Gay Rights

wally515 wrote:

<quoted text>You missed my point. You have rights and you have priveledges. One is portected by the Constitution the other is restricted by laws and regulations. Your First Amendment right is protected, so use it to exprress your frustrations so your "priveledges" can be less restrictive. Now does my 1st Amendment comment make sense? "hoite lover"?

No. Equal protection is equal protection. the same argument was used to defend voter suppression. The laws have to be applied equally.

the prophet wrote:

<quoted text>
No. Equal protection is equal protection. the same argument was used to defend voter suppression. The laws have to be applied equally.

how is the law requiring you to meet certain criteria not equal?

In the bible it states that a marriage is between a man and women, our government has no right to see over a religious practice. Men and women both gay or strait should have a civil union and everyone has the right to be in a union with whom ever they want with exception of young ages. The churches and religion should see over the marriages. Separate Church and State.

the prophet wrote:

<quoted text>
No. Equal protection is equal protection. the same argument was used to defend voter suppression. The laws have to be applied equally.

My gawd, here we go again..
Prophet, by your comment "Equal protection is equal protection" and "The laws have to be applied equally"
HUH? So you're saying this "equality" should have no age restrictions, or genetic relationship restrictions, or bigamy restrictions? huh?

Or are you saying equality should only apply to whom YOU think it should?

UTOPIA does not exist, it is a delusion created in your mind. There have to be restrictions based on morality, or there will be no society. If you don't like the term "Morality" then make a new word up that descriptively refers to some codes of conduct put forward by a society! Call it what you like. But in the mean time I choose not to live like an animal. Grow up you mental midget.

do you top or bottom

I should be able to be with my man and not get made fun of. I want to marry him and have 13 kids with him.

The idea of this country is nice on paper (Constitution) but that doesn't mean it works. The northern European countries have what a country should be worked out nicely. Denmark has been called the happiest country. The Netherlands, Spain, Canada, and others also have allowed gay marriage and they're all better countries than we are. Instead, our country has decided to divide us into states to make each division effectively another country. This is chaotic in terms of social issues. This was even made evident in the Civil War. It's a joke of a system. The states are fine, but not the differences in laws between them. There's not much that can be done now though. This country's too far down the line in development. Let's watch it fall like Rome and all move to Europe while we let the Native American ancestors reclaim the country that was and still is theirs.

We should be one country with one set of laws with state names only used for designating where to send mail. That's what the founding fathers would have done if they were still around to see the chaos that this country is in.

to be gay is a right. to be born black, asian or white is genetic. who you sleep with is a CHOICE no one is born gay. i like asparagus, but i am allergic. if i eat some, it is my choice, even tho i know i shouldn't eat them. if i do, there are consequences. so it is with being gay. i will never judge anyone for being gay... not my job, but i do believe it is a choice. just as priests choose to follow got and practice celibacy. they are not born priests, but it is a choice. when priests choose to break the celibacy rules, it is a choice... people are not born fat... but people are prejudice against fat people. but it is their choice what to eat and when. if the get diabetes, or have a heart attack it is their own fault for making wrong choices!

blue wrote:

do you top or bottom

Both.

snookie d wrote:

to be gay is a right. to be born black, asian or white is genetic. who you sleep with is a CHOICE no one is born gay. i like asparagus, but i am allergic. if i eat some, it is my choice, even tho i know i shouldn't eat them. if i do, there are consequences. so it is with being gay. i will never judge anyone for being gay... not my job, but i do believe it is a choice. just as priests choose to follow got and practice celibacy. they are not born priests, but it is a choice. when priests choose to break the celibacy rules, it is a choice... people are not born fat... but people are prejudice against fat people. but it is their choice what to eat and when. if the get diabetes, or have a heart attack it is their own fault for making wrong choices!

With dumb ass*oles like you in the world, do you think anyone would actually CHOOSE to be gay? Grow up.

How about a statement that is neither pro-gay nor anti-gay?

Government has no business meddling in people's right to freely associate, and by extension to make contractual arrangements with others.

That's really all we're talking about when we discuss "gay marriage". The right to make a domestic arrangement (contract) with another person. I.e., the right to say "this person and I have agreed to combine and share our estates, and to have power of attorney for each other in case we can't speak for ourselves.

This takes care of all the nuts and bolts issues involved, such as insurance coverage, or "spousal privileges" in the hospital. I should be able to name anyone I wish as my beneficiary or spokesman.

The rest of it is just political bickering over something that should be hammered out in the social arena. If you want to argue incessantly about whether Aunt Neal and Uncle Bob should be as welcome at the neighborhood BBQ as a hetero couple, knock yourselves out.

But, there's this REALLY old piece of paper in our Capitol that says legislating away other people's rights is a bit of a no-no.

Unfortunately, both sides of the argument have decided to politicize a cultural issue. These things never turn out well.

Iron Law #5. Government power used for you today will be used against you tomorrow.

Kelly j wrote:

In the bible it states that a marriage is between a man and women, our government has no right to see over a religious practice. Men and women both gay or strait should have a civil union and everyone has the right to be in a union with whom ever they want with exception of young ages. The churches and religion should see over the marriages. Separate Church and State.

That was pretty good. You are right, it's none of the state's damn business. But it begs the question: Will you still feel the same way if some churches decide to put their stamp of approval on "gay marriage", or will you start singing the "there oughta be a law!" chorus?

derp wrote:

The idea of this country is nice on paper (Constitution) but that doesn't mean it works... Instead, our country has decided to divide us into states to make each division effectively another country. This is chaotic in terms of social issues...We should be one country with one set of laws with state names only used for designating where to send mail. That's what the founding fathers would have done if they were still around to see the chaos that this country is in.

Not much of a civics student, are you? Ever read the Federalist/anti-Federalist papers? The founding fathers had all of these debates already, and they wouldn't change a thing if they were alive today. Other than making the language limiting the powers of the Federal MUCH more specific, so it couldn't be shamelessly corrupted to mean "whatever we want it to mean this time".

Federalism, "states rights", whatever you want to call it, gives you the right to "vote with your feet" over issues that aren't addressed in the Constitution.

If you want gay marriage, move to a state that approves of it. If you want lower taxes in exchange for a smaller safety net, move to a state that agrees with you. Once Uncle Sam sets social policy for everybody, you have to become an ex-patriot to get relief. 51% of the country can decide how the other 49% should live.

The belief that a few of our "best and brightest" can determine what's best for every single person in America, in a top-down, centralized, one-size-fits-all manner is why things are so screwed up now.

Kant feel Pietzsche wrote:

<quoted text>
Not much of a civics student, are you? Ever read the Federalist/anti-Federalist papers? The founding fathers had all of these debates already, and they wouldn't change a thing if they were alive today. Other than making the language limiting the powers of the Federal MUCH more specific, so it couldn't be shamelessly corrupted to mean "whatever we want it to mean this time".
Federalism, "states rights", whatever you want to call it, gives you the right to "vote with your feet" over issues that aren't addressed in the Constitution.
If you want gay marriage, move to a state that approves of it. If you want lower taxes in exchange for a smaller safety net, move to a state that agrees with you. Once Uncle Sam sets social policy for everybody, you have to become an ex-patriot to get relief. 51% of the country can decide how the other 49% should live.
The belief that a few of our "best and brightest" can determine what's best for every single person in America, in a top-down, centralized, one-size-fits-all manner is why things are so screwed up now.

You have stated what is true and done it well. I would only add that we have to suffer the consequences of our, or better put THE courts decision(s) in one state, that ends up "infecting" the whole nation. I think that is a very bad idea even though it has gone on forever. I really dont want one single judge to make a choice for me. Nor do I want what the people voted into law, laid aside by some prejudiced judge aka lawyer!!!! < you get my point>

Kant feel Pietzsche wrote:

<quoted text>
Not much of a civics student, are you? Ever read the Federalist/anti-Federalist papers? The founding fathers had all of these debates already, and they wouldn't change a thing if they were alive today. Other than making the language limiting the powers of the Federal MUCH more specific, so it couldn't be shamelessly corrupted to mean "whatever we want it to mean this time".
Federalism, "states rights", whatever you want to call it, gives you the right to "vote with your feet" over issues that aren't addressed in the Constitution.
If you want gay marriage, move to a state that approves of it. If you want lower taxes in exchange for a smaller safety net, move to a state that agrees with you. Once Uncle Sam sets social policy for everybody, you have to become an ex-patriot to get relief. 51% of the country can decide how the other 49% should live.
The belief that a few of our "best and brightest" can determine what's best for every single person in America, in a top-down, centralized, one-size-fits-all manner is why things are so screwed up now.

I couldn't have asked for a better explanation.

Each of the states that make up the United States of America is a social laboratory for what may or may not work in that state. State laws are different for a reason...what works in one part of the country may or may not work in another. Washington politicians in their haste to be the answer to all problems large and small often attempt to unify laws under the Federal banner that should be left to the states under the Constitution.

bottom of the bottle wrote:

<quoted text>I couldn't have asked for a better explanation.

Each of the states that make up the United States of America is a social laboratory for what may or may not work in that state. State laws are different for a reason...what works in one part of the country may or may not work in another. Washington politicians in their haste to be the answer to all problems large and small often attempt to unify laws under the Federal banner that should be left to the states under the Constitution.

Finally, there is some good discussion and argument on here without name-calling and vilification of those who don't agree with you. Thanks for reaffirming the value of a site like this. I hope JT lasts.

wally515 wrote:

<quoted text>Your right, "what is tolerated in one generation is accepted in the next". Still doesnt make a WRONG a right though regardless of what generation you come from. Right is still RIGHT and wrong is still wrong.

I wasn't going to address this but I will. Just because you feel it is wrong doesn't mean it is a wrong. It is simply no more or no less YOUR belief. Whatever a persons "beliefs" in this world doesn't make them neither right nor wrong. People are willing to outcast and gay and lesbian communities because of their "beliefs" I believe that is wrong, they are human beings. People are going as far as to beat and kill these individuals, that is wrong. Funny thing is, what people seem to forget is...the forefathers of this country took this land from it's own native people and claimed the rights of it. Some of those people were beaten and killed as well, I guess that wasn't wrong? I suppose putting black people on plantations, using them for slavery and beating and killing them wasn't wrong? It is a new era of people. I will leave my beliefs to myself and if that is wrong, I don't care...I see the individual not the choices of their lives. Their lives are theirs. They don't answer to me, never will. I will treat a person no matter what their sexuality, race or whatever else based on how they treat me in return. Why because that is my belief and how I choose to live my life.

Gonzo wrote:

<quoted text>
You have stated what is true and done it well. I would only add that we have to suffer the consequences of our, or better put THE courts decision(s) in one state, that ends up "infecting" the whole nation. I think that is a very bad idea even though it has gone on forever. I really dont want one single judge to make a choice for me. Nor do I want what the people voted into law, laid aside by some prejudiced judge aka lawyer!!!! < you get my point>

well said!