|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
AndyGodLove  Suspended Member (Idle past 5799 days) Posts: 18 From: Wentworth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Does the fact that "you don't like it" trump the basic civil rights of gays and lesbians? No. Where have I said that it does?
You are the poster child for why the DOMA is unconstitutional. You don't even know what you're talking about. I wasn't even using that as an argument for why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married. You are the poster boy for why liberals are asshats for pushing people into positions they haven't taken just so they can spout their hate speach against them for not sharing their opinions.
I don't think so and that is why we need the constitution to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" - taking away rights of minorities just because people "don't like" something. Taking away? Nobody has taken anything away, what are you talking about? Gay people didn't have a right to marry to begin with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How are we to know when it is part of your argument or just a side comment, then? Context.... uh, hello?
Maybe you better label what is part of your argument and what is not. Better yet, why state it at all if it is not part of your argument? It was an answer to a direct question. Maybe if you read the thread instead of taking one line out of one post (out of context) and using it as if it was the premise an argument then I wouldn't need to label why I type.
Basic civil and human rights should not be at the whim of individual opinion, whether that opinion is in the majority or not. At one time blacks were enslaved and could not vote. That doesn't mean they didn't have the right to be free and to vote. It just meant they could not exercise those rights because yes, the majority had taken those rights away. You're conflating natural rights and legal rights. Black people did not have legal rights before they were granted to them by the Constitution. You're going to have to make a philosophical argument to claim natural rights, which I don't really have an interest in discussing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
what you or the majority "prefers" is not the basis for deciding what rights should be allowed. Really? Then how do people get legal rights?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Surey if people do something that harms no-one else, direcly or indirectly, then more order is achieved by letting them get on with it in peace rather than imposing seemingly prejudiced opinions upon them? Why not let consenting adults marry as they see fit? Or do you think gay marriage would harm people indirectly (or even directly) in a way that heterosexual marriage somehow does not? Yeah. The 1000+ laws were written with the understanding that marriage was between one man and one woman. California has interpreted their constitution and the word marriage to be between any consenting adults. I guess they are free to do that. So now, Utah can legalize polygamy and Mississippi can legalize incestual marriages (sorry Mississippians , oh wait...they don't have computers down there anyways j/k). So we have a bunch of laws that use a word that had a specific meaning, and the definition of that word has changed significantly. ZOMG! Chaos! Who knows what kind of shenanigans the exploiters of the law are going to be able to come up with now. CEO's having poly-marriages and unifying multiple companies, dirk bike buddy's spreading the healthcare system out too thin, etc. Anything like that, that can affect the entire country, has an effect on me personally. I'm glad that DOMA protects me from that (on the federal level). Now, if individual states want to change things for themselves, well I'm under the impression that they have the right to do so, as long as they don't go against the Constitution.
Why not let consenting adults marry as they see fit?
I don't really care if gay people have marriage, per say. But that's not what the word marriage has meant. So its going to take some changes to allow gay marriage. If the people want to make the changes, then more power to them. But I don't think that gays have some natural right to marriage, nor that our Constitution grants them a legal right to marriage. If someone is going to make a legal argument for the rigts of gays that I find fallacious, then I'm going to point it out and argue for what I think is correct. This gets me labeled as a fucking bigot (not by you), but whatever, I think I'm arguing with hateful morons, so it can be expected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From Message 407
quote: As well I should. Guilty. Natural rights SHOULD be legal rights. What moral reason is there for the law to deny natural rights? To get the pyramids built... But moral arguments for natural rights are off topic in a thread on the legal arguments for gay rights. Besides that I'm not at all interested in having moral or philosophical arguments. From Message 408 quote: The "pursuit of happiness" is an inalienable or natural right. By what evidence do you know that natural rights even exist? In 10,000 BC, was the saber-tooth tiger aware of your "natural rights"? At what point did we get natural rights? Where did they come from? I'm not convinced that natural rights even exist. Well, unless you believe in God and want to envoke him as the grand arbiter of what is and what is not a natural right.
It is clear to many people if not a majority that marriage falls within the scope of the "pursuit of happiness" so we need to be careful about arbitrarily denying its benefits to consenting adults. The Constitution guarentees natural rights so that they cannot be abridged by a tyrannical majority who might "prefer" not to grant some natural rights to a minority. You really think the Constitution has that power, huh? What about the Japanese American interment in 1942? American citizens, with all the rights that the Constitution guarantees them, where placed into camps with no if, ands, or buts. If your "rights" can be taken away that easily, then they aren't really Rights, they're priviledges, now aren't they? [thanks George Carlin] We should tread very carefully when trying to deny rights which may be natural rights. It is better to err on the side of protecting or expanding rights when there is doubt and in this case there is substantial doubt. You are welcome to that opinion, sir. But again, this needs to be tied back to the topic of gay marriage for us to continue much further with this discussion. Why did you bring it up in this thread? How does it relate to the topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS, can you provide an example of one of the aforementioned 1000+ laws that would be violated, if the context of marriage were to include same sex couples as well. How about all of them
I actually was partialy swayed by this reason however I can not think of an example that would be detrimental if it included both types of marriages. Thank you. I had a friend a few years back who was from England but living in the U.S. His visa was running out and he was going to have to go back. One of the ways he could have avoided going back was to get married. So he was proposing to all the girls around town, telling them they didn't even have to have a ceremony or have sex with him... just go down to the courthouse and sign the paper so he can stay in the States. lol, he even asked one guy's mom. It didn't work out because none of the girls were willing. If gay marriage was allowed, it would have been a lot easier for him to find a "spouse". We even joked about it. Most of the guys said that they wouldn't have had a problem getting married to him to keep him in the states. Now, this isn't meant to be an example of a reason for disallowing gay marriage. It just exposes some of the types of concerns I have with simply flipping a swtch and allowing gay marriage with no consideration for the consequences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Natural or inalienable rights were cited by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence but they go back a lot further than that. Yes it is off topic so I will give the Wiki link and you can read up on it or not. Natural rights and legal rights - Wikipedia From your own source:
quote: You cannot prove that natural rights even exist. I don't think that they do. Perhaps you could start a new thread on whether or not we have natural rights.
But based on some of the tone of your remarks here - particulary your nasty crack about people in Mississippi - I don't think you are really taking this topic all that seriously so we are done. Pussy.
I won't engage with someone who treats what should be a serious subject like a locker room conversation among sophomoric frat boys These Internets are one huge locker room filled with sophmoric frat boys. You shouldn't take anything seriously in here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But this loophole exists regardless if you have same sex marriage or not. Just because you "think" it "might" be easier to manipulate it doesn't mean that it will be. In this case, it would have been easier simply because he had double the amount of people to ask.
Had your friend asked women with lesser concern for the law than he would have gained citizen status. In effect what I am saying is that being a man or a women had no bearing on whether they said yes or no. I don't believe that. I mean, there we were with all the girls saying no and all the guys saying yeah...
The male friends you refer to may have only said that in jest, seeing how a yes answer really wouldn't have mattered. Sure, it was a hypothetical situation, which is easier to say yes to. But this particular case doesn't really matter that much. It was just an example of one possibility. There's over 1000 laws that menetion marriage, so...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Ahhh, the old "everything is going to be okay... don't worry about it" defense.
I can't believe that changing the definition of a word in over 1000 laws isn't going to have substantial consequences. It simply follows. IANAL so I'm not easily capable of the enumeration you request. It would take a lot of time and effort.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I didn't say that, I said come up with some, even just one substantial bad consequence of allowing gays to marry. Don't expect us to take your paranoid rantings seriously unless you can back them up. Fine. Don't take them seriously. Anything I came up with would probably just be argued against with either "that's not bad" or "that's not substantial". Its too subjective. I think that healthcare costs would go up from the influx of new covered spouses if gay marriage were legalized across the counry one day. But its not like I can prove that or anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think that healthcare costs would go up from the influx of new covered spouses if gay marriage were legalized across the counry one day. But its not like I can prove that or anything.
This sounds like you think that gays are not being treated equally? Is that the case?
How so? Because they don't have health insurance? They can buy that like any other unmarried person, without employer provided healthcare, has to do. But the rise in cost would also be contributed by straight people who marry others of the same sex for the insurance benefits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If we allow x, we must allow y as well." does imply that there is some equivocation between the two. Why else must we allow y if it is not because it shares some properties with x. That's just what "equivocating" means in this part of the woods. The California Supreme Court found that their consitution and definition of marriage means that everyone has the right to enter marriage with a consenting adult of their choice. That means that people have the right to have polygamous marriages and marriages of incest as well as gay marriages, according to their constitution. So, California must legalize both polygamy and incest marrages or they are violating the rights of the people who want to enter those mariages. If you don't support the legalization of polygamy and incest marriages in California then you are a fucking phobic bigot for denying these people their rights. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : 3rd typo today >.<
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
except that they kept the definition as between TWO consenting adults. That excludes polygamy. It doesn't explicitly say TWO...
quote: with the person... hmmm. Does that have to mean only one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
with the person... hmmm. Does that have to mean only one? Person is singular, persons is plural. So it would seem that the wording implies that the "legally recognized family" is refering to only one individual.
I guess if you want to make a semantic argument.... But "the person" doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be only one person. And coupled with these from the decision:
quote: quote: quotes from the California decision on same-sex marriage. So it seems that California's constitution does grant people the right to polygamy. So is everyone going to start fighting for the polygamists now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Person is singular no matter how you look at it. If they had said "a person" instead of "the person", then you'd definately be wrong because you could marry a person, and then go marry another person. When it says the person, it seems to imply only one, but that isn't the case by neccesity. Also, this quote is not determining the law. They could have simply mis-spoke. The context of the decision was in regards to single partner marriages so polygamy could have simply been overlooked. It could easily be fixed by changing it to "the person(s)".
And quote:is simply stating that it is a right extended to all citizens of California. That's not the applicable part... Let me clean it up a bit...:
quote: So even if the semantic argument of the definition of marriage doesn't grant polygamists the right to marry, their right to privacy and personal autonomy does. I think its both, but whatever.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024