The definitive word on "gay"marriage

[ScreamingEagle]

It's not government-enforced multiculturalism... it's everyone being able to live their lives as they wish so long as those life-choices don't affect anyone else. In other words, my freedoms end at the tip of your nose.... and visa versa.

I don't agree with every aspect of libertarianism... I think they're a bit naive about what happens when there's no government. But on social issues, they are pretty good.

The problem is...some peoples' noses are starting to stick into a lot of peoples' business....such as via the gay "marriage" issue and the "education" of our children on the "normalcy" of gay sex.

Regarding libertarianism, I imagine Goldwater would turn over in his grave if he were to see the sad results of libertarianism with regard to the "individual freedoms" such as pornography, abortion, gay sex, polygamy, etc.

 

[Bonnie]

I believe you. I find that disturbing. You are a bright, articulate person who distrusts the fundamental precepts of representative government. I like you - I enjoy chatting with you - but I consider your mindset misguided and dangerous.



What's wrong with that, if that's what they want? Isn't it natural to want to be among kindred spirits? With the understanding that everyone's constitutional rights are to be respected, people ought to be allowed to run their own affairs.



Do you believe diversity should be enforced, if necessary?



In a representative republic, that "government" which "insinuates" itself into "certain issues" is called "the will of the people". The only time I see anyone being forced to do anything is when the central government overflows its constitutional banks and attempts to insinuate ITself in the people's business.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that term deals with the creation of the Electoral College - without which there truly would be a "tyranny of the majority". Voting outside large metropolitan areas would be pointless.

Bravo MM...How quickly some forget that truth. twould be interesting to see a direct vote from the people on this and a few other "issues". Of course represented republics don't operate that way......

 

[MissileMan]

The problem is...some peoples' noses are starting to stick into a lot of peoples' business....such as via the gay "marriage" issue and the "education" of our children on the "normalcy" of gay sex.

How about instead, we make the children of gay couples wear something that sets them apart from the other kids, brief all of the other kids on just how sick and disgusting these kids' parents are, explain that these children should be ostracized, ridiculed, harrassed, beaten, and abused because they are obviously homosexuals in training and are themselves sick and disgusting. Sound like a plan? Does that appeal to your sense of morality?

 

[007]

How about instead, we make the children of gay couples wear something that sets them apart from the other kids, brief all of the other kids on just how sick and disgusting these kids' parents are, explain that these children should be ostracized, ridiculed, harrassed, beaten, and abused because they are obviously homosexuals in training and are themselves sick and disgusting. Sound like a plan? Does that appeal to your sense of morality?

How about we put your crazy ass in a straight jacket?

 

[Dr Grump]

The problem is...some peoples' noses are starting to stick into a lot of peoples' business....such as via the gay "marriage" issue and the "education" of our children on the "normalcy" of gay sex.

I get the "noses are starting to stick into a lot of peoples' businesses" re the latter, but not the former...

 

[JeffWartman]

The problem is...some peoples' noses are starting to stick into a lot of peoples' business....such as via the gay "marriage" issue and the "education" of our children on the "normalcy" of gay sex.

Regarding libertarianism, I imagine Goldwater would turn over in his grave if he were to see the sad results of libertarianism with regard to the "individual freedoms" such as pornography, abortion, gay sex, polygamy, etc.

Well, Goldwater was pro-choice and pro gay rights. He famously supported gays in the military in the late 1980's and 1990's, stating that gays should be allowed to servce "as long as they can shoot straight". He also said that "every good Christian should kick Jerry Falwell right in the ass".

You can read more about Barry here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14863898/site/newsweek/

 

[musicman]

Holy cow - I'm just now seeing this post! Sleeping at the switch again...

As do I... but let's look at what the purpose of the Constitution is/was... it was intended to limit the powers of government

Right - CENTRAL government, specifically.

and assure the rights of the individual.

Right again - specifically, his right to govern himself. I just don't understand how this translates into one individual thwarting the will of a whole community of other individuals, and using central government as a cudgel.

That's why you got Amendments 1 thru 10... And I'd defend the Second Amendment same as I would the First....

It looks like you and I would wind up on the same side of the debate table more often, then. But, you seem to have odd, inventive ideas about who and what constitute "government". And, you would appear to have interpreted "individual rights" as one person's pass to gangster his entire community. No, thanks. I'll take the Constitution straight as it comes, please.

 

[MissileMan]

How about we put your crazy ass in a straight jacket?

Crazy is thinking that homosexuality is contagious, can-be-learned, or something into which one can be persuaded.

 

[007]

Crazy is thinking that homosexuality is contagious, can-be-learned, or something into which one can be persuaded.

It certainly is not contagious, but learned or persuaded into, yes.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Reneer]

It certainly is not contagious, but learned or persuaded into, yes.

Prove me wrong.

Sorry Pale, but the burden of proof is on you. You are claiming that homosexuality can be learned or persuaded into. It isn't our job to try and 'prove you wrong' when you haven't proven yourself to be right.

 

[CockySOB]

Sorry Pale, but the burden of proof is on you. You are claiming that homosexuality can be learned or persuaded into. It isn't our job to try and 'prove you wrong' when you haven't proven yourself to be right.

Actually the burden of proof lies with the people who claim that homosexuality is an inherited or genetic trait. After all, we have found other conditions which have genetic indicators both to an absolute connection and to a predisposition towards the condition. As such, the definitive answer on whether homosexuality is or is not a genetic trait will render further discussion on whether homosexuality is a learned characteristic or not valid or moot. Time will tell as molecular biologists and geneticists further unravel the human genome.

Until there is proof that homosexuality is genetic, it must be considered to be a learned phenomenom.

 

[Reneer]

Actually the burden of proof lies with the people who claim that homosexuality is an inherited or genetic trait. After all, we have found other conditions which have genetic indicators both to an absolute connection and to a predisposition towards the condition. As such, the definitive answer on whether homosexuality is or is not a genetic trait will render further discussion on whether homosexuality is a learned characteristic or not valid or moot. Time will tell as molecular biologists and geneticists further unravel the human genome.

Until there is proof that homosexuality is genetic, it must be considered to be a learned phenomenom.

Alright, fine. If we assume for the moment that homosexuality is a 'learned trait' or caused by 'social pressures' or somesuch, then 'society' is responsible for creating homosexuals. If society is responsible for creating homosexuals, then society cannot condemn homosexuals else it condemns itself for creating homosexuality. If society is unwilling to condemn itself for causing the creation of homosexuals, then it cannot condemn homosexuals. If it cannot condemn homosexuals, then it cannot legally keep them from participating in societal functions since homosexuality or the practice thereof is not violating any common law. Marriage is a societal function, it helps society keep order by designating individuals who are pooling their resources to help themselves. Since marriage is a societal function, homosexuals should be able to participate in it fully, unless they are condemned by society or violating a law. If homosexuals are kept from participating in marriage, but are not violating any laws, then they are being discriminated against simply because they are homosexual.

You will note that most state Constitution's that ban homosexuality simply state that the state will not recognize a union between two men or two women, or that a valid union is only between a man and a woman. It is not against the law to practice homosexuality in any state since 2003. Society lets homosexuals participate except for keeping them from marrying / being granted the same privileges granted to heterosexuals after a marriage. Yet the practice of homosexuality is not a crime. Does anyone else see an error here?

 

[JeffWartman]

Right - CENTRAL government, specifically.

But the 14 amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the state governments also, keep in mind

 

[sitarro]

Alright, fine. If we assume for the moment that homosexuality is a 'learned trait' or caused by 'social pressures' or somesuch, then 'society' is responsible for creating homosexuals. If society is responsible for creating homosexuals, then society cannot condemn homosexuals else it condemns itself for creating homosexuality. If society is unwilling to condemn itself for causing the creation of homosexuals, then it cannot condemn homosexuals. If it cannot condemn homosexuals, then it cannot legally keep them from participating in societal functions since homosexuality or the practice thereof is not violating any common law. Marriage is a societal function, it helps society keep order by designating individuals who are pooling their resources to help themselves. Since marriage is a societal function, homosexuals should be able to participate in it fully, unless they are condemned by society or violating a law. If homosexuals are kept from participating in marriage, but are not violating any laws, then they are being discriminated against simply because they are homosexual.

You will note that most state Constitution's that ban homosexuality simply state that the state will not recognize a union between two men or two women, or that a valid union is only between a man and a woman. It is not against the law to practice homosexuality in any state since 2003. Society lets homosexuals participate except for keeping them from marrying / being granted the same privileges granted to heterosexuals after a marriage. Yet the practice of homosexuality is not a crime. Does anyone else see an error here?

Taking quite a leap aren't you..... society has created homosexuals??? My guess would be that all you know about homosexuals is what you have picked up from "Will and Grace". I suppose that you believe that video games have no effect on the way kids see violence, right?

 

[Reneer]

Taking quite a leap aren't you..... society has created homosexuals??? My guess would be that all you know about homosexuals is what you have picked up from "Will and Grace". I suppose that you believe that video games have no effect on the way kids see violence, right?

Alright. If society hasn't created homosexuals, then what has?

And your guess? Wrong.

 

[jillian]

Holy cow - I'm just now seeing this post! Sleeping at the switch again...

No worries. Went to sleep, myself. heh!

Right - CENTRAL government, specifically.

Actually, no... the Constitution was set up with a stronger central government in mind than state government. Otherwise, we'd have continued to live under the Articles of Confederation. It's also why all Federal laws take preference over State Laws under the Supremacy Clause.

Right again - specifically, his right to govern himself. I just don't understand how this translates into one individual thwarting the will of a whole community of other individuals, and using central government as a cudgel.

Why should a "community" be allowed to infringe on individual rights? That's clearly not intended by the Constitution.

It looks like you and I would wind up on the same side of the debate table more often, then. But, you seem to have odd, inventive ideas about who and what constitute "government". And, you would appear to have interpreted "individual rights" as one person's pass to gangster his entire community. No, thanks. I'll take the Constitution straight as it comes, please.

There is no such thing as taking the "Constitution straight as it comes". That's a facile argument for wanting to disavow precedent and apply a different sort of politics. Interestingly, I was reading a statement written by Richard Nixon after two of his Supreme Court nominees were rejected by the Senate. Nixon, actually, unlike the current admin, didn't apply a litmus test in giving judgeships. He wanted geographic balance so all views were heard and incorporated in interpreting the Constitution. After those nominees, he appointed your side's fave, Harry Blackmun.

I would, finally, point out that nothing in the Constitution specifically gives the Court judicial review of laws. That was something that came out of INTERPRETATION in an effort to effectuate the intent of the Constitution. Prior to Justice Scalia and his ilk, the concept of strict interpretation was seen as protective of the individual liberties contained in the Bill of Rights.

 

[musicman]

But the 14 amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the state governments also, keep in mind

Covered, long ago(post #50):

With the understanding that everyone's constitutional rights are to be respected, people ought to be allowed to run their own affairs.

Incidentally, I'm on board with many who believe that the XIVth should be rewritten in a way that will protect it (and us) from interpretational atrocities, or scrapped altogether. Its principal bequests to modern American life are judicial activism and anchor babies. We'd do better to start all over.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I get the "noses are starting to stick into a lot of peoples' businesses" re the latter, but not the former...

You can't see how gay marriage would have impact upon our social/political system?

 

[musicman]

Actually, no... the Constitution was set up with a stronger central government in mind than state government. Otherwise, we'd have continued to live under the Articles of Confederation. It's also why all Federal laws take preference over State Laws under the Supremacy Clause.

Amendment X is fantasy, then? The fact that central government was designed by our founders to reside on a short, jealously guarded leash - that the power to run their everyday lives is supposed to devolve to the people - that this is the very definition of a representative republic - these are bothersome little curiosities, harped on by extremists? You truly frighten me, jillian.

Why should a "community" be allowed to infringe on individual rights? That's clearly not intended by the Constitution.

Show me where.

There is no such thing as taking the "Constitution straight as it comes". That's a facile argument for wanting to disavow precedent and apply a different sort of politics. Interestingly, I was reading a statement written by Richard Nixon after two of his Supreme Court nominees were rejected by the Senate. Nixon, actually, unlike the current admin, didn't apply a litmus test in giving judgeships. He wanted geographic balance so all views were heard and incorporated in interpreting the Constitution. After those nominees, he appointed your side's fave, Harry Blackmun.

I would, finally, point out that nothing in the Constitution specifically gives the Court judicial review of laws. That was something that came out of INTERPRETATION in an effort to effectuate the intent of the Constitution. Prior to Justice Scalia and his ilk, the concept of strict interpretation was seen as protective of the individual liberties contained in the Bill of Rights.

I've just had an epiphany. In the past, I've thought you guilty of loosely throwing around the term, "extremist", to describe anyone who didn't agree with you. I see now that I was wrong. Your meaning is actually quite specific. You see anyone who doesn't view the Constitution as putty in the hands of unelected, unaccountable feudal lords in black robes - self-appointed social engineers - our "betters" - as an extremist. A faithful reading and diligent application of the devolutionary principles inherent in the U.S. Constitution is your worst nightmare. Representative government frightens you. You fight it at every turn.

 

[musicman]

Oh, and before I forget - thanks for this disingenuous bit, too:

Actually, no... the Constitution was set up with a stronger central government in mind than state government. Otherwise, we'd have continued to live under the Articles of Confederation. It's also why all Federal laws take preference over State Laws under the Supremacy Clause.

Wow - "Supremacy Clause"! Doesn't THAT sound impressive! All OFFICIAL and everything. Really lends the appearance of some clout to your argument, eh? Except that, in reality, it is completely irrelevant to our discussion; it binds the states to TREATIES made by the federal government. This is such a drag, jillian. It erodes the level of our discussion, and brings your credibility down to nothing. Symbolism over substance. I am disappointed; not surprised, though. SOP for debate by the USMB left contingent.