An honest question for Republicans/Obama bashers...

reefraff

Active Member
My whole issue with this political correctness crap is that where reasonable people gave an inch years ago the left wing loons have now been allowed to take a mile.
If you beat someone with a pogo stick why should your punishment be more sever if the beatee happened to be gay, black or fill in the blank? Why is it when a black man is beaten by a white it is a hate crime but if a white is beaten by a black, which is about 90 times more common, there is no special circumstances?
 

prime311

Active Member
I think hate crimes are stupid. Crimes are crimes. That said I don't understand why people have a problem with gay marriage. It doesn't cause anyone any harm. We arent legalizigng murder. Its just the christian right trying to impose what they feel is gods will, but that isn't the governments job to do(nor is it mans at all). I support any laws that make sense and, as an example, the ban on gay marriage just doesn't make sense to me because it doesn't really hurt anyone. What am I missing here?
I find it ridiculous tax dollars are being spent to fight the states on this in courts. Is this what we really need to worry about? I have a better idea. Remove the word marriage from all government language. The government only recognizes civil unions for tax, insurance, and other legal purposes. Now you can say you're wobbly gobblied instead of married or call it anything you want, but all the state or feds care about is that you have a legal civil union. Arguing over semantics is a waste of resources.
 

prime311

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3030129
This is a slippery slope. Think about it. Any decision not to do something based on gender orientation has now been equated with racism. So say a photographer who says no I won't do a gay wedding is now "discriminating" and thus open to prosecution.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=75547 (sorry I couldn't find a more mainstream news service.) For some strange reason this got burried...
I'm not going to stand here and say its up to the government to tell a private business what they can and can't do. It just seems a bit hypocritical to me though that you have a problem with the government regulating a private businesses decisions, but its ok for them to make decisions about who can and can't benefit from being married.
 

prime311

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3030175
If you can't say it is between one man and one woman you can't really make a legitimate case against polygamists and a host of other crap.
Who's to say polygamy is wrong? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? My only issue with recognizing polygamy is the host of legal issues that go along with it. We'd need to redesign our whole tax system.
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by prime311
http:///forum/post/3031646
Who's to say polygamy is wrong? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? My only issue with recognizing polygamy is the host of legal issues that go along with it. We'd need to redesign our whole tax system.
I'd put polygamy with promiscuity, it leads to rampant STD's. These lead to cancer, ectopic pregnancy, infertility and other problems.
The biggest problem I see with polygamy.... who needs more than one woman in their life?
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3031359
True, I can also show countries in the world where women are property. Where men have multiple wives and some of them as low as 9 in age. Where people actively and openly have a relationship with an animal.
With that said I am unsure of what this has to do within our own country. I am approaching it from a U.S. law standpoint and a U.S. view. What the rest of the world does in this regard is no concern of ours really.....
A society has, without question, IMO, the right to self determination. Like I said, interesting can of worms.
science has shown the human brain is not fully developed at the young age.....but if the parents of a child consent to allow their 13 year old to marry and join with a 30 year old, the laws of this nation allow in certain states for the adult to still be prosecuted...regardless of consent. The psycological side of this shows this type of behavior to have long term emotional detrimental effects on the young.....but regardless of all that....
Everyone agrees to this and consents....so should the law stand in the way?
Kinda fuzzy logic - not on your part - but in that there is no firm deliniation. Big difference between the brain's biological development (roughly complete between age 18-22ish, dependent on gender) and emotional maturity, for example.
Nambla is a huge minority..........huge....should they receive the same rights and be given the same options and protections? If you say no.....then how are they any different than those asking for gay marriage as the minority?
I do say no.
For one thing, one situation involves consenting adults. The other does not. A society absolutely has a right to determine the age of consent.
Part of the purpose of the law is to protect minorities and those otherwise unable to speak for themselves. Gays fall under the former category and children under the latter. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can have both.
Neither are no where near the racial struggle of our historical past. and can't even be compared or seen as similarities.
I'll give you that on the Nambla argument. I won't on gay marriage. The two are in no way equivalent, and therefore cannot be lumped together as part of the same argument.
Marriage is a State sanctioned institution which the Constitution does not address. Instead, it is incentivised through the tax code. If an adult couple can enter into a contract with the State that allows them rights and grants them priveledges, then it is discriminatory not to extend those same rights and priveledges to another couple simply based on the pair's gender. (Tax breaks, insurance benefits, hospital visitation, the list goes on.)
To go even further...historically there have been empires that fell shortly after public acceptance of open and active homosexual acts/lifestyles. Now I will say this occurance did not itself bring about the fall of some of these empires, but my personal opinions is it did allow the door to open to other acts and thought process not healthy or conducive in an educated and civil society.....granted each of these empires did have other major problems and this was very small comparatively.
You're absolutely correct. I'm not sure on that one either. I could argue the order of events, but I don't think it really matters in the long run.
Perhaps we are too young yet, as a species, to distinguish the boundaries between excess and egalitarianism. I honestly don't know.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by prime311
http:///forum/post/3031641
I'm not going to stand here and say its up to the government to tell a private business what they can and can't do. It just seems a bit hypocritical to me though that you have a problem with the government regulating a private businesses decisions, but its ok for them to make decisions about who can and can't benefit from being married.
Seeing that local Government is the organization that licenses Marriages. I think they can define what they recognize as marriage. There is nothing stopping anyone from having a ceremony and saying their married.
 

acrylics

Member
Dunno, I see "marriage" as simply a legal document. It has nothing to do with religion, not in this society as I see it. If it did - a judge/magistrate would not be able to perform it, and you would not need a lawyer (or at least *just* legal documentation) to get out of it. In fact you can go through 50 years of marriage without ever seeing a minister of any sort. So if a man and a woman can bind themselves in a legal document, why not 2 men or 2 women? Is there some special right that a man/woman bond creates that cannot be enjoyed by others?
As for social norms, there was a time when minorities could not use the same bathrooms as white folks, they could not sit in the front of the bus, they could not vote, they could not marry, and so on... should we not have enacted civil rights laws just to keep from breaking the social norms?
I've had this conversation with a few folks, the bottom line (from what I've seen) is that people that are against gay marriages simply think it's "yucky." Fine, you are entitled to your thoughts & opinions, but laws should not be enacted due to any sort of "yuck factor" but instead be enacted for equal treatment of all.
I do agree with getting rid of "hate crimes" though, they inherently disregard equal treatment under law IMO.
...then again, I'm against 90% (or more) of all laws anyway. To make another forbidding someone of enjoying the same rights as others goes directly against my belief structure.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by prime311
http:///forum/post/3031646
Who's to say polygamy is wrong? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? My only issue with recognizing polygamy is the host of legal issues that go along with it. We'd need to redesign our whole tax system.
But you see that is the problem. I really don't have an issue with 2 adults doing what ever they want as long as I don't have it thrown in my face (which a lot of gays seem to revel in doing) or a group who wants to marry. I think I could ride herd on a gaggle of 18 year old wives, or at least would like to try

We would also have to redesign our entitlement systems as well if polygamy was legalized, which I believe it will be the way things are going.
I think the government should do something like kinship contracts where any two people can extend the legal protections AND obligations of marriage to each other. What if you have two old friends who are both widowed and have no family (or family they want anything to do with) and would like the other to make their decisions should the become incapacitated and want them to have their assets should they die? Instead if issuing marriage licenses it would be the kinship agreement and it would be up to churches who they would perform marriage ceremonies for.
Of course the gay activists* would never settle for that because they want their lifestyle choice to be normalized. Sorry you have a right to do what you want but homosexuality is not "normal".
*Activist: A big mouthed fool who makes others who believe like them look like idiots
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3032431
Seeing that local Government is the organization that licenses Marriages. I think they can define what they recognize as marriage. There is nothing stopping anyone from having a ceremony and saying their married.
Quite correct on the licensing part. It is a State's rights issue.
Trouble is, that license carries with it some priveledges and rights which are not afforded to those couples who don't qualify. There's a grey area here which is not addressed by the federal Constitution, but does potentially fall under the Civil Rights act of 1964.
The issue needs to be adjudicated.
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3032790
But you see that is the problem. I really don't have an issue with 2 adults doing what ever they want as long as I don't have it thrown in my face (which a lot of gays seem to revel in doing)
The gay people I know echo that opinion - i.e. that hetero couples throw their priveledges, rights and lifestyles in their faces.
We would also have to redesign our entitlement systems as well if polygamy was legalized, which I believe it will be the way things are going.
What's wrong with that? We've done it before. The law cannot remain static - we learn, we adjust. If we didn't, we'd still be living w/ slavery.
I think the government should do something like kinship contracts where any two people can extend the legal protections AND obligations of marriage to each other. What if you have two old friends who are both widowed and have no family (or family they want anything to do with) and would like the other to make their decisions should the become incapacitated and want them to have their assets should they die? Instead if issuing marriage licenses it would be the kinship agreement and it would be up to churches who they would perform marriage ceremonies for.
That's a great idea
Seriously. There was nothing in Prop 8 in CA that required churches to perform ceremonies which they found to be morally objectionable. In fact, the proposition specifically excluded mandatory participation on the part of a church.
I do draw a line between State and Religious sanctioned ceremonies. I believe the 1st Ammendment does too. I would like to see the Gov't follow its own rules.
Of course the gay activists* would never settle for that because they want their lifestyle choice to be normalized.
A) How do you know that? B) So what?
The statement borders dangerously on the Civil Rights arguments against that I listened to in the 60's.
Sorry you have a right to do what you want but homosexuality is not "normal".
As long as the priveledges accorded to those rights are applied equally under the law - it matters not to me. I do have a problem with a priveledged class of any type. Sorry if that makes me sound Bolshevik. I do believe that the Founding Fathers promoted the idea before Marx and Lenin did though.
In the end, both systems are flawed. The Constitutional Republic has the better chance of righting itself, however.
*Activist: A big mouthed fool who makes others who believe like them look like idiots
mmmm... Let's not go there - I'd prefer to remain civil.
 

acrylics

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3032431
Seeing that local Government is the organization that licenses Marriages. I think they can define what they recognize as marriage. There is nothing stopping anyone from having a ceremony and saying their married.
No, there is nothing stopping them. But there is a big difference between saying you're married vs actually being married and having that marriage recognized under law.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3033051
The gay people I know echo that opinion - i.e. that hetero couples throw their priveledges, rights and lifestyles in their faces.
What's wrong with that? We've done it before. The law cannot remain static - we learn, we adjust. If we didn't, we'd still be living w/ slavery.
That's a great idea
Seriously. There was nothing in Prop 8 in CA that required churches to perform ceremonies which they found to be morally objectionable. In fact, the proposition specifically excluded mandatory participation on the part of a church.
I do draw a line between State and Religious sanctioned ceremonies. I believe the 1st Ammendment does too. I would like to see the Gov't follow its own rules.
A) How do you know that? B) So what?
The statement borders dangerously on the Civil Rights arguments against that I listened to in the 60's.
As long as the priveledges accorded to those rights are applied equally under the law - it matters not to me. I do have a problem with a priveledged class of any type. Sorry if that makes me sound Bolshevik. I do believe that the Founding Fathers promoted the idea before Marx and Lenin did though.
In the end, both systems are flawed. The Constitutional Republic has the better chance of righting itself, however.
mmmm... Let's not go there - I'd prefer to remain civil.
All you have to do is listen to any number of the gay activists to understand they want there lifestyle looked upon as normal. So what you say? well, to begin with it isn't normal. Not being normal doesn't make you a bad person.
I find most people who rush to label themselves as an activist tend to be overbearing flakes at a minimum. The gay activists I referred to are the gay idiots or better put, idiots who happen to be gay who insist on intentionally getting in people's face. I am not talking about holding hands or kissing in public. I am talking about the freakazoid jerks who crash the mass at a Catholic Church ( not that I don't have problems with that organization too) or intentionally engaging in lewd acts in public like you see in many of the gay day parades. I've personally known a few gay people throughout the years and they all were good folk who weren't too thrilled when others would do that crap.
I have no issue with changing the structure of the tax code or social services either one to accommodate polygamist marriage. It is better for everyone involved if there was a legal recognition of the marriages.
I don't think there should be a privileged class. The rules should apply to everyone equally. Doesn't mean everyone will enjoy equal success nor should we take too many steps to try to equal the playing field. That usually results in a new government program and rich and poor alike end up paying for that.
Also once a state sanction gay marriage it is very likely that you will see churches end up defending their decision not to perform gay marriages in court. Look at that case against the photographer in New Mexico. She told a gay couple she didn't care to photograph their commitment ceremony (NM doesn't recognize gay marriage) and she was drug up before some lame human rights commission and fined.
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3033504
I find most people who rush to label themselves as an activist tend to be overbearing flakes at a minimum. The gay activists I referred to are the gay idiots or better put, idiots who happen to be gay who insist on intentionally getting in people's face. I am not talking about holding hands or kissing in public. I am talking about the freakazoid jerks who crash the mass at a Catholic Church ( not that I don't have problems with that organization too) or intentionally engaging in lewd acts in public like you see in many of the gay day parades. I've personally known a few gay people throughout the years and they all were good folk who weren't too thrilled when others would do that crap.
Fair enough - we're on the same page on that one.
Also once a state sanction gay marriage it is very likely that you will see churches end up defending their decision not to perform gay marriages in court. Look at that case against the photographer in New Mexico. She told a gay couple she didn't care to photograph their commitment ceremony (NM doesn't recognize gay marriage) and she was drug up before some lame human rights commission and fined.
Also agreed. That's a legislative issue, which lawmakers themselves seem to be really poor at anticipating when law is constructed. Prop 8 in CA actually did attempt to address that, in that, per the federal Constitution's 1st ammendment, religious institutions which did not wish to perform said ceremony could not be compelled to. They absolutely shouldn't be either.
 
Top