Why? </font>[/QUOTE]Fair enough. Answer: Because the most fundamental view of our country is that you can create a uotpia based on one rule -- that you do not harm others, and otherwise you are free -- completely free. This is specifically targeted at not legislating morality. I think it's difficult to legislate morality outside those things that directly hurt/harm other people. I admit that philosophically this stance is shaky for a number of reasons -- chief among them the fact that you can broaden or tighten the whole thing based on your understanding of what constitutes "harm." </font>[/QUOTE]So you're saying the law should be the way you're suggesting just because "it's the right thing to do?" Or is it just because "the founding fathers said this is how it should be".

Both have a sense of either subjective morality, or religious adherance to the writings of long dead men.

Why should homosexuals be given the rights you've suggested? Is there a reason outside the subjective morality that you have?

Get a grip and analyze what you're saying. No church will EVER be forced to perform a ceremony it disagrees with. Legalizing gay marriage will NOT force your local pastor to marry some fags -- it will be totally his and the church's decision as to whether they want to recognize gay unions, or just save them for the altar boys and priests.

However, the current state is that the churches and their congregations have forcefully kept ANYONE from recognizing gay marriages. That's a constitutional no-no. The law can't give favors based on skin color, ethnic background, or genetalia. It's that simple. If the law creates a benefit for two people who partner together for life, it has to make that benefit available to all couples, regardless of whether they are "innies" or "outies". </font>[/QUOTE]Churches, synagogues and mosques could be sued for refusing to marry gays. The bible, torah and koran could be banned for speaking against homosexuality. Muslims nations fear that outcome enough to have railed against certain wording in United Nations declarations. Do they need to get a grip and analyze what they're saying too?

Everything has some subjective base. Dating back to Locke's Second Treatise ("On Property") there has been this notion of a Utopia where the only right you don't have is the right to harm others. Otherwise, you are free to do as you will, and the government should stay outta your way if possible.

This may be subjective, but it is an underlying principle that, to me, America was founded upon. Yes, it is a subjective moral decision to say you are not free to harm others, because in a pure free world, you would be completely free to do that. We call that anarchy, and we have shied slightly away from it, while theoretically keeping as much freedom as possible.

And, all people are to be given equal freedom here. We tried to set this forth, however imperfectly, in the Constitution, a touchstone of how this particular government works.

That said, we cannot argue that allowing one couple to marry and refusing another, based on their sex, is any more fair than refusing their right to marry based on their skin color, hair color, quality of teeth, or their love of The Simpsons TV show.

Quote:

Why should homosexuals be given the rights you've suggested? Is there a reason outside the subjective morality that you have?

Outside the subjective morality that no person should be denied equal protection of the law, there is no real reason. Just as there is no other justification outside that notion that would prevent all people names Melchior from being married.

Inside the paradigm that no person should get legal benefits above others, there is a lot of reason to give them the right to marry. We chose that paradigm -- erm, well, our forefathers did. They didn't know what they were getting into, and were probably surprised when it was pointed out that their very own slaves should accordingly be freed. However, we've stuck to it, for better or for worse.

It's a paradigm most civilized countries have likewise stuck to. It's not a change in the underlying beliefs of the society that we are going through here -- rather, it's realizing that if we want to achieve the theoretical loft goals we set for ourselves, we have to adjust our lives accordingly. Practice what you preach, and all that.

Mm... The only morality I want to legislate was the morality this country was founded on, grasshopper. All are equal. That's not just my morals. That's the Constitution.

Not all religions are opposed to homosexuality. I wouldn't ever dream of forcing Catholic churches to marry gays. Not in a million years. If they do, great. If not... I'm registered under Universal Ministries, and I've been Wiccan for seven years now. There are other options. And hey, whatever happened to civil ceremonies? Remember those?

Homosexuals should be given equal rights because that's what our country is founded on. There is no nonreligious reason to deny gays the right to marry. Got that? Absolutely no nonreligious reason to deny gays the right to marry.

And no, I won't even consider those whiny arguments: "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It's tradition." Yeah, it's tradition. Slavery was a tradition. Segregation was a tradition. Lynching was a tradition. Banning interracial marriage was a tradition. See how much we've grown up as a nation by realizing not all "traditions" are good ones?

Muslim nations don't have our laws. They have obviously not all adopted a moral underpinning of freedom and equality for all, though some have.

Churches could be sued for refusing to marry gays -- but the case would get tossed out in about 2 seconds. You, and your church or other private organization, are allowed to be prejudiced in this country. It's called "freedom of association" and is found in the 1st Amendment. The Boy Scouts won their case, and they are allowed to exclude gays. That's the most recent Supreme Court case on this issue, and the rule stands. There is no reason your church would be treated differently.

We are not concerned -- legally -- with the individuals and their groups who discriminate. [See Footnote] Rather, the constitution forbids the GOVERNMENT from doing so. It is fine for your church to be exclusive, but it isn't fine for the government to be that way. The government's job is to be "hands off" on these issues, and treat everyone equally, and allow them to figure out these things for themselves. Now, it may be "unpopular" for you and your church to be exclusive, but that's a horse of another color. In fact, if it becomes so unpopular that people want to make your church start marrying gays, the very same constitution will be there to protect YOUR minority rights. ;)

_______________________________________

[Footnote -- I am discussing the constitution here, but a side issue is that public accomodation/commerce and fair workplace standards and treatment is also required under the Civil Rights Act. I don't think that affects our discussion here.]

All the constitution and laws of the United States are, are the written and enshrined will of the people. The constitution changes and laws change. Simply stating that gays should be married because that's the constitution is meaningless, because the constitution could be changed.

I'm asking for hard and fast reasons why these rights should be accorded, and all you two can give me is "because the founding fathers said so" and vague moral arguments of equality, despite that you Timber Loftis, in another thread poo-pooed equality for women.

I don't care what the founding fathers did or said.The founding fathers had slavery. The founding fathers were hypocritical in their assesment of human rights in their bold declarations that ignored Blacks.

We've changed the constitution where society has changed. Society can and will change furthermore, and will need constitutional changes as it does.

You need to show solid reason why homosexual marriages should be allowed. Any man can marry any women, whether they love them or not. Marriage has often been about houses and political alliances as much as love.

You are asking to change the status quo so that some unprovable element called love is the determining factor rather than the objective aspect of gender. Any persons could say they are in love and marry each other for financial or immigrationary benefits and who would know? It ultimately destroys the concept of marriage itself, as two male hetrosexuals could marry each other for the said benefits.

You dery legislating morality, yet that's exactly what you are intending on doing. Enshrining a belief that who one loves is more important than who one is and what one can do for society.

That's all fair enough, but please don;t be trying to argue against those pro-hetrosexual marriage for legislating morality. In this matter it's all moral and all subjective, unless one can prove solid objecticve reasons for changing the law.

I'm unconvinced - you can't separate the Founding Father's beliefs from American law. Furthermore, good luck changing the constitution on this one...I'll buy you a pint if its done within the next 50 years ;)

As I said, I do not dispute that legislating equality is legislating morality. That's the moral, equality.

Except for genetalia, I don't see what's different about a male/male couple and a female/male couple.

And, yes, the Constitution *can* change -- it did after the Civil War, when the 13th and 14th amendments -- those at issue here -- were enacted. It takes a supermajority of the legislators and the states to change the constitution, and that is the protection afforded against whimsical change.

Other than law, we're arguing opinion here. They are going to couple together, whether it is a recognized union or not. They are going to have children, pay taxes, work, buy college funds and IRAs, own homes, and die. In all those things, I see no reason to deny them the common human dignity that other couples get. I also see no reason to alienate them from society, when what we need to do is bring them into the fold. You are right in that marriage is about houses and property and all these benefits the government doles out to married couples. I see no reason why a couple should not be able to enjoy those benefits, despite their lack of the proper genital accoutrements. Of course, that circles back to the underlying moral paradigm -- equal treatment to all by the government -- that underlies this country (and is bigger than the Constitution alone, merely reflected in it).

I met a woman whose lover died alone and in pain -- the prejudiced medical staff would not let them spend their last minutes together because they were not married or "next of kin."

I met a woman who had adopted a child with her partner -- the partner was the "parent," as the laws would not let them adopt together. After raising the child for 10 years, the partner died. The partners estranged parents showed up and took the kid from the woman. Think of what that kid suffered -- he lost both parents.

I can explain the law and how a legal structure would work, but what you seek are opinions and evidence. I saw a literal parade of horribles when I was working in a legislature that was drafting a civil union law. It's funny, after seeing all these inequities, the good Republicans and Democrats of Vermont, all well on in their years, many conservative, many being dead-set against it before seeing the evidence, nevertheless risked their very jobs to enact a Civil Union. It was a beautiful thing.

In the end, you'll have to make up your own mind. Either you have more hate for these people for being different than you have sympathy for their suffering, or you don't.

Separate issue: Where did I poo-poo equality for women?

[ 04-27-2005, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

So you're telling me you can't switch it off? Do you really mean to tell me you have that little control over your own mind and body? I pity you. You are a slave to your desires then, and therefore a slave to women that turn you on.

If I get turned on it's because I chose to let go. I chose to give in to my instincts. I have control over my willpower. My partner has confidence and trust in me, because they know my commitment to them overrides whatever temtpation may come my way.

As for your friends gal, she was simply an unpaid stripper for the night. She got sucked in to performing for free what the others were getting paid to do. Stripping is a job. They do it for the money. If you think otherwise, you've fallen for the act hook line and sinker sucka.

Who would pay for what they can get for free anyway? </font>[/QUOTE]Hmmmm... I missed this earlier. As for me, as I said I CHOSE to be turned on. As for "switching it off" -- whatever, I could, and have, but see no need to generally. As for being a slave to this or that, again -- pffft. You can keep your pity -- unless your charitable thoughts come with a monetary handout to back them up (PM me for my address if interested).

As for my friend's gal, actually what it reveals is her underlying nature as an exhibitionist. And, good for her. She was doing what she wanted. As for being an "unpaid stripper" - is that supposed to be insulting? Howsabout we characterize her as a "very wealthy and attractive woman who likes to shake her ta-ta's at a party every now and then." She certainly didn't make her decisions based on money.

There's no one falling for anything here. Just some people who are more open than you. Obviously. Which makes me wonder who is more to pity.

Excellent. Then we're done with this.

Cute. No, I win!! *runs*

Perhaps you could explain this doosey:

-------
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

----

It would seem to me that the basis for the equality you pursue is ultimately founded in a morality based on stated religious truths. So true they were believed "self evident".

Perhaps you can also explain where the separation of church and state occurs in this declaration.

Well, I could explain it as nonsequiter. ;)

But, instead I will endeavor, though this is out of my range. "The Creator" was an agreeable phrase acceptable to all the delegates at the signing of the Declaration -- many of whom were Pantheists or otherwise non-Christian in their beliefs. Think of it like the phrase "sustainable development" -- ambiguous enough to be acceptable to all.

As for the separation of church and state, you'd need to delve into the federalist papers to find the best discourse. You've quoted the Declaration of Independence, which was put together a decade before the Constitutional Convention, so that makes a comparison difficult. Nevertheless, the document you've quoted goes on to (1) state the MAJOR underlying justification I argue supports civil unions -- that all men are created equal, and then (2) identify 3 inalienable rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness -- changed slightly in the Constitution to be life, liberty, and property) that all men should not be denied by the government, especially without representation. That goes to support the argument I made that generally one of our underlying principles is that the government should remains "hands off" in controlling our lives. [See Footnote.]

I think you're just making connections that aren't there. Look, as I stated, no one is saying your church should be forced to marry gays. All we are saying is that if the government is going to dole out privileges to couples, the notion of equality, backed by the 14th Amendment, prevents it from doing so on an arbitrary basis such as gender. It's fine for churches to refuse to marry someone, but the government has no business in it.

That said, an equally acceptable solution is to do away with LEGAL marriage. Either you give these legal benefits freely to all couples, or you don't give it at all. Understanding this requires you to take a step back and realize there are 2 types of marriage -- (1) the church/spiritual union and the (2) set of legal benefits of coupling (also called "marriage"), which include inheritance, property, tax, and other privileges. If #2 is causing us so much constitutional trouble, either make #2 available to all or do away with #2 altogether.

[Footnote: Another thing to note about the Declaration as something that makes it a difficult document to compare with the Constitution is that it serves a wholly different purpose. The Declaration does not set up a government or governing principles. Rather, it is a list of charges against a sovereign that gives way to a conclusion that the sovereign's rule is unjust and unlawful, and further gives way to a statment that the colonies will now be a new, independent sovereign. It is a "Declaration of Independence," an announcement of an action, not a governmental structure or statement of governmental principles that the colonies will follow.]

[ 04-28-2005, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Keep jumping through those hoops Timber. I don't see how an athiest could comfortably sign off on created rights bestowed by any creator. Suit yourself though. If you can't see your contradictions that's your problem not mine.

What are you trying to prove here? And how can you point at "creator" and ignore "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" and "all men created equal" and that other good stuff? You can't pick out the stuff you like and leave out the rest. Doesn't work that way.

I didn't ignore or leave anything out.

........ Excellent. Then we're done with this.

<span style="color: lightblue">It is not our choice what entertains us. Do you choose to be tempted, or do you simply choose whether to act according to that temptation?
Do we, as members of this forum, come to Ironworks because we decided we should enjoy it, or do we come simply because we do enjoy it?
Do we, as citizens of our repective nations, choose our religious and political swayings by flipping a coin, or do we push for what seems most plausable and advantagous to us?

Do we, as heterosexuals, choose to like women, or do we choose which women we like? And why should we assume that gays are any different?

<font color = lightgreen>*sigh* They're always playing the same old movie on this channel.

Homosexual unions/marriages should be allowed--and be legally equivalent to--heterosexual marriage because there is no logical reason for there to be any inequality. No, the law should not force any church or person to officiate such a union if they disagree with it, but that merely serves to point out the major problem with freedom: if you have the freedom to agree with something or think it should be allowed then others have the freedom to disagree with that thing and think it should not be allowed.

One of our highest ideals is, of course, "all men are created equal". Lawmakers carried this a little further and tried to make sure that the law protects and guarantees equality for everyone; whether or not you think equality exists is irrelevant because equality already exists. Any person who thinks they are somehow "less than equal" winds up creating their own reality in which they are less than equal. Don't bother citing specific examples of inequality because other specific cases could be found to support the notion that equality exists; the "yes, but" game would wind up wasting only your own time. If, in a worst-case scenario, a law is found that does support inequality then it should be immediately struck down because the Constitution already guarantees equality.

That last sentence raises one other interesting point. The law must be made to support equality and fairness for everyone because one function of the law is to provide a "level playing field". Unfortunately, one cannot outlaw an individual from discriminating against others because that is a personal choice. </font>

I choose to be happy, sad, entertained or in love. Dunno about anyone else.

Prejudice is such a neat thing to look at, because the very notion behind prejudice is illogical -- that of treating one thing different from another based on irrelevant distinctions.

[ 04-28-2005, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

<font color = lightgreen>I think that is why some people have a problem with equality--they don't want to consider that the person who doesn't look or behave like them is equal to them.

Naturally, I am above this. As an elitist, I treat everyone equally disdainfully. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

Then you're honestly the first man I've met [virtually] who can keep in check his emotions. I salute you for being able to control all the hormones and chemical substances our body pumps around. I, for one, can't.

Screw all those depressed and suicidal people... They should be like you, and choose to be happy!

I think we have a new Yorick.

[img]graemlins/1drinkspit.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/1drinkspit.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/1drinkspit.gif[/img]

Hint: It's the 'THEIR' part. An Athiest may not believe he/she has a creator (old bearded man who sits on a throne in the clouds) but invariably they must believe they were created which is of course different than a creator.

Hint: It's the 'THEIR' part. An Athiest may not believe he/she has a creator (old bearded man who sits on a throne in the clouds) but invariably they must believe they were created which is of course different than a creator. </font>[/QUOTE]All well and good, but the creator is mentioned in the following sentence. In any case the state of being created implies a creator.

Screw all those depressed and suicidal people... They should be like you, and choose to be happy! </font>[/QUOTE]Go ahead and laugh. The fact is you cannot control what happens to you, but you can control your reaction to it.

Then you're honestly the first man I've met [virtually] who can keep in check his emotions. </font>[/QUOTE]You've never met any Englishmen then have you? ;)

No it doesn't.

[ 04-28-2005, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

<font color = lightgreen>Actually, it does. Whether or not you have religious or philosophical beliefs, the reality of the situation is that every person was indeed created by their parents. </font>

I wasn't created by my parents, I was birthed by them.

A creation is something formed by intent and design. Bothe the words creator and creation come from the VERB "create". A doing word by definition needs someone to do the doing. ;)

It means: to bring into existence.

You could appear, develop or occur without a creator, but you cannot be created without one.

In any case it's moot, because the founding fathers clarified by saying that all men were bestowed certain rights by their creator (singular, not their parents for example)

Face it. The moral equality being espoused has it's roots in theistic morality. Everyone involved is seeking to legislate morality. If you have beliefs of right and wrong, and seek to make laws around them, you're legislating morality.

Actually, the morality of equality relates back to some things in Locke's second treatise. And, yes, it is theistic, as many of our founding philosophers were. Locke's morality based on theology is that you own yourself. In his view, once you mix yourself with the land through your labor, you own the fruits of such labor, as it is a product of yourself. That's his justification for property ownership.

From that justification for property ownership, we move into a philosophy of equality, based on the notion that no one, especially the government, should interfere with your ownership of yourself and your subsequent ownership of the fruits of your labor.

But, these men were religious, living in a time when most men were religious. The fact that an underlying truth of the human condition is revealed through or via a religious notion does not change the fact that it is an underlying truth. That's how I see it.

Anyway, you asked for a take on the language referencing "The Creator" in the Declaration. From my point of view, as an aetheist who recognizes that the universe is infinite and barely understandable, it is my view that the universe is the Creator. And, in my view, regardless of who or what the Creator is, equal treatment of the people by the government is an underlying concept that transcends any religious notion.

In my view, logic alone, sans religion, can justify the notion that the government ought to treat all people equally.

The Declaration of Independence is perfectly stated for my non-theistic beleifs.
The first bit is plainly non-theistic to me. The Creator refered to is #1. self-evident. #2 is my own. #3 Endowse me with some excellent and thoughtworthy rights. It could be my own self-image or pure imagination and still qualify.

The rest has nothing to do with, implied or otherwise, theism. Government is made by individuals- citizens the people and ruled by the governed- citizens the people. When government becomes destructive- and particularly limits the rights mentioned, than the people have right to alter, chnage and even abolish government to meet the demands of everyone's Self-evident rights. Government is changeable, that is our system.

Spells out to me why so much has changed since the Nation's inception and why more chnage is ahead- because laws were deemed bad. Then changed or abolished and the result- individuals and society were made healthier, freer and able to pursue more happiness.

I think the Declaration of Independence shows an ultimate statement of rational moral equality and superiority. A model of why leglislating "morality" isn't a bad thing.


Expanding freedom, securing equality, and creating space for the doors of opportunity to open are the superior morals. Which side is on this side? That should be the measuring stick for this debate.
Clearly The wrong side wants to limit opportunity and support legal inequality.

[ 04-29-2005, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Screw all those depressed and suicidal people... They should be like you, and choose to be happy! </font>[/QUOTE]Go ahead and laugh. The fact is you cannot control what happens to you, but you can control your reaction to it. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I do laugh. Loudly and frequently.

See, the biggest problem with debating people like you is that I'm not allowed to blow smoke rings at you the way you're doing.

"So what are you saying? That victims of assault, domestic violence, rape, and terminal illness should just chin up? I think you need to justify your response here."

Okay then, you win. We're legislating morality. But MY interpretation of morality is more in line with the Constitution. To deny homosexuals the right to marry is discriminatory and infringes on their right to life, liberty, and happiness. Your morality here is not the Constitution's morality. How's that?

[ 04-29-2005, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

I have a couple of late responses to interject, as I assumed someone else would do it a few days ago.

I don't worry about possible repercussions to professional diagnoses of homosexuality at least. In 1973 the APA removed homosexuality from it's diagnostic list of mental disorders.

http://www.psych.org/public_info/homose~1.cfm

This, as well as just about any practical individual experience we might have, should prevent us treating homosexuality as a genetic disorder like Down's Syndrome(*), to use a particularly disabling genetic disorder. From a social perspective, homosexual people are fully functional, and what I've read would indicate that they've got higher than average education and income levels in the United States. You'll also note that the APA does not endorse "reparative therapies" that attempt to 'cure' people of homosexuality. On that point, this says more than I care to, though it does assert a failure rate of 99.98%, enough to provoke the explanation that only bisexual people may be 'repaired', or trained to repress urges for the same sex. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod.htm


The hypothesis that homosexuality is purely a matter of choice is one that is currently, as it will always be, an opinion that cannot be examined as a falsifiable hypothesis (a prerequisite to scientific inquiry). In other words, there will never be any remotely objective evidence supporting it. In my opinion, it started on shaky ground and will be chipped away piece by piece as we learn more about human (and other animal) sexuality, the exact role of hormones in sexual development, and not just 'the brain', but how each brain differs. Ask yourself, what kinds of evidence could ever support this? The hypothesis that sexuality has biological components tempered by cultural influences, however, can be, and some would say, is already supported by scientific evidence. I bring this up because the scientific debate is about origins, between nature and nurture, not the choice of behavior.

Of course that wasn't stated as a hypothesis. More philosophically, is free-will a cross-spectrum universal assumption for humans? If so, it colors homosexuality, and indeed all behaviors in an entirely different light. To me, absolute free will is bad assumption. To say that "I make my choice" without considering the role that "I" have in that choice, what contributed to that choice, and what contributed to the development of the individual making that choice is tantamount to ignoring everything, be it biological or social, that goes into that person's development. It would be silly to pretend that we are slaves to fate, not responsible for anything we do, but IMO it's equally silly to pretend that we are fully free to make decisions without the clouding of emotion, biases, ignorance, or the benefit of experience and any capacity for human cognition. For a look at free will in a deterministic world, particularly in the evolution of human cognition, check out Daniel C. Dennet's Freedom Evolves.

An underlying point of mine is that we don't know the nature of human sexuality. I am obviously of the opinion that scientific inquiry, with a healthy dose of skepticism, supercedes any other method we have where it can be appropriately applied. However, if you find me making claims of absolute truth, which has taken this thread in loops already, it is sheerly by mistake or oversight. Even in the most well grounded science it's not right to say we can absolutely prove something. That's for mathematicians.**

Some have chosen to invoke personal experiences, anecdotal evidence, historical, theological/philosophical, and I do too, you know, being a fallible human and all that. None of those lead to absolute truth either IMO, though some such claims have come out of a couple of those lines of inquiry in this thread already. I think it puts us in the wrong by default when we speak of absolute truths (especially) when we're dealing with people, behaviours, or any other observable entities in real time (ie, in which falsifiable hypotheses could be tested).

I cannot recommend this article more as a reasonably up-to-date overview of scientific efforts to understand sexual preference. As I stated before, you won't find a definitive answer here, but you will probably learn something you didn't know before. I did. That's why we're here right? Maybe not... :D

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html


*I'm only guessing this what Azred meant by the term genetic disorder, at least in the context of how it would be a VERY undesirable classification. Of course, in the strictest functionalist-materialist definition, not having sexual desire or the wish to form lasting bonds with a person whom you could procreate with IS disadvantageous to a trait's chance to be replicated, but that's a practical problem between that trait and natural selection. Given any biological role in sexual preference, any moral decision on the matter is arbitrary and, if it's a moral judgement of condemnation, wholly at odds with the prevailing sense of justice others have described. It would be very similar to racism and sexism as I see it. Note that I happily noted Azred's fair equal disdainful treatment of all of us lessers ;)

**I didn't want to interrupt the body with the following snotty comment: for those of us that accept that we don't yet know the exact nature of human sexuality, perhaps we shouldn't err on the side of discrimination, just as a precaution. :D

Screw all those depressed and suicidal people... They should be like you, and choose to be happy! </font>[/QUOTE]Go ahead and laugh. The fact is you cannot control what happens to you, but you can control your reaction to it. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I do laugh. Loudly and frequently.

See, the biggest problem with debating people like you is that I'm not allowed to blow smoke rings at you the way you're doing.

"So what are you saying? That victims of assault, domestic violence, rape, and terminal illness should just chin up? I think you need to justify your response here."</font>[/QUOTE]Have you heard of the term "looking at the glass half full?" Sometimes it's hard to do, but if you chose to count the things youhave right now, rather than the things you've lost, or fear you may lose. Of course if you're in physical pain, that's not pleasant, but physical pain usually passes, and in any case exists as the body's warning and self protection system. So actually pain is a positive thing if you choose to see it as such. Without pain, you'd be like a leper. Limbs falling off, blood flow stopping, breaking bones.

Instead of just ridiculing optimism, why not try it for ust a second, and look around and take stock of all the "little things" you're taking for granted. Like being cogniscant. Speaking online to people who knows where. Being literate. Having enough logic to argue.

Or you can chose to look at what sucks.

Quote:

Okay then, you win. We're legislating morality. But MY interpretation of morality is more in line with the Constitution. To deny homosexuals the right to marry is discriminatory and infringes on their right to life, liberty, and happiness. Your morality here is not the Constitution's morality. How's that?

I disagree

I disagree [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Well, you're wrong.

Tell you what, since you've asked for us to argue pretty thoroughly, why don't you do either of the following:
1. Tell us how the Constitution does not support equal treatment of Americans by the government; OR

2. In the alternative, tell us how forbidding gays from marrying or entering into some sort of civil union giving them access to the legal perks of marriage does NOT offend the constitutional requirement that those couples be treated equally. (Please note: ain't no one here dumb enough to buy the argument that "Gays can still equally marry --- they can marry people of the opposite sex." That's like saying "Jews are free to worship if we outlaw temples -- they can worship at church" So, please don't join the rest of redneck inbred Americuh in pretending that's an intellectual argument. Other than that, the field's wide open.)

I disagree that homosexuals are not allowed to marry Timber Loftis. You may poo poo the argument as redneck, but any man whether homosexual or otherwise, can marry any women, whether lesbian or otherwise. Additionally, any man can live, love and be happy with any other man. That the man-man relationship is not given the same financial benefits reflects the nature of Americas desire to create a certain society. Cousin-cousin marriages are disallowed in most states (Maryland is an exeption) for the same reason. So to are sibling marriages, parent-child marriages, adult-child, child-child and polygamous marriages.

Every cousin, parent, sibling, paedophile, polygamist or child disallowed marriage could cry the same discrimination argument that homosexuals are now crying. America does discriminate in an attempt to create and maintain a certain society. That society believed all were created equal and given by their creator certain rights of equality, and that clearly includes the right to marry an adult, non related member of the opposite sex, not just "whom you love or want to have sex with".

That notwithstanding, gays are not prevented from engaging and maintaining loving cohabitational relationships with people they love.

[ 04-29-2005, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Melchior ]