Kerry Concedes

[Dirty Meg]

Originally posted by Cerek: No, Chewbacca, homosexual marriage is NOT about civil rights based on gender. It is about demanding equal rights based on sexual orientation. It is also about re-defining the term "marriage", which our society has decided should be defined as a union between one man and one woman. And your "basic logic" about providing "equality for all" is flawed, because it incorrectly assumes that "same gender marriages" is the only addition needed to the definition of "marriage" to provide equality for all. But what if a person wants to marry two people instead of one? What right do you have to say that 3 people can not love each other as deeply and meaningfully as two people? But if you limit the definition of marriage to just two people, then by your own argument, you are violating the civil rights of those who love two people equally and don't feel they should be forced to choose one over the other as their life partner. And once you change the definition of marriage to include that sub-group, the door is opened for even more additions and revisions to the definition of marriage.

Personally, I do not have a problem with the idea of two people of the same gender in an intimate relationship (as long as they don't do it in the street and scare the horses). I do have a problem with the idea of Bigamy. However, if it makes some people happy, and as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, I don't see any need for Government legislation prohibiting it.
You are entitled to disapprove of homosexuality, but for people with your outlook on life to forbid homosexuals to marry is just as bad as if a country with a atheist majority were to ban Christianity. You are happy to limit other peoples freedom, but if somebody were to forbid you from living your life the way you wanted to, no doubt you would be complaining the loudest.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Dirty Meg: Personally, I do not have a problem with the idea of two people of the same gender in an intimate relationship (as long as they don't do it in the street and scare the horses). I do have a problem with the idea of Bigamy. However, if it makes some people happy, and as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, I don't see any need for Government legislation prohibiting it. You are entitled to disapprove of homosexuality, but for people with your outlook on life to forbid homosexuals to marry is just as bad as if a country with a atheist majority were to ban Christianity. You are happy to limit other peoples freedom, but if somebody were to forbid you from living your life the way you wanted to, no doubt you would be complaining the loudest.

Please show me where I have endorsed limiting the freedoms of homosexuals. Look over all my posts and provide quotes highlighting the part where I said homosexuals should not have equal rights.

If you actually do take the time to do this (and read what I actually posted rather than what you think I posted) you will find that I have not said homosexuals partners should not have the same rights as married couples. What I have said is that the general population of America disapproves of homosexuality and most of them do feel it is a "choice" (based on thier overwhelming support of amendments that were voted on).

When you look over my posts again, you will find that I actually stated I DO NOT support the proposed Amendment to the Constitution that would "officially" define marriage as being between one woman and one man. I stated that this matter should be decided by the individual states - as it has been.

And even though I DO disapprove of homosexuality based on my religious beliefs, I have no problem with gays being allowed to enter "civil unions" that grant them the same rights that married couples receive. I realize it's just a difference of semantics (and a bit silly), but the voting records on the amendments prove that most Americans have a problem with allowing gays to be "married" - so "civil unions" is a compromise that skirts that issue and still increases the rights that gay life partners can receive.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: The logic becomes flawed only when the equation is changed - like you have done by including unions of more than two people into the mix.

That may be true, but it is simply naive to think that others won't try to "change the equation" for their group once you change the definition for another group.

Your basic argument has been that two people should not be denied civil rights simply because they love someone else of the same gender and that expanding the definition to allow this union is the only way to provide "equality to all". I'm just pointing out that a logical extension of that logic is to say that the next step is to say it isn't fair to limit marriage to just two people when there are several citizens in our society that feel they love two other people equally and all three of them feel they should be allowed to marry and receive the same rights as married couples do. For the three people who feel this way, your expansion of "marriage" still does not provide "equality for all". Why should marriage be limited only to two people? Mormons can even bring in the argument that restricting marriage to two people is also a restriction on their religious freedom.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: And whats this about "our society"? Two people of the same gender can freely marry here in Massachussetts where I live and many dictionaries include same-gender marriage as one of the defintions of marriage. Sorry, but "our" society hasnt made the last word yet.

I never said our society has made the last word yet, but our society DID make a very strong statement on the how they felt marriage should be defined when they voted on the State Constitutional Amendments. So, YES, our society HAS spoken on this issue, you just don't agree with what they said.

[aleph_null1]

Originally posted by Cerek: I never said our society has made the last word yet, but our society DID make a very strong statement on the how they felt marriage should be defined when they voted on the State Constitutional Amendments. So, YES, our society HAS spoken on this issue, you just don't agree with what they said.

On the contrary, Cerek, I think Chewbacca's statement reflects what J.D. Harris has been saying all along: The society of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts made its statement about how it felt on the subject.

The society of the rest of -- well, most of -- the nation, which regards the society of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a bunch of homosexual communists , has made its statement. Unsurprisingly, the statements were different.

I see no problem letting each state vote on the question either. I think our little confederation works wonderfully for these sorts of things, along with alcohol & tobacco taxes and vehicle registration [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Aleph, you have a great point...but the problem comes into play here is that We have this pesky federal thing that says that what one states laws permit...then all the other states have to abide by that law. Which is why you had tons of Gay couples streaming in from all different states to San Fran and Mass to get married...because they knew that what was legally binding in those original states had to be upheld in the others....a back door way of getting around the individual states laws....this is wherein the rub lays.


[ 11-05-2004, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

Under the Full Faith and Credit Doctrine, the gay marriages in Massachussets and Vermont can be undone in other states. Most states are addressing this by passing legislation that specifically states whether or not such unions will be valid or null and void in the particular state.

Whereby all the ruckus is generated

[John D Harris]

T.L. you are correct that a ban on civil unions will most likely be ruled Unconstituitonal, States that went so far as to ban civil Unions will be in for a rude awaking. But not all the States did so some did some didn't. Should there be a legal statis for same sex unions or non married heto. unions? Legaly speaking there probibly should, and probibly WILL be, but the unions won't be called marriage.

Now for all you folks down on the religious right thinking they are to blame and that the marriage issue was what gave President Bush his victory. Do the Math in the vast majority of States that had marriage proposals on the ballots the proposal passed in the nieghborhood of 65-70% while President Bush won the state in the nieghborhood ot 51-60%, that means 20-40% of Kerry voters/Dem/Non Religious Right crossed over. Now I shouldn't do this but I'll help the Dems/Libs out here, not that they will listen anyways, the Dems better abandon the Hollywood/NYC crowd and understand they are not the end all be all of this nation. If the Dems don't change they're out of power for a generation or more.

[ 11-05-2004, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by aleph_null1: I think our little confederation works wonderfully for these sorts of things, along with alcohol & tobacco taxes and vehicle registration [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

I see you have stood in a DMV line or two

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by MagiK: Aleph, you have a great point...but the problem comes into play here is that We have this pesky federal thing that says that what one states laws permit...then all the other states have to abide by that law. Which is why you had tons of Gay couples streaming in from all different states to San Fran and Mass to get married...because they knew that what was legally binding in those original states had to be upheld in the others....a back door way of getting around the individual states laws....this is wherein the rub lays.

Didn't the defense of marriage act make it so each State could decide for themselves? ie: Mass-Yea, Alabama-Nay