Gaynecticut

[Melchior]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Melchior: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Now, we should give these couples their fair rights legally, and retain the moral issue to its rightful place -- which is the home, and not the judiciary or legislature.

Why? [/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." [/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?

[Melchior]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: You mention the separation of church and state, yet the state will end up dictating to the church on this issue. Is it a one-way seperation - meaning the church can't influence the state but the state can influence the church - or a true seperation? Make up your mind because at the moment you seem to want things both ways.

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". [/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?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Melchior: 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.

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.

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.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

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?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Melchior: 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?

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.]

[Melchior]

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.

[shamrock_uk]

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

[Timber Loftis]

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 ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Melchior: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Everyone there chose to be frikkin turned on!

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? [/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.

[Melchior]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: As I said, I do not dispute that legislating equality is legislating morality.

Excellent. Then we're done with this.