Gay Marriage

esoteric · 06-13-2006, 1:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

How does that change the fact that Constitutionally it is a State's issue and the Feds have been trashing State's rights?
The nonsense is all the whining about it.
It is a dead issue as there is already a Federal Act on it that oversteped the bounds of the State's rights.

Constitutionally? Is it stated somewhere that marriage will be specifically legislated by the states and not the federal government?
Added:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

BDA116 · 06-13-2006, 2:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esoteric

Constitutionally? Is it stated somewhere that marriage will be specifically legislated by the states and not the federal government?
Added:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

Have you ever read the Constitution?
It specifically states that anything that wasn't framed in the Constitution is to be left to the States. The Feds have already pissed all over that, though.
They have already raped and pillaged the rights of the States, so why stop now?
Let's make all kinds of stupid Amendments. The Constitution is a living document afterall and should always be given new meanings and translated understandings.

The First has already been ****ed over, why not just continue instead of leaving it the way it was written and intended?

esoteric · 06-13-2006, 3:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

Have you ever read the Constitution?
It specifically states that anything that wasn't framed in the Constitution is to be left to the States. The Feds have already pissed all over that, though.
They have already raped and pillaged the rights of the States, so why stop now?
Let's make all kinds of stupid Amendments. The Constitution is a living document afterall and should always be given new meanings and translated understandings.

The First has already been ****ed over, why not just continue instead of leaving it the way it was written and intended?

Sure, plenty of times. Puts me to sleep when I can otherwise poke you with a sharp stick.
So, with this throbbing boner you have for "states rights", it sounds like the Constitution shouldn't have any ammendments nor be ammendable as if it was a perfect monolithic document?
"States rights" or not, the federal government should step in when discrimination and inappropriate/illegal legislation constantly finds its way into the states. If it's a trend towards violation, then the trend should be eliminated at a federal level.

DEPO · 06-13-2006, 5:56 PM

I am going to state my personal opinion right or wrong.

I believe that "Gay Marriage" should not be a hot button topic in the United States, but it is. I do not believe in "Gay Marriage" because I do believe the word marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. (one step further for the purpose of sharing a life together and to procriate.... or in attempts to)

I do believe in "Civil Unions" where any two human beings committed to each other can be recognized as a united couple. This should then be recognized in regards to tax codes, health care, and etc... so that any "couple" can share in the same benefits as a "married" couple.

phobiaphobe · 06-13-2006, 6:13 PM

If it has to be a federal issue, have a goddamned referendum on it. Whether in favour or against, it isn't democratic for the ruling party to just "make it so".

We're having the same stupid debate in Canada. The Prime-Minister wants a free vote in the House of Commons (ie not along party lines) so obviously that makes him an anti-gay bigot.

slanger · 06-13-2006, 6:33 PM

let the fags be free,

DJChyk · 06-13-2006, 6:35 PM

Oooh! Look over there - it's a war that 56% of Americans believe was wrong to start in the first place!

And over THERE - that guy's selling plasma so he can drive to his job and support his family because gas is $4/gallon!

And HERE - where kids are forced to take test after standardized test in school, instead of actually learning how to learn, so their school can get extra dollars thanks to no child left behind.

What was that about gay marriage?

Signed,
Person whose lesbian best friend moved to Germany so she could be in a lifelong committed union with her significant other without fear of legal reprecussions

HondaGalToo · 06-13-2006, 7:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJChyk

Oooh! Look over there - it's a war that 56% of Americans believe was wrong to start in the first place!

And over THERE - that guy's selling plasma so he can drive to his job and support his family because gas is $4/gallon!

And HERE - where kids are forced to take test after standardized test in school, instead of actually learning how to learn, so their school can get extra dollars thanks to no child left behind.

What was that about gay marriage?

Signed,
Person whose lesbian best friend moved to Germany so she could be in a lifelong committed union with her significant other without fear of legal reprecussions

bwhip · 06-13-2006, 8:16 PM

It seems to me that, like it or not, most of our laws have some basis in someone's concept of morality, or ethics.

Many of us decry the decline of moral standards within our country, yet if anyone takes a stand against said decline in today's politically correct environment, they are labeled a "bigot."

Who shall decide where lines are drawn on standards of behavior in society? Shall it be like the animal kingdom, survival of the fittest? If not, then who decides what is ultimately right or wrong?

When should laws be instituted that are designed to benefit society (based on someone's own standards of morality or otherwise), despite the fact that they would seem to limit personal freedoms?

Just a few examples:

Why not allow pornography on free television?
Why not legalize ALL drugs, and never require a prescription?
Why not allow multiple marriage partners?
Why do we have to wear seat belts?

We have laws forbidding these things. Why? How is that different than forbidding gay marriage?

We may disagree on what is right and what is wrong, but we have a right to debate it, and ultimately the majority should decide in a free society.

phobiaphobe · 06-13-2006, 8:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwhip

...
We may disagree on what is right and what is wrong, but we have a right to debate it, and ultimately the majority should decide in a free society.

ccwilli3 · 06-13-2006, 8:32 PM

yeah,

states rights... Was supposed to be a state's issue but along with other things along the way, the fed abused some power and took it over. It should not be a federal penalty to be married and their should be no income tax benefit from a marriage either.

If mass. wants a socialist society and has state funded health care, that is their right as a state. If you don't like it, you don't live there. If a state wants to allow or disallow gay marriage, they should be able to.

esoteric · 06-13-2006, 9:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwhip

We may disagree on what is right and what is wrong, but we have a right to debate it, and ultimately the majority should decide in a free society.

Majority rule, without proper check is nothing but mob mentality. Step back a handful of decades and popular opinions were that slavery was right (and probably moral) and women had no rights. We can get into more exotic examples. Just because a majority feels a certain way is no indication that the opinion is fair, just, moral, or even vaguely informed. If an overwhelming volume of people feel that 3.141... is too complex a number for pi and 3.1 or 3.0 is good enough does not give the matter any merit.

phobiaphobe · 06-13-2006, 9:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esoteric

Majority rule, without proper check is nothing but mob mentality. Step back a handful of decades and popular opinions were that slavery was right (and probably moral) and women had no rights. We can get into more exotic examples. Just because a majority feels a certain way is no indication that the opinion is fair, just, moral, or even vaguely informed. If an overwhelming volume of people feel that 3.141... is too complex a number for pi and 3.1 or 3.0 is good enough does not give the matter any merit.

So who decides what's "right"?

esoteric · 06-13-2006, 9:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

So who decides what's "right"?

Your mom.

phobiaphobe · 06-13-2006, 9:28 PM

Not my grandmother?

esoteric · 06-13-2006, 9:29 PM

Maybe her too.

phobiaphobe · 06-13-2006, 9:34 PM

If you don't agree with them will they be wrong?

seamus · 06-13-2006, 9:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwhip

Why not allow multiple marriage partners?

The combined nagging would destroy the planet.

bwhip · 06-13-2006, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esoteric

Majority rule, without proper check is nothing but mob mentality.

democracy: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

ccwilli3 · 06-13-2006, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwhip

democracy: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

but we are not a democracy, but a republic...

DJChyk · 06-14-2006, 1:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seamus

The combined nagging would destroy the planet.

Yeah, who wants to be nagged by more than one whiney guy? Sheesh...

esoteric · 06-14-2006, 1:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

If you don't agree with them will they be wrong?

That would depend on if they're wrong and that is independant of whether I disagree with them or not.
Whatever any majority says, feels, or wants, it needs to be checked and balanced. Having a referendum with a majority response against gay marriage/civil union wouldn't make the issue any less discriminatory than without the referendum. Having a majority of people in favor of slavery, against womens rights, for pedophelia, for sibling marriages, for genocide, for a war in Iran, for fascist red state dictatorships, for abandoning Louisiana and invading Canada as the new 50th state, doesn't change the fundamental ethics of the situation or the basic structure within which the law must conform. As a nation we are against discrimination... so they say...

phobiaphobe · 06-14-2006, 1:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esoteric

That would depend on if they're wrong and that is independant of whether I disagree with them or not.
Whatever any majority says, feels, or wants, it needs to be checked and balanced. Having a referendum with a majority response against gay marriage/civil union wouldn't make the issue any less discriminatory than without the referendum. Having a majority of people in favor of slavery, against womens rights, for pedophelia, for sibling marriages, for genocide, for a war in Iran, for fascist red state dictatorships, for abandoning Louisiana and invading Canada as the new 50th state, doesn't change the fundamental ethics of the situation or the basic structure within which the law must conform. As a nation we are against discrimination... so they say...

If the US voted against gay marriage in a referendum, then maybe the majority isn't ready for it.

Opinions change over time.... Slavery, now considered evil was once acceptable. That gradually changed.

And again, without sarcasm, tell me whose job it is to decide what is morally right? (other than esoteric)