Gays

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
<font color=red><b>BZZZT!</b></font> Wrong answer. Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder. You haven't been paying attention. It was removed from the DSM in the early 70's. Get over it.

Offer a rational, valid argument as to why same-gender couples shouldn't be permitted the same legal rights and responsibilites as traditional couples, and then I'll listen to you.

They already have the same rights, and we don't care if you listen.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by eric
No, it is just an example that is hard to refute. There are public health concerns with homosexuality also. Tell me in good faith that many homosexual men do not like little boys !

You are just trying to make reality fit your views !

Sounds like you're the one trying to twist reality. All of the gay men I've known and worked with find peophilia as sickening as straight people do.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
They already have the same rights, and we don't care if you listen.

Prove your assertion.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Prove your assertion.

Don't need to.

 

[wonderwench]

So just to make sure I am understanding those who think gays and lesbians should not have equal protection under the law:

- You believe that same sex relations are morally wrong.
- You justify government regulation of private sexual behavior because of the health risks.

Interesting. Catholic nuns have a higher incidence of breast cancer because they generally do not bear children. Should we force them to become pregnant?

Well, sex isn't the only risky personal behavior. If we follow the reductio ad absurdum of this philosophy, government should be able to outlaw cigarettes and fattening food, mandate daily exercise and micromanage our personal choices for our own good.

We have a choice people. To follow the principles of limited government and individual liberty - or to expose all of us to the death of a thousand little laws because something we do may offend someone else's morality or aethetics. I'll take the former - and so should you. After all, just because someone else drinks beer for breakfast, you are not required to follow suit.

It comes dow to this: Do you think an individual is in the best position to make personal choices or that the individual should be subordinate to the state?

 

[jon_forward]

riddle me this...why isnt civil unions good enough?

 

[Avatar4321]

I am not arguing that gay and lesbians should not have equal protection under the law. Im arguing that they already do. They have the same rights we all do. We can marry any nonrelated member of the opposite sex thats of legal age and that isnt married. I am no more opposed to gay marriage than i am opposed to four sided triangles, feathered mammals, a cat giving birth to a dog or any other oxymorons.

I am opposed to the rule of law being circumvented and ignored. I am opposed to the will of the people being violated by activists judges and mayors who have sworn to uphold the the Constition and our laws.

If people want to forgo their rights to marriage and engage in immoral and unpleasant activities. They can. I am not going to impose a law that regulates what happens in their bedrooms concerning sex. But if you think Im going to allow immoral actions be legitmized throw unconstitutional means you are sadly mistaken. In fact im going to oppose it. Marriage needs to be protected. It is facing enough problems as it is. we dont need it to face the same problems its been facing in scandinavian countries.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by jon_forward
riddle me this...why isnt civil unions good enough?

I am perfectly fine with the concept of civil unions. I think marriage is a religious issue - and should be left to non-government entities to define. I have been quite consistent that the principle role of the government is in defining the contractual obligations and rights of the two parties involved.

I also think a Constitutional Amendment forbidding gay marriage is nuts. To me it violates the concept of separation of church and state.

 

[Lizzy]

I also think a Constitutional Amendment forbidding gay marriage is nuts. To me it violates the concept of separation of church and state. [/B][/QUOTE]

I disagree. I have been reading a lot of the posts on various boards that not only touch this subject, but Racism, Welfare Rights and the lack of focus within the Country today.

The point is, if we don't start laying down some laws and regulations there aren't going to be any!
I don't personally think that Gay Marriages are a priority with the stae of the economy today, but I would guess that it has to start somewhere.
We also have to remember that this is an election year and Bush is going to make a statement on this issue. If I remember correctly, when he originally ran for office one of his platforms was for the conservation of Family Values.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I am perfectly fine with the concept of civil unions.

Personally speaking, I just don't care for gays at all, but that's just me.

I would have no problem with giving them civil unions though as I've stated from the beginning. I think that's the most sensible solution to make everyone happy. Unfortunately, I don't think the gays are going to be happy with that and they will continue to push the marriage issue. The more they push the more those against it will push back. They will get what it is they desire from the civil unions. Those that want to reserve marriages to be between man and women will be happy. Everybody wins.

 

[wonderwench]

Tocqueville warned about the Tyranny of the Majority. Just because a majority may prefer that others live a certain way, it doesn't give them the right to mandate it.

We do not need the government to specify guidelines for every moral decision in our lives. The Framers specified separation of church and state for a reason. The imposition of personal morality via government means leads to tyrrany. Witness the totalitarian nightmare of radical Islam for a good example.

The Consitution was designed to protect Individual Liberty. Just because someone has a different morality than you do, doesn't mean the government has the right to interfere. There are people who think blow jobs are the work of the devil. Should oral sex between heterosexuals be outlawed?

Often, the best test of a something designed to tell others how to live is to apply it to one's own life. If you really want the government in someone else's bedroom, then consider if it were invited into your own.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Just because someone has a different morality than you do, doesn't mean the government has the right to interfere.

Do you mean like the activist judges are doing right now?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
So just to make sure I am understanding those who think gays and lesbians should not have equal protection under the law:

- You believe that same sex relations are morally wrong.
- You justify government regulation of private sexual behavior because of the health risks.

Interesting. Catholic nuns have a higher incidence of breast cancer because they generally do not bear children. Should we force them to become pregnant?

Well, sex isn't the only risky personal behavior. If we follow the reductio ad absurdum of this philosophy, government should be able to outlaw cigarettes and fattening food, mandate daily exercise and micromanage our personal choices for our own good.

We have a choice people. To follow the principles of limited government and individual liberty - or to expose all of us to the death of a thousand little laws because something we do may offend someone else's morality or aethetics. I'll take the former - and so should you. After all, just because someone else drinks beer for breakfast, you are not required to follow suit.

It comes dow to this: Do you think an individual is in the best position to make personal choices or that the individual should be subordinate to the state?

It's good that you asked for clarification because, apparently, 23 pages of posts have been made and you understand nothing. Neither I nor anyone else whose post I've read believes that homosexuals aren't due equal protection. We do believe, however, that equality under the law is already the case.

Secondly, it was those who advocate for allowing gay marriages who mentioned that incest was not an honest comparison of a law which legislates morality because of the health implications of near relations having children and/or the age of consent. If there are health concerns in homosexuality the two are exactly equivalent. Therefore, allowing one to be regulated and not the other is hypocrisy.

Lastly, as far as an individual making choices, again, neither I nor anyone else who's posted has advocated for relieving people of their personal choice in which sex acts to perform. However, marriage, which is a societal and legal convention, has nothing to do with choice. It has to do with whom is allowed what. There is no debate as to the legality that public women's and men's toilets can be separate. There is no debate as to the legality that health clubs offer separate men's and women's showers. The fact is that men and women are different and laws which recognize that are not invalid.

There has not be a hew and cry about the legality of those who live together but do not marry not having the same proprietary rights. What of them? Is it fair that couples engaged in a monogomous relationship yet do not believe in the convention of marriage have to enter into legally binding contracts to secure their property? Or, what about married men and women who have children from another union and wish for them to inherit their 401K- is it legal that the current spouse has the right to object? Of course it is. For the law is applied equally to all- if you are a man you can marry a woman; if you are a woman you can marry a man; if you are married you have to create a contract with spousal approval; if you are single you have the right to a contract.

 

[wonderwench]

I agree that legislating from the bench is wrong. It is equally wrong to promote a Constitutional Amendment designed to deny a segment of the population of their equal protection under the law.

This issue should be settled at the state level.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I agree that legislating from the bench is wrong. It is equally wrong to promote a Constitutional Amendment designed to deny a segment of the population of their equal protection under the law.

This issue should be settled at the state level.

I believe that's the way it will ultimately work out. I wouldn't mind an amendment to protect marriage but I don't believe there will be enough steam to carry it through all the way, especially if this can be resolved with civil unions.

I don't believe people want an amendment to deny anyone rights, rather they feel the amendment would be protecting any changes against a long standing institution.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Legislating about benches is wrong. Benches and their socially approved uses should be left to the individual.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Legislating about benches is wrong. Benches and their socially approved uses should be left to the individual.

You shouldn't discriminate about chairs, stools and sofas. It is wrong to discriminate about any seating.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by wonderwench
You shouldn't discriminate about chairs, stools and sofas. It is wrong to discriminate about any seating.

All we can do is teach safe pleasure. "Heather Has Two Ottomans"

 

[jon_forward]

looks like several of the states have got it all wrong, they are starting at the city level and working up!?!?? and as stated the gays DO have the same rights as hetros, they can marry the opposite sex just like most everyone else....and they will have to choose to get a civil union if the want the same sex route...transgendered ect,ect ect.. hhow is this not granting them all of the rights of being married without being married???

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by wonderwench
You shouldn't discriminate about chairs, stools and sofas. It is wrong to discriminate about any seating.

seating???? I always thought of them as aids.....: