Some things to chew on, and get off my chest

[Natoma]

hat exactly is it that you're saying "likewise around the world" to? I'm concerned with the legal morality of this nation, i.e. the constitution. So what exactly are you getting at?

The fact that many people in many nations feel the same as these bigoted individuals do you have mentioned. Your view on morality is largely opinion i would say.

As I said before, I'm not concerned with other nations. I can't speak for other nations. The legal morality of the United States of America is the Constitution. My views on morality when it comes to the legal aspects is based on that document.

Again, I can't say I'm sure exactly sure what you're trying to say. How does any of what you've written tie into the fact that I'm able to divorce my personal feelings on a matter from the legalities?

That we already do dictate as a society what behaviors are wrong/unjust. So when you suggest that all arguments against gay marriage are some how inherently immoral i wonder as to your moral reasoning. I would much rather address these issues then dismiss them.

If it's religious in nature then it is already moot by the structure of our government, or at least how it's supposed to be, i.e. rule under constitutional law, not religious law.

I am sorry Natoma, i just don't agree that all people who don't share our views on sexuality are all bigots.

If one has no legal reason to stop gays from entering into marriage, and frankly no one has ever provided any, and all you can muster is some religious mumbo jumbo, then yes, that is bigotry. No one in this thread or anywhere else has come up with a reason that is legally strong enough to deny gay men and women the right to marry. It's all been based on religious foundations which have no clout in the legal sphere. What does it eventually always break down to? "Well I just don't like it." That's bigotry at it's heart.

 

[Natoma]

Same reason we allow for abortion but charge a man or a woman responsible for the death of an unborn child (when not related to the choice of the mother) with murder.

The only case I'm aware of where this occurred was the Scott Peterson case. They charged him with two counts of murder, but the second count was in addition to the first, i.e. he allegedly killed Laci Peterson, which then led to the death of the unborn son. I've never heard of a case where someone was charged with the murder of an unborn child when the cause wasn't the murder of the mother.

 

[Natoma]

The best analogy that immedately comes to mind is drug use. Who cares if my neighbor shoots up in the privacy of his own home? (And as with gay marriage, there are two sides to the issue, for and against.) Well, we have drug laws for a reason, that being the belief that drug use has negative impacts to society as a whole. Whether or not there is an obvious, immediate, "direct connection" to any one individual.

The negative effect on society from drugs when a drug user commits crimes in order to finance his/her drug habit. The far higher incidence of crimes committed against other citizens by those under the influence of drugs is a legally solid reason to make drug use illegal. Not necessarily because it's "wrong." Of course, there are major hypocrisies in this when you have marijuana being illegal, but cigarette smoking and drinking are legal. Some would wonder which of these are more deleterious to our health and public well being.

But there's absolutely no legally solid reasoning that could possibly be used to say "negative effect" from gay marriage.

 

[Legion]

As I said before, I'm not concerned with other nations. I can't speak for other nations. The legal morality of the United States of America is the Constitution. My views on morality when it comes to the legal aspects is based on that document.

Rather, how you interprit these things is what you are discussing. I doubt the framers of the constitution saw in the future an allowance of homosexual marriage.

If it's religious in nature then it is already moot by the structure of our government, or at least how it's supposed to be, i.e. rule under constitutional law, not religious law.

That would be IF they are religious in nature.

If one has no legal reason to stop gays from entering into marriage, and frankly no one has ever provided any, and all you can muster is some religious mumbo jumbo, then yes, that is bigotry.

This just doesn't make any sense to me. The legality of the issue doesn't necessarily have anything to do with moral objections to homosexual marriage or for that matter the practice of homosexuality. Futhermore, laws can be written and erased, the system is flexible for a reason. If a law were devised to outlaw homosexual marriage would that suddenly pose a valid argument against the allowance of said behavior? Is the law just or unjust?

No one in this thread or anywhere else has come up with a reason that is legally strong enough to deny gay men and women the right to marry.

I am not surprised. This strikes me as a straw man. What exactly would be a strong legal argument against it? WHat would be the basis of laws against it?

It's all been based on religious foundations which have no clout in the legal sphere. What does it eventually always break down to? "Well I just don't like it." That's bigotry at it's heart.

No, Natoma, a simple objection to the behavior is not bigotry.

 

[Legion]

I think you once mentioned that liberals feel but conservatives think (apologies if I'm remembering/paraphrasing incorrectly!) but I don't see how conservatives aren't feeling here with this subject matter.

Oh come on, as if all liberals were behind the support of gay marriage.

 

[Ty]

Same reason we allow for abortion but charge a man or a woman responsible for the death of an unborn child (when not related to the choice of the mother) with murder.

And what reason is that? Because the bible told them so? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, I'm seriously trying to uncover the reasons why you're (you being the right, not necessarily you, Legion) against it.

Rather, how you interprit these things is what you are discussing. I doubt the framers of the constitution saw in the future an allowance of homosexual marriage.

And they foresaw semi-automatic rifles and shotguns being peddled on the streets? So conservatives can argue pro-gun by clinging to the constitution as if it's holy gospel but change the argument and all of a sudden the constitution is a living document? Shouldn't we work on keeping the same standards else we end up with relativism?

 

[Legion]

And what reason is that? Because the bible told them so? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, I'm seriously trying to uncover the reasons why you're (you being the right, not necessarily you, Legion) against it.

Because it is the unecessary, and irresponsible termination of a human life. It is no different then murder, especially wrt to late term abortion. If we wish to categorize these individuals as being inhuman do to their state of development why not also categorize mentally disabeled people as inhuman and terminate them as well? Or how about children in general who haven't reached their full level of development? The only justifications for such reasoning are based on subjective conclusions based on relative beliefs of what it is to be human.

What do i have against murder? Is it wrong because the bible tells us so or is it wrong for other reasons?

And they foresaw semi-automatic rifles and shotguns being peddled on the streets?

No, nor do i think it would have incouraged them to leave out the second amendment. How would banning firearms prevent these peddlers from selling their illegal wares on the streets?

So conservatives can argue pro-gun by clinging to the constitution as if it's holy gospel but change the argument and all of a sudden the constitution is a living document? Shouldn't we work on keeping the same standards else we end up with relativism?

And they can rightfully do so. There isn't anything inherently wrong with being pro-gun or for that matter owning one. Despite the obvious scare tactics and emotional rantings of the left guns do not jump up from tables and kill people. Needless to say i see your line of argumentation as rather assinine. Conservatives do not support firearms being peddled on the streets. The fact this act is already illegal speaks volumes concerning the affectiveness of laws against it.

 

[nelg]

The best analogy that immedately comes to mind is drug use. Who cares if my neighbor shoots up in the privacy of his own home? (And as with gay marriage, there are two sides to the issue, for and against.) Well, we have drug laws for a reason, that being the belief that drug use has negative impacts to society as a whole. Whether or not there is an obvious, immediate, "direct connection" to any one individual.

This is a poor analogy. With drugs comes the illegal infrastructure to support the supply. With gay marriage just how does the issue extend itself to affect others?

 

[Rugor]

First, to those who oppose gay marriage on religous or moral grounds because of your beliefs I want to say that I have no issue with that and am not arguing against it. What I am arguing against is the extension of those beliefs to the law of the land. The Constitution is primarily a secular document and not based on any specific religous belief.

Various people have stated their oppostion to gay marriage and drawn parallels such as theft, drug abuse, and even abortion. Some have used very clever arguments. The one about the homeless person breaking into a mansion to avoid starvation was a good one, especially for tugging at the heartstrings. However I don't think that's a case of someone believing theft was morally right, but a case of someone believing it was necessary, despite their moral objections to theft. The defense that one has no other choice carries the implicit statement that the act was due to extreme circumstances that outweigh normal concerns of legality and morality.

Unfortunately, every one of these counter-examples has been a false analogy: None of them would be rendered acceptable by simply changing the people involved.

Everyone is agreeing that marriage involving a man and a woman is legally and morally acceptable in our society. However, there is no such agreement regarding marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. For a number of people if you change the genders you change the morality.

Let's consider burglary, since that was the first counter-example. The legality, morality, or lack thereof has nothing to do with the genders involved. If a man steals from a woman it is no different legally or morally than if a man steals from a man. Theft is theft regardless of the nature of the perpetrator and the victim. We do not say that this person can commit theft and that person cannot. It is equally illegal for two men, two women, and a man and woman to commit theft. It is the theft that makes the crime, not the nature of the participants.

The same holds true for illegal drugs. There is no magic combination which allows it to suddenly become legal. It doesn't work that way. The gender of the participants has nothing to do with the nature of the crime.

Abortion is a very touchy subject, and one I don't want to delve too deeply into here. However, I think we can all agree that the moral issues surrounding abortion do not change whether the doctor that performs it is male or female. The legal and moral repercussions of the act are the same regardless of the genders involved.

Marriage in and of itself is neither illegal or immoral. This makes it different from all the counter-examples given above.

 

[Legion]

Let's consider burglary, since that was the first counter-example. The legality, morality, or lack thereof has nothing to do with the genders involved. If a man steals from a woman it is no different legally or morally than if a man steals from a man. Theft is theft regardless of the nature of the perpetrator and the victim. We do not say that this person can commit theft and that person cannot. It is equally illegal for two men, two women, and a man and woman to commit theft. It is the theft that makes the crime, not the nature of the participants.

rather OT but what do you think wrt to hate crimes?

 

[Rugor]

OT or not, I think Hate Crimes are cowardly acts of fear and desperation.

However, I can see ways you could bring them in to the discussion at hand.

 

[Legion]

OT or not, I think Hate Crimes are cowardly acts of fear and desperation.

However, I can see ways you could bring them in to the discussion at hand.

I think they should be outlawed as most crimes could be viewed as crimes as hate.

 

[Ty]

Because it is the unecessary, and irresponsible termination of a human life. It is no different then murder, especially wrt to late term abortion. If we wish to categorize these individuals as being inhuman do to their state of development why not also categorize mentally disabeled people as inhuman and terminate them as well? Or how about children in general who haven't reached their full level of development? The only justifications for such reasoning are based on subjective conclusions based on relative beliefs of what it is to be human.

You lost me. I never once mentioned abortion in this thread. You did when you mentioned that the reason for being against abortion was the same as something in my reply to Joe. That's what I was trying to ask you. Let's back up. I said,

Yes, those against the state recognizing gay marriages believe it will harm society. Pro-environmentalists believe that drilling off shore in California will harm the environment. Why do we (both sides are guilty) allow for one standard but not another when it suits us? For this topic, where is the proof that gay marriages will harm society?

I think you once mentioned that liberals feel but conservatives think (apologies if I'm remembering/paraphrasing incorrectly!) but I don't see how conservatives aren't feeling here with this subject matter.

How does your reply,

Same reason we allow for abortion but charge a man or a woman responsible for the death of an unborn child (when not related to the choice of the mother) with murder.

answer the two questions I asked? And if you intend it to, exactly which portion? All I asked for afterwards was, what reason is this?

What do i have against murder? Is it wrong because the bible tells us so or is it wrong for other reasons?

I think murder meets the standards of an obvious negative impact to society. Are you trying to tell us that gay marriages meet that same standard? Plainly it's not as obvious since we're having this discussion so perhaps you mean the degree to which it can injure society. If so, then shouldn't all forms of homosexuality be criminalized lest society fall prey to any of those ills?

And they foresaw semi-automatic rifles and shotguns being peddled on the streets?

No, nor do i think it would have incouraged them to leave out the second amendment. How would banning firearms prevent these peddlers from selling their illegal wares on the streets?

Your question wrt banning firearms is irrelevant since we're talking about what the state recognizes (i.e. should the state recognize gay marriages) not what actually occurs (gays being together).

And they can rightfully do so. There isn't anything inherently wrong with being pro-gun or for that matter owning one. Despite the obvious scare tactics and emotional rantings of the left guns do not jump up from tables and kill people. Needless to say i see your line of argumentation as rather assinine.

And yet you have completely missed my point by talking about the trees and missing the forest. I was NOT arguing an anti-gun stance. Let me try again.

One of your lines of arguments against using the Constitution in support for gay rights wrt gay marriages was that you felt the framers could not have foreseen homosexual marriages. Therefore you are treating the Constitution as a living (i.e. mallaeable) document.

Yet conservatives (those that traditionally oppose gay marriages) steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the Constitution may be a living document when it comes to the second amendment. It says firearms, well fully automatic rifles are firearms so those shouldn't be outlawed. Waiting periods? Background checks? Those all get in the way of me enjoying my Constitutional right.

Got it? In other words, the line of argumentation changes depending on the situation (relativism).

That's all.

Conservatives do not support firearms being peddled on the streets. The fact this act is already illegal speaks volumes concerning the affectiveness of laws against it.

Err, conservatives have been known to fight tooth and nail against any gun laws. Am I wrong in my belief?

 

[Ty]

This is a poor analogy. With drugs comes the illegal infrastructure to support the supply. With gay marriage just how does the issue extend itself to affect others?

That's akin to what I keep on asking for. 1> What is this "damage" to society and 2> Where is proof of this "damage"?

All I got so far was a cryptic message about being against abortion. And then my argument was called assinine.

 

[Legion]

You lost me. I never once mentioned abortion in this thread. You did when you mentioned that the reason for being against abortion was the same as something in my reply to Joe. That's what I was trying to ask you. Let's back up. I said,

I am not sure why i lost you...

Legion wrote:
Same reason we allow for abortion but charge a man or a woman responsible for the death of an unborn child (when not related to the choice of the mother) with murder.


And what reason is that? Because the bible told them so? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, I'm seriously trying to uncover the reasons why you're (you being the right, not necessarily you, Legion) against it.

Legion wrote:
Rather, how you interprit these things is what you are discussing. I doubt the framers of the constitution saw in the future an allowance of homosexual marriage.


And they foresaw semi-automatic rifles and shotguns being peddled on the streets? So conservatives can argue pro-gun by clinging to the constitution as if it's holy gospel but change the argument and all of a sudden the constitution is a living document? Shouldn't we work on keeping the same standards else we end up with relativism?

answer the two questions I asked? And if you intend it to, exactly which portion? All I asked for afterwards was, what reason is this?

I took your first statement to be refering to my first statement (after all you quoted it).

you stated

And what reason is that? Because the bible told them so? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, I'm seriously trying to uncover the reasons why you're (you being the right, not necessarily you, Legion) against it.

to which i replied

Because it is the unecessary, and irresponsible termination of a human life. It is no different then murder, especially wrt to late term abortion. If we wish to categorize these individuals as being inhuman do to their state of development why not also categorize mentally disabeled people as inhuman and terminate them as well? Or how about children in general who haven't reached their full level of development? The only justifications for such reasoning are based on subjective conclusions based on relative beliefs of what it is to be human.

What do i have against murder? Is it wrong because the bible tells us so or is it wrong for other reasons?

I thought you were questioning my thoughts on abortion because, for the life of me i can't possibly think what else you would have been questioning of me (as the right).

I think murder meets the standards of an obvious negative impact to society. Are you trying to tell us that gay marriages meet that same standard? Plainly it's not as obvious since we're having this discussion so perhaps you mean the degree to which it can injure society. If so, then shouldn't all forms of homosexuality be criminalized lest society fall prey to any of those ills?

Really? That's what i am implying? Can't figure out where i stated that or lead you to believe that was what i was suggesting. Have i made any statement here or elsewhere that would lead you or anyone else to believe i am anti-gay marriage?

What i was pointing out was there is a level of double standards within society. We can hold one belief, while practices another which is wholely contradictory.

BTW- are you sure i am even straight?

Your question wrt banning firearms is irrelevant since we're talking about what the state recognizes (i.e. should the state recognize gay marriages) not what actually occurs (gays being together).

Its not irrelevant at all. It simply demonstrates the fallacious reasoning behind banning fire arms as a solution to illegal gun sales. Likewise, as i later pointed out, even antigun legislation has done little to curb the problems we are seeing.

And yet you have completely missed my point by talking about the trees and missing the forest. I was NOT arguing an anti-gun stance. Let me try again.

One of your lines of arguments against using the Constitution in support for gay rights wrt gay marriages was that you felt the framers could not have foreseen homosexual marriages. Therefore you are treating the Constitution as a living (i.e. mallaeable) document.

I wasn't missing anything. I was responding the rather bias driven comments concerning gun peddling as you saw it. I was also pointing out my doubts as to their willingness to change the amendment based on their capacity to forsee future events.

My argument concerning the constitution refered to the framers lack of forsight into the change of what we view as marriage. Do we know what their thoughts on marriage were or for that matter what it should be termed? Had they known about the change would they have strictly outlawed it? I can't say. However, this is hardly the point.

If you look back you will realize i likewise discussed the matter of existing anti gay marriage laws (if such exist) and their application to society. I also suggested these laws may be considered unjust. Hense i viewed the legal arguments (for and against) as strawmen.

Yet conservatives (those that traditionally oppose gay marriages) steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the Constitution may be a living document when it comes to the second amendment.

You mean stereotypically.

They are perfectly capable of making a sound argument against the constitution being a "living document" in terms of the flexibility of its interpretation.

It says firearms, well fully automatic rifles are firearms so those shouldn't be outlawed. Waiting periods? Background checks? Those all get in the way of me enjoying my Constitutional right.

I am sure you could make a "sound" legal argument as well.

Why not? Do you have a problem with this?

Your argument that anti gay marriage advocacy is strictly a conservative issue shared amongst all who are termed conservative is in my mind prejudicial.

Got it? In other words, the line of argumentation changes depending on the situation (relativism).

No, in this case its completely irrelevant.

First off no one has to come up with a legal reason to object to homosexual marriage (this was partly my point before). Furthermore, if anti gay marriage laws existed they could be viewed as unjust. Hense i can not see the reason for anyone requiring some one to make a sound legal argument against homosexual marriage. What exactly does that include? At what point would it be considered sound? This whole matter seems to me like discussing the Jim Crow laws. Yes at one point they existed, but does their existance make them just? Not in any fashion.

Say for a moment the constitution defined marriage as that between a man and a woman only. So what? would that suddenly become a sound reason to legally object to homosexual marriage? Would that make the conclusion just?

You seem to have completely misunderstood what i have been saying. When i refered to the foresight of the constitutional framers i was simply suggesting, that from a legal standpoint, we can't be sure what they thought concerning the matter.

Err, conservatives have been known to fight tooth and nail against any gun laws. Am I wrong in my belief?

Completely assinine. Some conversatives have fought any gun law. Not all have. Most fight additional laws as their motive seems to be for better enforcement of existing ones.

 

[Legion]

This is a poor analogy. With drugs comes the illegal infrastructure to support the supply. With gay marriage just how does the issue extend itself to affect others?

That's akin to what I keep on asking for. 1> What is this "damage" to society and 2> Where is proof of this "damage"?

All I got so far was a cryptic message about being against abortion. And then my argument was called assinine.

yes of course because i am obviously engineering an argument against gay marriage.


And yes your argument is assinine. Your implication is that all conversatives feel the same about all things as well as sharing similiar policies and, for that matter, this is a conservative vs liberal issue.

 

[Tagrineth]

Asinine only has one S.

And I suspect that if any anti-Gay-Marriage laws appear (including the Constitutional Amendment), I get the distinct impression it'll be reaching the Supreme Court rather quickly.

 

[Rugor]

A number of people have commented on the intent of the Framers when they wrote the Constitution as if that is important to the issue of gay marriage today.

I don't think it is at all. First, it can be taken as a given that they did NOT envision gay marriage when they wrote the Constitution. Second, and more important, all the evidence we have indicates that they had no concept of "gay" as we know it today.

Before relatively recent times people concerned themselves with acts, not orientations. Oscar Wilde was imprisoned not for being "gay," but for performing homosexual acts with an aristocrat. People were judged by what they did, not as who they were.

That very distinction in how things were viewed in the late eighteenth century makes the idea of what the Framers would have thought relatively unimportant. They just didn't think of those things the way we do.

 

[Legion]

Asinine only has one S.

And I suspect that if any anti-Gay-Marriage laws appear (including the Constitutional Amendment), I get the distinct impression it'll be reaching the Supreme Court rather quickly.

thank you for consulting dictionary.com for me

 

[Vince]

thank you for consulting dictionary.com for me

HA! Don't worry, it was a Freudian Slip when thinking about what he said.