Gays

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by deciophobic
"All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions."
Adlai Stevenson

"Constitutional Amendment" - George Bush

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
"Constitutional Amendment" - George Bush

and like prohibition, has the possibility of being overturned someday. an amendment does not guarantee that gay and lesbian marriage will never happen in your lifetime.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
and like prohibition, has the possibility of being overturned someday. an amendment does not guarantee that gay and lesbian marriage will never happen in your lifetime.

There's always a possibility that pigs will fly out of deciophobics ass too!

 

[Johnney]

Originally posted by jimnyc
There's always a possibility that pigs will fly out of deciophobics ass too!

better chance of a hampster

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by jimnyc
There's always a possibility that pigs will fly out of deciophobics ass too!

again with the personal attacks. you guys sure have done a lot of that here. but i guess it's easier than coming up with real arguments.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by deciophobic
again with the personal attacks. you guys sure have done a lot of that here. but i guess it's easier than coming up with real arguments.

Do you mean real arguments like when you claimed gays are born that way and couldn't provide proof even though you were asked on numerous occasions?

There's been MANY arguments in quite a few threads in this section. Why don't you try reading?

 

[Avatar4321]

I was hoping there would be more constructive discussion here. There is some, but we could be doing alot more.

I have to agree with some comments on progess coming from people taking unpopular stands. However, there are many unpopular stands that arent progressive. And you also have to take into account the methods of which they put their cause out there.

Leaders may have supported unpopular caused, but what made them such great leaders is the convince a majority and worked through legal means to push forward their unpopular things. They didnt flagrantly break the law. They didnt try to subvert the rule of law after the people had made a clear vote on the matter. They worked through the Constitutional process, atleast those in America. Those like Galileo or Colombus, though didnt have the American process, stood up for what they believed in and convinced people on their issues. They convinced people that their views were right. They didnt force it on people.

As for comparing this to Prohibition. Marriage has been a consistant institution for the past several thousand years, if this ammendment is passed i dont think its likely that there will ever be a gay majority to overturn it. Personally though, i dont think Prohibition should have been overturned. Thousands of lives, marriages, jobs, etc could have been saved if there were no Alcohol in the nation. It was a good experiment. too bad the authorities refused to enforce it.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I don't think so. In 1800 you could say the same thing about slavery. Ethics and morality change even in a governing context, like it or loathe it. I wouldn't be surprised that by the next generation opinions will change as I believe western civilization always moves towards social liberalization. I don't believe the cases are truly that far of in an ethical evolution context.

That just doesn't make sense to me. So because people in the future may be of a different mind, we have to allow acts which are immoral in our society???? If hundreds of years from now people decide that homosexuality marriage bans are just like slavery and decide to overturn them, so be it.

I will not be beholden to a future which may never come and I'll not suffer for a past I had no part in making.

Today, the day I live, the will of this country is to not allow gay marriages. To that end, I will support any rules or laws.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Moi
That just doesn't make sense to me. So because people in the future may be of a different mind, we have to allow acts which are immoral in our society???? If hundreds of years from now people decide that homosexuality marriage bans are just like slavery and decide to overturn them, so be it.

I didn't say. I'm saying even now there are many people, though I'd hardly call it a majority that support gay marriage as this isn't the future, this is now. I'm not advocating gay marriage to be implemented in the present, nor do I believe it will indeed happen in most places right yet. Nor do I say that just because it will happen in the future do we have a responsibility to institute it now.

I do however, believe in the future the condition will be such that popular opinion/morality will eventually approve of such an change in institution. The movement has started now, but society is not ready yet, but I predict it will happen and that the change, inevitable.

Though again I reiterate that we could by-pass the whole situation by getting the government out of the affairs of marriage in its entirety, hetero or homosexual.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Though again I reiterate that we could by-pass the whole situation by getting the government out of the affairs of marriage in its entirety, hetero or homosexual.

And then it would be purely a religious ceremony. Let's see how far the gays get protesting their local churches.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by jimnyc


And then it would be purely a religious ceremony. Let's see how far the gays get protesting their local churches.

And I think that is fair is it not? Religious institutions have no inherint requirement to placate practices that are not a part of their doctrines. Save the governments so much hassle too and we can finally get back to more important issues of governance.

It would be interesting to see though if gay-rights activists would indeed denounce faiths that do not condone their lifestyle? I cannot say with any certainty if they would indeed pursue that line of protesting. They would lose much credibility if they did.

 

[jimnyc]

Sounds fair to me.

 

[Avatar4321]

"I do however, believe in the future the condition will be such that popular opinion/morality will eventually approve of such an change in institution. The movement has started now, but society is not ready yet, but I predict it will happen and that the change, inevitable."

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. Immoral men and women have tried to eliminate morality for the last 6000 years. Yet Morality always exists. Marriage will always have a base to protect it. Religion. Contrary to popular belief religion in America is actually growing. And Those who admit God's hands in all things realize that marriage has a specific purpose and will defend it from those who try to pervert its purpose.

Also as more people immigrate to the United States, more people from traditional value cultures will be raised and able to vote someday. Since almost all cultures have marriage as the central institution and basic building block of civilization, to say that someday it will be accepted and legislated is somewhat unlikely. We arent talking about slavery here. These people have the right to get married just like everyone else. They can marry a member of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

This is exactly why they arent going to the Constitutional process. They know they will never get the majority of the votes. This is why the abortionists didnt go the Constitutional process to. Come to think of it, it seems every time a liberals lose a vote on an item they try to circumvent the constitutional process. abortion, gay marriage, 2000 election, 2002 election. etc.

 

[OCA]

This whole argument of comparing gays to Blacks or women is silly. Those people were protesting for their "basic rights", gays are protesting for "special rights" since they are already born with the same rights as you and I.

 

[acludem]

Gay people are not asking for special rights, they are asking to have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. Where are the "special rights"?

acludem

 

[Johnney]

It would be interesting to see though if gay-rights activists would indeed denounce faiths that do not condone their lifestyle? I cannot say with any certainty if they would indeed pursue that line of protesting. They would lose much credibility if they did.

they would jsut make up their own religion after that. there were these slugs that used to do that shit when i worked in the USBD. jus so they could have food and stuff in their cells. kind of sickening if you ask me

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
"I do however, believe in the future the condition will be such that popular opinion/morality will eventually approve of such an change in institution. The movement has started now, but society is not ready yet, but I predict it will happen and that the change, inevitable."

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. Immoral men and women have tried to eliminate morality for the last 6000 years. Yet Morality always exists. Marriage will always have a base to protect it. Religion. Contrary to popular belief religion in America is actually growing. And Those who admit God's hands in all things realize that marriage has a specific purpose and will defend it from those who try to pervert its purpose.

Also as more people immigrate to the United States, more people from traditional value cultures will be raised and able to vote someday. Since almost all cultures have marriage as the central institution and basic building block of civilization, to say that someday it will be accepted and legislated is somewhat unlikely. We arent talking about slavery here. These people have the right to get married just like everyone else. They can marry a member of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

This is exactly why they arent going to the Constitutional process. They know they will never get the majority of the votes. This is why the abortionists didnt go the Constitutional process to. Come to think of it, it seems every time a liberals lose a vote on an item they try to circumvent the constitutional process. abortion, gay marriage, 2000 election, 2002 election. etc.

Good post. However, I do believe their is a subtle flaw in your logic, which is for the most part quite sound. The notion that morality and ethics is static and unmoving I think has been proven again and again in history to be false through varying capacities that have been stated before. It's not a lack of ethics and morality that is behind this movement, but rather a conflict between different concepts of morality and ethics.

Though you make a good point and perhaps a flaw in my belief that America is headed towards eventual liberalization and securalism. I must admitt I had not considered America turning more towards a religious institution which could perhaps be the case, especially when affronted increasing world security threats. I still do not believe this to be the case and would point out that America is considerably less religious than in its incorporation. I however cannot state this with any degree of certainty as i, am neither an expert of theology nor on sociology.

I suppose in that spirit, that time will tell which direction the US will head towards.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Johnney
they would jsut make up their own religion after that. there were these slugs that used to do that shit when i worked in the USBD. jus so they could have food and stuff in their cells. kind of sickening if you ask me

I do not thing they need go that far. I believe that there are many Christian denominations, and I believe, though I may be mistaken, Reformed Judaism that already accept gay marriage.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by acludem
Gay people are not asking for special rights, they are asking to have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. Where are the "special rights"?

acludem

They already have access to those rights but they must pursue them through the just and lawful act of marrying someone of the opposite sex. Simple.

 

[jimnyc]

Two key figures in the successful effort to recall California Gov. Gray Davis last year have issued a similar threat to Attorney General Bill Lockyer over his "inaction" on San Francisco's defiance of state marriage law.

Howard Kaloogian, a candidate for the U.S. Senate, and Ted Costa, executive director of the anti-tax group People's Advocate, say they will launch a recall campaign if Lockyer does not crack down on San Francisco's same-sex marriages, the Los Angeles Times reported.

San Francisco has issued more than 3,000 marriage licenses to homosexual couples since Feb. 12 at the instigation of Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Lockyer has said he will ask the California Supreme Court to decide the legality of same-sex marriage by Friday.

Last Friday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered Lockyer "to take immediate steps" to have a court declare the city's actions illegal. The attorney general's initial response was to dismiss the order as political hyperbole.

Kaloogian compared Lockyer's "weeks of inaction" to the immediate response last week of New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid to stop a clerk in Bernalillo, N.M., from issuing licenses to same-sex couples.

"We're putting Lockyer on notice that we will recall him if he doesn't do his job," Kaloogian told the Times.

Responding to a question about the threatened recall, Schwarzenegger said Lockyer should be given a chance to "straighten out the mess."

"I think that this is what he's going to do," the governor said, according to the L.A. paper. "I'm absolutely convinced, I'm looking at the positive. I have a good working relationship with the attorney general, and in the future, I think it's important for us to work together."

Kaloogian is one of 10 Republican candidates hoping to unseat Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer this fall.

Boxer has condemned the proposed federal constitutional amendment reaffirming marriage as between a man and a woman, which is supported by President Bush.

"I believe this is an election-year wedge issue to divert attention from this administration's abysmal record on jobs, healthcare, education and the environment," she said in a statement.

But Boxer has joined her Democratic colleague, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in support of California's law limiting marriage to a man and woman. Critics say, however, she issued her stance only after being challenged for her silence on the issue.

Kaloogian says he supports the proposed federal constitutional amendment.