as a country if we are not fair? And you're right; we aren't fair (just the example you give above is a perfect example). But it SHOULD be the government's role to ensure fairness; otherwise the entire idea of equality goes down the drain.

Whether or not you agree with gay marriage or the role of the government in ensuring fairness; do you think that not allowing gay people to marry is unfair?

So, by this reasoning, the federal government standing up and saying, "You WILL accept this, even if most of you don't like it" is ensuring fairness, but people in each state going to the polls and voting on an issue is not fair. Something seems a little backwards about that to me.

The federal government has kept their nose out of marriage for almost 230 years, I don't see any reason to change that now. If advocates of same sex marriage would actually state their case it might do some good. Thus far, I've heard little more than bitching and whining, people brining up Constitutional rights that don't exist, and the usual exaggerated rants comparing things to Nazi Germany.

 

[liberalogic]

So, by this reasoning, the federal government standing up and saying, "You WILL accept this, even if most of you don't like it" is ensuring fairness, but people in each state going to the polls and voting on an issue is not fair. Something seems a little backwards about that to me.

The federal government has kept their nose out of marriage for almost 230 years, I don't see any reason to change that now. If advocates of same sex marriage would actually state their case it might do some good. Thus far, I've heard little more than bitching and whining, people brining up Constitutional rights that don't exist, and the usual exaggerated rants comparing things to Nazi Germany.

It's not about whining: the argument is as simple as can be. There is no reason to deny them the right to marriage if they are two consenting adults. I don't think you could make it any simpler than that.

 

[manu1959]

It's not about whining: the argument is as simple as can be. There is no reason to deny them the right to marriage if they are two consenting adults. I don't think you could make it any simpler than that.

marriage is the union of a man and a woman......

they stole the rainbow .... enough is enough

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

It's not about whining: the argument is as simple as can be. There is no reason to deny them the right to marriage if they are two consenting adults. I don't think you could make it any simpler than that.

It's rarely put that simply. Anytime I do hear it, it's followed by the things I mentioned before. Besides, saying people are two consenting adults leaves things a bit wide open. Many of the people who are against same sex marriage are worried about where it might lead downt he road and "two consenting adults" can mean a lot of things. It also still doesn't explain why it shouldn't be left to the states to vote on or why civil unions aren't acceptable.

 

[musicman]

Originally Posted by liberalogic
It's not about whining: the argument is as simple as can be. There is no reason to deny them the right to marriage if they are two consenting adults. I don't think you could make it any simpler than that.

It's rarely put that simply. Anytime I do hear it, it's followed by the things I mentioned before. Besides, saying people are two consenting adults leaves things a bit wide open. Many of the people who are against same sex marriage are worried about where it might lead downt he road and "two consenting adults" can mean a lot of things. It also still doesn't explain why it shouldn't be left to the states to vote on or why civil unions aren't acceptable.

Precisely. If the argument is that simple, convincing the electorate ought to be a breeze. I've got to tell you - so far, I'm not impressed. "It's only fair" isn't quite cuttting it.

 

[liberalogic]

Originally Posted by liberalogic
It's not about whining: the argument is as simple as can be. There is no reason to deny them the right to marriage if they are two consenting adults. I don't think you could make it any simpler than that.



Precisely. If the argument is that simple, convincing the electorate ought to be a breeze. I've got to tell you - so far, I'm not impressed. "It's only fair" isn't quite cuttting it.

No, that's not true with convincing the electorate. Why are so many people against it? Many are either uncomfortable with it or they have religious beliefs that dictate their moral beliefs which tell them that homosexuality is an intrinsic evil. How can I be expected to convince someone who is a devout Christian to be in favor of gay marriage? It's practically impossible. That doesn't make gay marriage "UNfair."

The argument really is pretty simple. It's the opponents of gay marriage that make it more complex with statistics and "the moral decay of society." To me, that moral decay is seen through violence, abuse, crime, etc. That's moral decay. Gay people who are of consensual age should not be excluded from marriage. What is the difference between a man and a woman who love each other and two gay people who love each other?

I can't imagine why people would be against gay marriage if it's not infringing upon their rights or the rights of others (and I'm not talking about voting-- I'm talking about how the idea of their rights not being effected should be considered when voting).

 

[musicman]

No, that's not true with convincing the electorate. Why are so many people against it?

I can't imagine why people would be against gay marriage...

Take a stab at it. Why do YOU think so many people are against it? I know you've cited religious beliefs and such, but - ultimately - from your point of view - why?

Is it because they don't know any better, and you do?

Is it because you're fair, and they're not?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

No, that's not true with convincing the electorate. Why are so many people against it? Many are either uncomfortable with it or they have religious beliefs that dictate their moral beliefs which tell them that homosexuality is an intrinsic evil. How can I be expected to convince someone who is a devout Christian to be in favor of gay marriage? It's practically impossible. That doesn't make gay marriage "UNfair."

The argument really is pretty simple. It's the opponents of gay marriage that make it more complex with statistics and "the moral decay of society." To me, that moral decay is seen through violence, abuse, crime, etc. That's moral decay. Gay people who are of consensual age should not be excluded from marriage. What is the difference between a man and a woman who love each other and two gay people who love each other?

I can't imagine why people would be against gay marriage if it's not infringing upon their rights or the rights of others (and I'm not talking about voting-- I'm talking about how the idea of their rights not being effected should be considered when voting).

If two people love each other it won't change with a legally recognized marriage. Basically, what same sex marriage boils down to is legal status. Civil Unions would give that, and the people that have religious problems with same sex marriage would be satisfied, at least for the most part. So, again, what is the problem with accepting Civil Unions?

Marriage stems from the church, not from the government, so it's a much touchier subject than it seems on the surface. Something does occur to me if we can think outside the box for a second. Let's say that the roles are reversed fo a moment. Let's say Conservatives are pro gay marriage while Liberals are against it, while every thing else as far as ideology stays the same. What would be the first thing most Liberals would bring up to argue against it? A Liberal would most likely point out that marriage is a religious aspect of life and apply the modern Liberal view of seperation of church and state if the federal government tried to take a stance one way or the other.

Just an interesting thought that came to mind.

 

[liberalogic]

Musicman-- please get rid of the notion that I think I'm better than others. I've never said that and I'm not trying to prove my worth; I'm trying to prove the worthiness of the subject. And as for the question you pose: I can't answer that. If I could and if I thought the answer was logical, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Jimmyeatworld-- I love that hypothetical situation that you brought up. It took me two reads to follow it, but I understand what you're saying. Still, though, I completely disagree. Yes, the idea of marriage is derived from religion. But at the same time, when the government adopts this Union for legal purposes, all influence from the church is void. I am one of the strongest believers in separation of church and state. Once a law is in the hands of the government (whether it comes from religion or not), it should be free of religion. If marriage were SOLELY a private union (meaning within the church), then I would not be fighting this battle and I would say gays shouldn't be married. But there are two marriages-- one for the church and one for the government. The one sponsored by the government should only be subject to regulations by the government, not the church.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Musicman-- please get rid of the notion that I think I'm better than others. I've never said that and I'm not trying to prove my worth; I'm trying to prove the worthiness of the subject. And as for the question you pose: I can't answer that. If I could and if I thought the answer was logical, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Jimmyeatworld-- I love that hypothetical situation that you brought up. It took me two reads to follow it, but I understand what you're saying. Still, though, I completely disagree. Yes, the idea of marriage is derived from religion. But at the same time, when the government adopts this Union for legal purposes, all influence from the church is void. I am one of the strongest believers in separation of church and state. Once a law is in the hands of the government (whether it comes from religion or not), it should be free of religion. If marriage were SOLELY a private union (meaning within the church), then I would not be fighting this battle and I would say gays shouldn't be married. But there are two marriages-- one for the church and one for the government. The one sponsored by the government should only be subject to regulations by the government, not the church.

Each state has it's own laws about marriage and what is legal and what is not. Nevada's laws are completely different from Texas which is completely different from Massachusetts. There really is no federal standard for what makes a legal marriage, it is up to the states. In some states, if a man and woman live in the same house and he introduces her as his wife, they are legally married. Other states have stricter laws.

Now, let me ask one more time: If it's about legal status, what is the problem with a state recognizing Civil Unions? It's something that more people are open to, and it would give same sex partners the rights they are looking for. In fact, it would erase the religious aspect without question, which it seems would be something you would like.

 

[liberalogic]

Each state has it's own laws about marriage and what is legal and what is not. Nevada's laws are completely different from Texas which is completely different from Massachusetts. There really is no federal standard for what makes a legal marriage, it is up to the states. In some states, if a man and woman live in the same house and he introduces her as his wife, they are legally married. Other states have stricter laws.

Now, let me ask one more time: If it's about legal status, what is the problem with a state recognizing Civil Unions? It's something that more people are open to, and it would give same sex partners the rights they are looking for. In fact, it would erase the religious aspect without question, which it seems would be something you would like.

The problem with civil unions is that not all of the benefits are given to the couple. A gay couple deserves the exact same benefits as a straight couple. And also, as I said before, marriage granted by the state is free of religion, which in turn yields no reason to alienate homosexuals from the union of marriage.

 

[dilloduck]

The problem with civil unions is that not all of the benefits are given to the couple. A gay couple deserves the exact same benefits as a straight couple. And also, as I said before, marriage granted by the state is free of religion, which in turn yields no reason to alienate homosexuals from the union of marriage.

Then it would appear that the answer would be for the states to fix civil unions.

 

[Hobbit]

The problem with civil unions is that not all of the benefits are given to the couple. A gay couple deserves the exact same benefits as a straight couple. And also, as I said before, marriage granted by the state is free of religion, which in turn yields no reason to alienate homosexuals from the union of marriage.

Except for the fact that the homosexual lifestyle is harmful to the individual and, at best, has no benefit to society. That being the case, why subsidize it?

 

[liberalogic]

Except for the fact that the homosexual lifestyle is harmful to the individual and, at best, has no benefit to society. That being the case, why subsidize it?

Homosexual behavior is just as harmful to the individual as is heterosexual behavior. Remember, you can get AIDS or any other disease just as easily from a partner of the opposite sex as you can of the same sex. It's a matter of utilizing the proper contraceptives to prevent such illnesses.

And about its benefit to society: I fair to disagree. One of the ideas that many conservatives push is family being at the core of society. Whether or not you think homosexuality is normal or abnormal, allowing them to adopt children and live as families is better than having a child grow up in foster care or on the streets. It's giving more people the option to create the "family."

And also, as I've said before, it's a matter or fairness. We're supposed to be a "free society," yet we are denying people of consent the priviledge of marriage because we don't think it furthers society.

 

[manu1959]

Homosexual behavior is just as harmful to the individual as is heterosexual behavior. Remember, you can get AIDS or any other disease just as easily from a partner of the opposite sex as you can of the same sex. It's a matter of utilizing the proper contraceptives to prevent such illnesses.

And about its benefit to society: I fair to disagree. One of the ideas that many conservatives push is family being at the core of society. Whether or not you think homosexuality is normal or abnormal, allowing them to adopt children and live as families is better than having a child grow up in foster care or on the streets. It's giving more people the option to create the "family."

And also, as I've said before, it's a matter or fairness. We're supposed to be a "free society," yet we are denying people of consent the priviledge of marriage because we don't think it furthers society.

you are exactly wrong

 

[Bullypulpit]

Each state has it's own laws about marriage and what is legal and what is not. Nevada's laws are completely different from Texas which is completely different from Massachusetts. There really is no federal standard for what makes a legal marriage, it is up to the states. In some states, if a man and woman live in the same house and he introduces her as his wife, they are legally married. Other states have stricter laws.

Now, let me ask one more time: If it's about legal status, what is the problem with a state recognizing Civil Unions? It's something that more people are open to, and it would give same sex partners the rights they are looking for. In fact, it would erase the religious aspect without question, which it seems would be something you would like.

First paragraph of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states:

<blockquote>1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. <b>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities</b> of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.</blockquote>

But the right wing-nuts like to keep that under the rug.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

First paragraph of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states:

<blockquote>1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. <b>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities</b> of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.</blockquote>

But the right wing-nuts like to keep that under the rug.

All this presumes enforcement of our border. Let's shut the border, are you down with that?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

First paragraph of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states:

<blockquote>1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. <b>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities</b> of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.</blockquote>

But the right wing-nuts like to keep that under the rug.

What you did not put in bold that should have been is without due process of the law. Homosexuals are not prevented from basic rights; freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. Nothing prevents them from getting a place to live or holding down a job. That is all protected by the Constitution. There is no Freedom to Marry. What does and does not make a legal marriage is determined by the states.

If you want to leave it wide open with one half line like "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities", where is the cut off point? Can five year olds get married? How about first cousins, or brothers and sisters? How about subscibing to the ridiculous thought of a man marrying a goat? They can't do that, can they? No, because due process of the law finds that it is not legal to do so.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

The problem with civil unions is that not all of the benefits are given to the couple. A gay couple deserves the exact same benefits as a straight couple. And also, as I said before, marriage granted by the state is free of religion, which in turn yields no reason to alienate homosexuals from the union of marriage.

I have to admit, I haven't looked into exactly what Civil Unions allow and what they don't. This subject is actually so far down on my list of priorities I haven't looked that deep into it. If the basic benefits are not there with Civil Unions, I would be in favor of fixing that.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by musicman:

"Take a stab at it. Why do YOU think so many people are against it? I know you've cited religious beliefs and such, but - ultimately - from your point of view - why?

Is it because they don't know any better, and you do?

Is it because you're fair, and they're not?"

Musicman-- please get rid of the notion that I think I'm better than others. I've never said that and I'm not trying to prove my worth; I'm trying to prove the worthiness of the subject. And as for the question you pose: I can't answer that. If I could and if I thought the answer was logical, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I wasn't dogging you, liberalogic - honest. I'm just genuinely curious as to why YOU think we can't see the fairness and rightness of this.