Anyone being affected by Proposition 8?
Or anyone you know being affected by any anti-gay laws that were passed this election?
I have a coulple friends in California that we're hoping to get married soon...not so much anymore. :sniff:
Just wondering if there were any other stories out there.
I'm being affected by Prop 8. It's seriously pissing me off. I think each and every single person who voted for it should be deported. If you're stupid enough to think your rights include determining what rights other people have, you don't belong in America because you have no understanding of what rights are or what freedom means.
I'm appalled that the Cali constitution can be modified by a simple majority vote. Doesn't this immediately lead to a "tyranny of the majority" situation? It can only be revoked with a 2/3 majority of the state congress and another majority referendum.
I'm being affected by Prop 8. It's seriously pissing me off. I think each and every single person who voted for it should be deported. If you're stupid enough to think your rights include determining what rights other people have, you don't belong in America because you have no understanding of what rights are or what freedom means.
Oh the irony.
Doesn't this immediately lead to a "tyranny of the majority" situation?
Yes.
I think each and every single person who voted for it should be deported.
Hmmm.... interesting
I'm appalled that the Cali constitution can be modified by a simple majority vote. Doesn't this immediately lead to a "tyranny of the majority" situation? It can only be revoked with a 2/3 majority of the state congress and another majority referendum.
I agree, it makes no sense.
It also angers me that so many people from
outside the actual state of California were putting money into the "Vote Yes" campaign. i.e The Mormon and Catholic churchs. Proves once again that religion has more power than it should have.
Proves once again that religion has more power than it should have.
Proves that any organized group wields more power - whether its a church, a lobby or anything else.
This thread has potential :corn:
I know right? Total win for my first thread!
But seriously, what really sent me over the edge was what happened in Arkansas, not allowing gay couples to adopt. I'm assuming gay marriage is already banned there...so basicaly if you're gay you can't adopt.
I never thought I'd see that happen.
I'm appalled that the Cali constitution can be modified by a simple majority vote. Doesn't this immediately lead to a "tyranny of the majority" situation? It can only be revoked with a 2/3 majority of the state congress and another majority referendum.
Actually it's being challenged in court right now. Amendments are supposed to be a simple majority, but major changes to the fundamental structure of the Constitution like this one which basically change the Constitution from being an instrument to protect civil rights to being one that violates civil rights, must first be passed by the state legislature and if that happens, it has to get a 2/3 majority of all voters. There's no chance of that happening.
Because Prop 8 didn't follow this procedure, the California Supreme Court will shoot it down.
Oh, the irony indeed. Like it or not, freedom and democracy means that we've got the right to vote in some really boneheaded stuff.
Living in a country that has such freedom has its benefits, but then, you have to deal with the crap too. On the bright side, you've got the right to express your opinion, no matter how radically that opinion advocates removing others' freedom in the process.
I'm not affected by these types of laws in any way - I don't have any gay friends or relatives - but I still think they're really stupid.
I've said it before: if we live in a world where it's legal for people who barely know each other to get married in Vegas on a whim, then get divorced a few days later -- if they happen to be male and female, respectively -- why the hell do we need to ban people who really love one another and have a serious commitment from getting married just because they're the same gender? Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I'll tell you what it is -- it's Ostrich syndrome. You know, hiding your head in the sand. These people don't want to believe that two same-sex people could possibly actually love each other; they think it's pure deviant lust, so they think they can simply legislate against its expression and it will go away. Stupid.
Our rights don't come from government, therefore government can't take them away. Our rights can't be given, taken, bought, sold, or voted away.
I would like to take back a statement I made earlier. I said all people who voted yes on Prop 8 should be deported. I realize now I was very wrong.
Where would we send them? I wouldn't want to send these people to any other country. I can't think of a country I hate so much, I'd send a bunch of redneck retards there. Rather than deporting them, we should line them up and shoot them dead.
After all, if they've got a right to vote on whether someone else has the right to marry, I have the right to vote to take away their right to life. The civil rights of gay people to marry are no more or less important than the right to life for those who voted to violate their rights.
The civil rights struggle for gays in America is no less important or crucial than was the civil rights struggle of the blacks during the 60s.
With marriage becoming more popular again here, I expect this to become an issue here in Australia also.
Currently it's illegal for same sex marriage in any state as far as i know. I think this is wrong and I just can't understand why it matters so much to some people that it should be illegal.
Surely another couple's marriage is not anything to do with anyone else other than the couple involved...regardless of their sex. I would draw the line at people marrying their pets though. I'd have to vote against that I'm afraid...regardless of whether they have a 'god given right' to do so or not.
Good gravy, Radar. Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel, OK?
The question of "rights" is complex. Are we born with rights by virtue of being human, or is it awarded by the government under which we live?
Enlightenment philosophes would say rights are integral to humanity and that all government is inherently oppressive, by its very nature.
Others, more pragmatically, might say "your rights end where mine begin."
And that is really the purpose of government, isn't it? It's about determining where one person's rights end, and another's begin, and enforcing the balance between the two. Pure, and distilled.
If you are a US resident, you have the "inalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The First Constitutional Congress (and John Locke) said we should have the right to "life, liberty, and property." And then the Bill of Rights came along to give us some other stuff, like free speech, peaceful assembly, right to bear arms, trial by jury, that kind of thing. Amendments came along giving women the right to vote, etc.
My point, though, is are these all "inalienable rights" or are we just lucky enough to live in a time and place that recognizes them?
What gives you the right to do whatever it is you think you have a right to do? Or who gives you the right?
What is a "right" anyway?
Is it given by God? Whose God? How do you know?
I am not arguing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. I said as much. I just think you would be a much better asset to your cause if you had a more logical argument than "we've got the right." 'Cause what you're really saying is "I want this, others want this, and I want more people to agree with us than disagree."
lol...you have fun with this argument you're about to have Juni. lol I think I'll just watch. :D
(if you're wondering what I'm talking about, just do a search using the words Radar and rights) lol...again.
It's OK. I love debating poli sci.
Uhuh...lol That's great. :) Have fun with it. ;)
OK, have searched, now see what you're saying. Something about having a battle of wits with the unarmed?
Well, let's just say that it's one of Radars favourite subjects, and he likes repeating himself. Most of us have given up getting involved in it. :)
Note to self: Read all threads, not just the few that look intriguing in the 10 minutes between classes. ;)
OK, have searched, now see what you're saying. Something about having a battle of wits with the unarmed?
Nothing could be further from the truth. Radar is an ideologue, and a fundamentalist, and he and I frequently disagree, but he is not witless. Strap in.
I would liken it more to arguing with a deaf man.
No offense intended, Radar, that was just my impression.
I think each and every single person who voted for it should be deported.
I acknowledge your retraction of this statement, but ...
If they were deported, and all snuck straight back in, would they then be illegal immigrants? ;)
If Radar wants to be offended, that's his right. ;)
It's your right not to care. :D
Oh...and it's my right to be amused. :)
Really, I think the main thing that's f*cked up with the U.S Constitution and other state constiutions is that they allow rights to be taken away from people.
I mean, think about it. At any moment, even though it's VERY unlikely, the House and the Senate could be overrun with racists and biggots and our consitution would allow them to take away rights from blacks, women, athiests, muslims, you name it.
As long as three forths of the the states approve, it's all good! We could adopt slavery again if we REALLY wanted to.
That's what happened in California with Prop 8. The courts said full out that it was wrong to deny gays the right to marry. And everybody went CRAZY and loved it, and gay people were thrilled and everybody wanted to get married.
But through the tyrnnay of the majority, people were able to shut out the courts opinion and take away the rights of a group of citizens.
I'm not saying that constitutions shouldn't be able to change. Of course they should be able to change. We'd be in major trouble if they couldn't change because our country is in a constant state change. Wow I said change like 400 times in that sentence.
But I think when it comes to individual rights, that don't affect anybody else's rights, I think once those rights are given, they should never be able to be taken away.
Yup. :us:
lol...you have fun with this argument you're about to have Juni. lol I think I'll just watch. :D
:corn: want some?
Really, I think the main thing that's f*cked up with the U.S Constitution and other state constiutions is that they allow rights to be taken away from people.
Actually the US constitution has a great system of checks and balances. The Senate and House have been over run in the past with bigots and what not. We have made some great progress overcoming these problems in the States in the 232 years we've been around. I believe we will make more progress in time.
California seems to be using a full democracy, which in essence is mob rule. The whim of the majority. Not good in the long term, complete democracy tends to tear itself apart over the long haul.
The U.S. is a republic. It is much harder to change and does not depend on the mob rule of the majority. Make no mistake, the framers of our government knew the difference between a democracy and a republic. I don't personally believe our constitution is fucked up in the slightest. It has and will continue to withstand the test of time, with very few changes.
Oh, and do fasten in if you are going to argue with Radar. He is a man firm conviction. You won't change his mind about anything, you will have a fine discussion.
Oh, and do fasten in if you are going to argue with Radar. He is a man firm conviction. You won't change his mind about anything, you will have a fine discussion.
Not to mention he thinks he is always right and if you disagree with his position you should be deported. As HLJ stated, oh the irony..:rolleyes:
I got my first Cellar ass-kickin' arguing inalienable rights, iirc.
;)
I got my first Cellar ass-kickin' arguing inalienable rights, iirc.
;)
Aliens
should have the same rights as anyone else. Only, I don't like the way things started out in MARS ATTACKS! Not very friendly, if you ask me.
:alien: :alien2: :gray:
Aliens should have the same rights as anyone else. Only, I don't like the way things started out in MARS ATTACKS! Not very friendly, if you ask me.
:alien: :alien2: :gray:
Aliens should have the same rights as anyone else. Only, I don't like the way things started out in MARS ATTACKS! Not very friendly, if you ask me.
:alien: :alien2: :gray:
Join me in stopping alien autopsies!
Meanwhile, Proposition 8 is about organized religion doing politics. They are supposed to have tax exemption because they have no political voice. Mormon Church can now be prosecuted? Or just taxed?
Meanwhile, Proposition 8 is about organized religion doing politics. They are supposed to have tax exemption because they have no political voice. Mormon Church can now be prosecuted? Or just taxed?
They can make signs and stomp around and whine, but California voters are the ones who made the final decision at the polls, not the Mormon Church.
Right on Bullitt
This is NOT about religion. Its about organized groups expressing their opinions. Taxes/prosecution have nothing to do with it either. IT could have just as easily been the NRA, the KKK, a union or whatever. Its all the same. Just because you dislike a group or their stance doesn't matter.
Hmmm...even if it's ACORN? :eyebrow:
Hmmm...even if it's ACORN? :eyebrow:
That's where it gets complicated. People can have their opinions fine and dandy, but when you take intentional action to screw with the system to meet your own ends then you are really in the wrong.
Advertise all you want, but do not screw with the system.
That said, I'm not a fan of the Mormon church, esp. after taking my American religious history seminar, but the members are entitled to their opinions and can donate to support campaigning out of their own pockets if they so choose. They may be trying to persuade people one way or the other, but again it is the VOTER who casts the vote and participates in the actual decision. We have the power of choice and a majority of the people made their choice.
Good one Shawnee!
The Mormon church spent $20 million to campaign for Prop 8, and many church leaders from Utah traveled to California to help and many other members phoned from Utah.
THEY made this about religion. About a religious group sticking its nose into another groups right.
@ Bullitt: Aside from the fact that it was a few individuals in that organization who were screwing around, I'll agree with you there. However, I'm sure there is a Morman or two out there with some pretty questionable devices as well.
So, aside from the bad apples, you can't be on the fence on this one. I don't think you are, Bullitt, I was referring to the ACORN discussion prior to the election, where I might have had the impression that there was actual "line-drawing" on the part of c-man regarding the role of organized groups. IIRC, it was a no-no, then. No to recruiting voters for your cause. Unless you're part of a more radical group?
Waffles.
@ Bullitt: Aside from the fact that it was a few individuals in that organization who were screwing around, I'll agree with you there. However, I'm sure there is a Morman or two out there with some pretty questionable devices as well.
So, aside from the bad apples, you can't be on the fence on this one. I don't think you are, Bullitt, I was referring to the ACORN discussion prior to the election, where I might have had the impression that there was actual "line-drawing" on the part of c-man regarding the role of organized groups. IIRC, it was a no-no, then. No to recruiting voters for your cause. Unless you're part of a more radical group?
Waffles.
Oh without a doubt, there are manipulative people within any group who will go to extreme measures to get their way. I don't recall what exactly was said by everyone in the pre-election ACORN discussion, and I don't really feel like digging because i have ten
minutes till my next class :D
BUT, I am not on the fence on this issue in any way. I believe in individual and collective rights to express/advertise their opinions in whatever way they see fit so long as it does not break the law or infringe on the rights of others. What I have a problem with is people who seek to twist the balance of a democratic decision through direct action. Whether that be hacking voting machines or casting votes for the deceased. Whether it is a group or an individual who does this, the intention is the same to me and should be punished because it undermines the whole process: a collective decision made by the individual decisions of individual voters.
They can make signs and stomp around and whine, but California voters are the ones who made the final decision at the polls, not the Mormon Church.
I made zero statement on the California decision. A more serious problem now exists. Religion imposed on all other people.
This month, the Catholic Church will conduct a meeting to determine how American doctors can define death. More religion that must be imposed on all Americans. The Catholic Church, like the Mormon Church, has decided that it must impose church doctrine on American laws. It has ordered all Catholic lawmakers to impose church doctrine in American laws. Shamefully, many Americans remained silent when both the Mormons and Catholics would pervert American laws with their religion.
Nothing was posted about whether Californians decided rightly or wrongly. Bullitt misrepresented what I posted. Question is whether the Mormon church should be prosecuted OR heavily taxed. By American religious standards, the Mormons did evil. Should they be burned at the stake - because those are laws also advocated by religion?
A church that advocates peace and lives in peace also remains silent about American laws. A church is only a conduit between a man and his god - not a political action group.
Bullitt pretty much covered it for me. Have an opinion - whatever opinion, just don't fuck with or try to cheat.
Doesn't affect me in the slightest. We have civil partnerships in the UK, as I think much of Europe in fact. I know quite a few people who have married under this agreement, both famous (ie I've read about it) and personal friends.
Doesn't seem to have caused any particular trouble.
A church that advocates peace and lives in peace also remains silent about American laws. A church is only a conduit between a man and his god - not a political action group.
Yes.
Pico, you didn't answer either of the questions. Any reason?
Which questions were asked of me, Classic?
Uh, Oops wrong thread. Take a look at "Does Anyone feel like Bailing"
There was a church in North Carolina (I think) that said it wouldn't give communion to anyone who voted for Obama. This, to me, seems like an abuse.
Pancakes.
Doesn't affect me in the slightest. We have civil partnerships in the UK, as I think much of Europe in fact. I know quite a few people who have married under this agreement, both famous (ie I've read about it) and personal friends.
Doesn't seem to have caused any particular trouble.
California also had, and still has, civil unions. They guarantee the same-sex partners same rights that opposite-sex couples have.
The battle is over the word "Marriage", and what it means, not over what rights certain domestic partners do or do not have.
Ah. Arguing over semantics.
Well, there you go, it's not that Americans are more conservative than Europeans, it's that European gays aren't as pedantic.
Good gravy, Radar. Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel, OK?
The question of "rights" is complex. Are we born with rights by virtue of being human, or is it awarded by the government under which we live?
Enlightenment philosophes would say rights are integral to humanity and that all government is inherently oppressive, by its very nature.
Others, more pragmatically, might say "your rights end where mine begin."
And that is really the purpose of government, isn't it? It's about determining where one person's rights end, and another's begin, and enforcing the balance between the two. Pure, and distilled.
If you are a US resident, you have the "inalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The First Constitutional Congress (and John Locke) said we should have the right to "life, liberty, and property." And then the Bill of Rights came along to give us some other stuff, like free speech, peaceful assembly, right to bear arms, trial by jury, that kind of thing. Amendments came along giving women the right to vote, etc.
My point, though, is are these all "inalienable rights" or are we just lucky enough to live in a time and place that recognizes them?
What gives you the right to do whatever it is you think you have a right to do? Or who gives you the right?
What is a "right" anyway?
Is it given by God? Whose God? How do you know?
I am not arguing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. I said as much. I just think you would be a much better asset to your cause if you had a more logical argument than "we've got the right." 'Cause what you're really saying is "I want this, others want this, and I want more people to agree with us than disagree."
Our rights don't come from government. Government is just here to protect those rights. We are born with our rights and they are one segment of natural law. There is no such thing as a Constitutional right. None of our rights come from the Constitution. The Constitution was just written so that other people would realize that all governmental power is derived from the rights of people, and that government may not have any powers that we have not granted to it. This means we may not grant any powers to government over and above the rights of any individual person.
Since no person has the right to use force to prevent the marriage of others, they may not grant this power to government.
How do I know what our rights are? Simple. We are born with the right to do
ANYTHINGwe want as long as our actions don't
physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others. This means, since I own myself, I own my voice. I therefore have the right to freedom of expression. You also have freedom of expression, but you do not have the right to go through your life without ever being offended by the expression of others. You don't have the right to use force against others to prevent you from getting your feelings hurt.
One persons right to marry any consenting other they choose is no more or less important than another person's right to life. Rights are rights are rights. If you violate one of my rights, I may violate one of the rights you hold more dearly.
Coercion!
Bagels.
Exactly, it is not illegal to try and influence people (advertising). As distasteful as it might be to hear what some people say, they have a right to say it. Yeah it's annoying to listen to the Westboro Baptist Church people spread their hate, and yeah the Mormons are a bunch of weirdos in my opinion, but they have equal rights to spread their message so long as they don't literally force anyone to do anything is what I'm getting at.
And TW, I was not intentionally twisting your words. I saw you mention the Prop 8 in your post and that's what I built my response on simple as that.
I'm not gonna be happy till "separate but equal" is invalidated at the national level.
:angry:
[COLOR=Silver]ETA: and even then, I probably won't be happy. But that's my problem.[/COLOR]
Ah. Arguing over semantics.
Well, there you go, it's not that Americans are more conservative than Europeans, it's that European gays aren't as pedantic.
So true. I found myself looking up the etymology of the word marriage, and wondering who got to decide it meant a religious union (and yes, they are arguing man and woman as religious tenet.)
It's a word made up of letters. Who gives a crap who uses it? Seriously, is Prissy and Biff's marriage somehow threatened because Jack and Doug use the same word? Methinks P and B feel threatened, not secure in their union, and afraid their God will let others who perhaps haven't fallen prey to social convention, bearing long silences over breakfast and lightly disguised hatred, into...gasp...heaven.
Our rights don't come from government. Government is just here to protect those rights. We are born with our rights and they are one segment of natural law.
So we only have the same rights as a worm or a coyote or a bird or parasite??? Huh?
There is no such thing as a Constitutional right. None of our rights come from the Constitution. The Constitution was just written so that other people would realize that all governmental power is derived from the rights of people, and that government may not have any powers that we have not granted to it. This means we may not grant any powers to government over and above the rights of any individual person.
Since no person has the right to use force to prevent the marriage of others, they may not grant this power to government.
There you go interpreting again. That gets into the realm of opinion vs fact and assumption.
If you violate one of my rights, I may violate one of the rights you hold more dearly..
Oh I gotcha why didn't you just say it was an eye for an eye - blah blah blah. That makes real good sense - in the sandbox or at recess.
California also had, and still has, civil unions. They guarantee the same-sex partners same rights that opposite-sex couples have.
The battle is over the word "Marriage", and what it means, not over what rights certain domestic partners do or do not have.
Damn facts getting in the way of a good argument - - - again.
Besides the oppressive part, the big problem I have is that the Christian church (I'm using this as a general term) is trying to monopolize marriage in the United States. You cannot break the sanctity of marriage because their is no definition for marriage in general. You can break the sanctity of a Christian marriage, you can break the sanctity of an Islamic marriage, you can break the sanctity of a Hindu marriage, etc, because each religion or sect of religion defines marriage in their own way.
The state should recognize any marriage that involves two citizens that are at legal age (which can be debated) and leave the banning to individual religions. If the Catholic Church wants to ban gay marriages, ban it within the church. No one is going to force the church to marry gay couples if they feel it goes against their religion.
That's where it gets complicated. People can have their opinions fine and dandy, but when you take intentional action to screw with the system to meet your own ends then you are really in the wrong.
Advertise all you want, but do not screw with the system.
That said, I'm not a fan of the Mormon church, esp. after taking my American religious history seminar, but the members are entitled to their opinions and can donate to support campaigning out of their own pockets if they so choose. They may be trying to persuade people one way or the other, but again it is the VOTER who casts the vote and participates in the actual decision. We have the power of choice and a majority of the people made their choice.
The Mormon church instructed their people to donate to the violation of civil rights and to volunteer. It also excommunicated those Mormons who campaigned on the side of equal rights. That's right, the Mormon church, which has historically been a bastion of polygamy, actually has the temerity to use the phrase "sanctity of marriage".
It's this simple. If a church gets involved in politics, they are no longer entitled to tax exempt status. This should especially apply to the Mormon church which owns many for profit companies. The Mormon church is a business, and it looks like they are selling discrimination and hatred... oh and some cult like salvation on the planet Kolob.
So we only have the same rights as a worm or a coyote or a bird or parasite??? Huh?
No, we have human rights because we're human beings. All human beings have the same right to do anything they want as long as their actions don't physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.
There you go interpreting again. That gets into the realm of opinion vs fact and assumption.
Nope. I don't interpret the Constitution. The founders knew full well that our rights came from our "creator" whether we deem that creator to be nature, our parents, Vishnu, Zeuss, or the Judeo-Christian god. They said as much in the Declaration of independence. The U.S. Constitution was created to establish a more perfect union between the states, and to protect the rights of citizens from tyranny.
Oh I gotcha why didn't you just say it was an eye for an eye - blah blah blah. That makes real good sense - in the sandbox or at recess.
Governments are created to provide harmony and peace throughout the population. What peace or harmony can be had when one group violates the rights of another? I'm saying if someone thinks it's ok to violate the civil rights of others because of their own bigotry or hatred, it's a two way street. Either we're all equal, or we're not. If it's ok for them to violate the rights of gay people, why isn't it ok for me to violate their rights? Why is their right to life more important than a gay person's right to marry?
It isn't.
Bullitt pretty much covered it for me. Have an opinion - whatever opinion, just don't fuck with or try to cheat.
The rights of a single person are more important the opinions, desires, and votes of millions.
In other words,
YOUR VOTE DOESN'T MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE.
You have a right to express your opinion. You do not have a right to violate the rights of others or to vote for government to do it for you.
Not to mention he thinks he is always right and if you disagree with his position you should be deported. As HLJ stated, oh the irony..:rolleyes:
It's not that I'm always right. You're just always wrong when it comes to the Constitution, the role of the military, the founders, etc. and I just happen to be the guy to set you straight.
Doesn't affect me in the slightest. We have civil partnerships in the UK, as I think much of Europe in fact. I know quite a few people who have married under this agreement, both famous (ie I've read about it) and personal friends.
Doesn't seem to have caused any particular trouble.
In America, a civil union does not grant the same rights as a marriage. Also, who is anyone to tell someone else what word they will use to describe their union? That's the main gist of it.
Ah. Arguing over semantics.
Well, there you go, it's not that Americans are more conservative than Europeans, it's that European gays aren't as pedantic.
It's not an argument over semantics. It's matter of civil rights. Even if a civil union carried all of the same rights as a marriage in America
(and it doesn't), it would amount to having white drinking fountains and black drinking fountains or having gay people sit in the back of the bus.
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=6][COLOR=#000000]
Civil Unions vs Civil Marriage.
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=#000000]taken from the [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][COLOR=#000000]
(who argued the Massachusetts case)
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] [LEFT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=5][COLOR=#000000]Talking Points[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=#000000]
[SIZE=4]What's the difference?[/SIZE]
Framing the conversation: What's really at stake?
First, let's be clear. This discussion is about substance - not symbols. The human stakes are enormous. This document explains why civil marriage, and not civil unions, is the only way to make sure gay and lesbian couples have all of the same legal protections as other married couples.
Second, the discussion is about ending governmental discrimination against gay and lesbian families with respect to civil marriage and its legal protections and responsibilities-not about any religious rite of marriage. Every faith is and will remain free to set its own rules about who can marry and on what terms.
Third, marriage is many things to many people. But it is also a legal institution in which governmental discrimination has no place.
Let's compare civil marriage as a legal institution to civil unions as a legal institution.
[SIZE=4]What is marriage?[/SIZE]
Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments the world over. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights, and protections. Yet it is more than the sum of its legal parts. It is also a cultural institution. The word itself is a fundamental protection, conveying clearly that you and your life partner love each other, are united and belong by each other's side. It represents the ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people and everyone understands that. No other word has that power, and no other word can provide that protection.
[SIZE=4]What is a civil union?[/SIZE]
A civil union is a legal status created by the state of Vermont in 2000 and in California in 2003. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage."
[SIZE=4]What are some of the limitations of civil unions?[/SIZE]
Civil unions are different from marriage, and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal. Here is a quick look at some of the most significant differences:
-Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will be treated in other states.
GLAD believes there are strong arguments that civil unions deserve respect across the country just like marriages. But the two appellate courts that have addressed the issue (in Connecticut and Georgia) have disrespected them based on the fact that their states do not grant civil
unions themselves.
-Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in Vermont and filing for divorce there. This has already created problems for some couples who now have no way to terminate their legal commitment.
-Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997
GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.
-Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.
-Filling out forms:
Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union don't fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries potential serious criminal
penalties.
[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=#000000]
-Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We've been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.
How real are these differences between marriage and civil unions, given that a federal law and some state laws discriminate against all marriages of same-sex couples?
Would any of this change immediately with marriage of same-sex couples? Probably not, because married same-sex couples will face other layers of discrimination against their marriages. Right now, a federal law denies recognition of same-sex unions conferred by any state for purposes of all federal programs and requirements and over 30 state laws do the same. Ending discrimination in marriage does not mean the end of all discrimination, but using the term "marriage" rather than "civil union" is an essential first step to opening the door and addressing whether continued governmental discrimination against civil marriages of gay and lesbian people makes sense.
Marriage and civil unions remain different, both in practice and in
principle.
First, more than a dozen states have not taken a discriminatory position against civil marriages of gay and lesbian couples. In those states, civilly married gay and lesbian couples should be able to live and travel freely and without fear that their relationship will be disrespected.
Second, even as to those states with discriminatory laws, legally married gay and lesbian couples from those states may well face some discrimination in some quarters, but their marriages will also be treated with legal respect in other arenas. Marriages are far more likely to be respected by others than newly minted "civil unions."
Using the term marriage also prompts a discussion about fairness. Allowing same sex couples to marry (rather than enter a separate status) will allow gay and lesbian people to talk with their neighbors, their local elected officials, and the Congress about whether discrimination against their marriages is fair. Where gay and lesbian people and their children are part of the social fabric, is it right to continue discriminating against them in civil marriage? The federal government and states that have taken discriminatory positions against marriages of gay and lesbian couples could rethink those policies and go back to respecting state laws about marriage, as they have done for hundreds of years. In the end, we will not be able to have this discussion until gay and lesbian folks have what everyone else has: civil marriage.
[SIZE=4]Civil Marriage & Freedom of Religion[/SIZE]
A myth: A major myth about ending discrimination in civil marriage is that it will somehow compel religious faiths to change their doctrine or practices about who they marry. This is flatly incorrect. We have freedom of religion in this country. When a court or legislature ends discrimination in civil (governmental) marriage, there is no compulsory impact on any faith. Each faith is-and will remain-free to define its own requirements for its marriage rite: who, what, when, where and why.
Some people say marriage is a sacrament. And it is for some religious faiths. But the government is not in the sacrament business. The only "marriage" to which the couples in the Massachusetts case are seeking access is civil/governmental marriage. Governmental marriage already exists side by side with each faith's different rules for their religious rite of marriage. Nothing can change that.
Two Types of Marriages
Though people may think about marriage in different ways, there are only two types of marriage - either civil or religious. In some ceremonies, both are celebrated at once. Couples may have one or both types of marriage. However, to receive the legal protections of marriage, a couple must have a civil marriage. It is only civil marriage that can be addressed by courts or legislatures.
Civil Marriage
Any couple can have a civil marriage if they meet the government's requirements. Right now, the requirements in Massachusetts are that the partners be adults, pass a blood test, and not be already married or closely related. Most of us also think about marriage as a public commitment of love and support by adult couples. The government does, too, and uses the commitment of marriage as a gateway to hundreds of legal protections, responsibilities and benefits established by the state, and over 1000 by the federal government. Ever since the founding of this country, states have regulated who may enter into a marriage and under what conditions.
Religious Rite of Marriage
Only couples who meet the requirements of a particular faith tradition can have a religious marriage. Religions have complete autonomy in deciding which marriages they will consecrate; they do whatever suits their faith tradition. Some religions will not marry people who were divorced, or people of different faiths, even though these same people could have a civil marriage. Every religious community always has the
right to perform or not perform any marriage rite it deems appropriate, regardless of the partners' sex. Religious marriages do not convey legal rights or responsibilities.
Freedom of Religion
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects every citizen's right to freedom of religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The founders of American government made it clear from the beginning that in this new nation religion and government would exist side by side, and the law would not define religious practice.
In addition to allowing free rein to religious practice, our Constitution protects freedom of religion by preventing any one religion from dictating the content of law. For all religious views to be protected and respected, it is critical that laws not be made with a particular religious viewpoint in mind, including laws about civil
marriage.
As a result of American freedom of religion, each faith can independently answer the question of whether they wish gay and lesbian couples to marry within their religious tradition, and this will remain true no matter what the government does with regard to civil marriage[/COLOR][/FONT]
Now that I think about it, anyone who is able to quote something that takes two posts MUST be right.
problem solved
/thread
.
Well, just for the record, most everyone I know says Marriage over here.
Same as when they brought in Council Tax, denying it was Poll Tax, and everyone called it Poll Tax anyway.
I suppose you're right, but it seems an awful shame to get bothered about words. Now the fact it's not legal in all states and does not confer the same benefits as marriage - yes, that I would be annoyed about.
Sinner exposed in the NY Times of 15 Nov 2008:
Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage
Less than two weeks before Election Day, the chief strategist behind a ballot measure outlawing same-sex marriage in California called an emergency meeting here.
We’re going to lose this campaign if we don’t get more money,” the strategist, Frank Schubert, recalled telling leaders of Protect Marriage, the main group behind the ban.
The campaign issued an urgent appeal, and in a matter of days, it raised more than $5 million, including a $1 million donation from Alan C. Ashton, the grandson of a former president of the Mormon Church. ...
“We’ve spoken out on other issues, we’ve spoken out on abortion, we’ve spoken out on those other kinds of things,” said Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormons are formally called, in Salt Lake City. “But we don’t get involved to the degree we did on this.”
No representation without taxation?
The California measure, Proposition 8, was to many Mormons a kind of firewall to be held at all costs. ...
First approached by the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco a few weeks after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May, the Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties.
Shortly after receiving the invitation from the San Francisco Archdiocese, the Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City issued a four-paragraph decree to be read to congregations, saying “the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan,” and urging members to become involved with the cause.
Should we be prosecuting religious leaders who were so evil as to contradict Christ's teachings? Or should they be paying massive taxes to save our corporations from economic meltdown? Either way, the Catholic and Mormon churches have violated what any decent religion would never do.
When asked, "How do we tell good Catholics from bad?", he replied, "Kill them all. God will know his own." Religion again doing what it does best.
Here's my views on it,
presented in a manner much more musical and entertaining than I could achieve...
.
I'll tell you what it is -- it's Ostrich syndrome. You know, hiding your head in the sand. These people don't want to believe that two same-sex people could possibly actually love each other; they think it's pure deviant lust, so they think they can simply legislate against its expression and it will go away. Stupid.
I think there's something to that, Juni.
On the question of rights: I don't believe 'rights' exist as some kind of inherent and definable thing in nature or humanity. We have the 'right' to life? Life
is. We
are. We need to bear in mind that rights are an artificial construct, a theoretic framework with which we understand certain aspects of our humanity. Within that context, 'rights' are a communally agreed set of standards, an understanding which has shifted and developed over time. In truth, we can only really define our rights in the negative: it is only the threat to them which requires them to be identified/constructed.
Far easier to define is where our rights break down. I think Radar has a good point about humans having the right to do anything that doesn't impinge on another's rights. A little like common law, whereby the assumption is that an activity is acceptable unless prohibited.
In terms of government's role in this question, I think the description Paine gives of the concept of 'natural rights' and the relationship between rights and society sits at the heart of the matter. Our individual natural rights are invested by us into the collective of society and in doing so our rights are shared and defended. Our individual rights are imperfect inasmuch as we cannot individually defend them. The question then becomes, what is the relationship between society and government. If government is separate from society then our rights cannot be invested in government. If government is an expression of society, then it is the logical holder and defender of those collective rights.
How do I know what our rights are? Simple. We are born with the right to do ANYTHINGwe want as long as our actions don't physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others. This means, since I own myself, I own my voice. I therefore have the right to freedom of expression. You also have freedom of expression, but you do not have the right to go through your life without ever being offended by the expression of others. You don't have the right to use force against others to prevent you from getting your feelings hurt.
One persons right to marry any consenting other they choose is no more or less important than another person's right to life. Rights are rights are rights. If you violate one of my rights, I may violate one of the rights you hold more dearly.
I still don't think you're talking about "rights" here. Actually, I don't think there is such a thing as "rights" - I think they are a manmade invention, a rationale for what we're really doing, which is asserting our power over someone else.
You don't have any "rights" - what you have is power. You have the "right" to do anything you can do without someone else stopping you from doing it. Calling it a "right" just gives a sort of fabricated dignity to the act of asserting your will.
Ah. Arguing over semantics.
Well, there you go, it's not that Americans are more conservative than Europeans, it's that European gays aren't as pedantic.
America has a nasty history with the idea of 'separate but equal'.
Separate but equal never really is.
We have a similar history in terms of gender but ours is more separate and absolutely not equal :P
Bear in mind we were still locking people up for homosexuality in my parents generation.
Talking of the slow route to equality.....do you know what year the British legal system recognised rape in marriage as a possibility? Prior to this it was not considered legally possible for a husband to rape his wife.
Bah, all kitchen stoves should be 2 feet high. :p
Here's my views on it, presented in a manner much more musical and entertaining than I could achieve...
Thanks for that. I really like the video.
I still don't think you're talking about "rights" here. Actually, I don't think there is such a thing as "rights" - I think they are a manmade invention, a rationale for what we're really doing, which is asserting our power over someone else.
You don't have any "rights" - what you have is power. You have the "right" to do anything you can do without someone else stopping you from doing it. Calling it a "right" just gives a sort of fabricated dignity to the act of asserting your will.
Rights are not a "manmade invention". They are a part of natural law. They are as real, as immutable, as tangible, and as undeniable as gravity. I do indeed have rights and my rights don't come from "society" or from "government". My rights are mine at birth and they can't be bought, sold, given, taken, or voted away. I'd have the same rights whether I was born in America, or North Korea. If someone is violating my rights, it does not mean I lost them.
If every person on earth unanimously voted for gravity to disappear, we'd still have gravity tomorrow. The same is true of our rights. They are a part of nature, and they can't be voted away.
Our rights come from the fact that we own ourselves. I own myself and my life. Therefore I have a right to defend that life, or if I choose...to end it. This is why honestly obtaining and owning any kind of weapon is a right. I own my voice. This is why I have the right to free speech. I own my thoughts, this is why I have the right to free expression. I own my body and my labor, and this is why I own the fruits of my labor. When I buy something with the fruits of my labor (money), it is an extension of my own body. This is why I have the right to own property.
No other person, or group of people, regardless of their number or what they call themselves (gang, society, government, etc.) has claim to my person, my labor, or the fruits of my labor. Nor do they have any legitimate authority to violate my rights or to limit them. The only valid limitation on my rights are the equal rights of others.
To claim we have no rights, or that rights are a social construct, or a man made concept, is to say that slavery is appropriate. It is to say that one person may have more of a claim to your body than you have for yourself. It is to say that when you are enslaved, you have no right to complain. It is to say that you do not own yourself.
Society or government, or whatever you want to call it, may never have any powers over and above the rights of a single individual. This is because all governmental power is derived from our rights. If we don't have a right to do something, it means we can't grant that power to government. It doesn't matter if it's one person or a billion people.
For instance, if I were on an island where there were other people, but no government at all, I'd have absolutely no right to prevent a gay couple from marrying each other, or to prevent a woman from having an abortion, or to use force to prevent another person from using drugs, or gambling, or committing suicide, or trading sex for money. These are consensual acts and the only people affected by these activities are those involved, and they have consented to any dangers involved.
Since I have no right to use force to prevent these things, neither do a thousand of me, a million of me, or a billion of me calling themselves "government" or "society".
The bottom line is rights exist independently of whether or not you can exercise them, independently of whether you are living alone or with a billion people, and independently of whether or not anyone is there to exercise them.
I still don't think you're talking about "rights" here. Actually, I don't think there is such a thing as "rights" - I think they are a manmade invention, a rationale for what we're really doing, which is asserting our power over someone else.
You don't have any "rights" - what you have is power. You have the "right" to do anything you can do without someone else stopping you from doing it. Calling it a "right" just gives a sort of fabricated dignity to the act of asserting your will.
So, no power, no rights.
The more power you have, the more rights you have.
That sounds about right to me. ;)
Yes, but where do they come from, these magical "rights"? Who says you've got 'em? Is there proof that they exist?
It's not so much that rights are a manmade invention, it's that man has decided that they must exist and gave them the name "rights."
When you say you have a "right" do this or that, or "no right" to prevent this or that, you're talking about ethics, about what is morally correct or...what's the word..."right." Of course, ethics and morals are subjective and open to interpretation.
What are our "rights," anyway? Is there a list? Who created it? Was it like Moses and the ten commandments?
We do agree that one person's rights end where another's begin, but I think there's a great deal of overlap. For example, if you think a woman has a right to abortion, why doesn't the fetus have a right to survive? (and who says "rights" are given at birth instead of conception? Or even before conception, for that matter?) If you think someone has the right to suicide, why doesn't his family have the right to prevent it? Almost in no case are the only people consensually involved in an act the only people who are affected by that act. If you think you have no right to prevent someone from shooting up heroin, why doesn't that person's child have the right to a drug-free mother?
See, the trouble with "rights" they way you define them is that they tend to overlap or have blurry edges.
Which leads to the question of whose rights are more important.
And since "rights" are not immutable - in fact, are nothing more than a concept invented by man to define his sense of ethics - it comes down to who's got the loudest voice or the biggest weapon.
Don't agree? Prove it.
Yes, but where do they come from, these magical "rights"? Who says you've got 'em? Is there proof that they exist?
I've never used the word "magical" to describe rights. Is gravity "magical"? Where does gravity come from? Rights come from the same place as gravity; specifically from nature. They are all part of natural law.
It's not so much that rights are a manmade invention, it's that man has decided that they must exist and gave them the name "rights."
Not really. Men discovered rights that always existed in much the same way Isaac Newton discovered gravity.
When you say you have a "right" do this or that, or "no right" to prevent this or that, you're talking about ethics, about what is morally correct or...what's the word..."right." Of course, ethics and morals are subjective and open to interpretation.
The natural state of man is freedom. The freedom to do
ANYTHING you want as long as your actions do not
physically harm, endanger, or violate the rights of others. No person has the right to initiate force against another, but all people have the right to use force in their defense.
We do agree that one person's rights end where another's begin, but I think there's a great deal of overlap.
Not really. You deny that rights are even real, so we obviously can't agree on where they begin or end.
For example, if you think a woman has a right to abortion, why doesn't the fetus have a right to survive?
Again, we own ourselves and no other person or other organism has any claim to our body against our will. As long as something resides within our body it has no rights, especially over and above our own. For all intents and purposes, we are the
GOD of our own body. We alone get 100% of all decision making power over what will allow to live or die within our body. In fact, since we own ourselves and our life, we can take our own life too.
If you think someone has the right to suicide, why doesn't his family have the right to prevent it?
Because we own ourselves and no other person has any claim to our body or our life, even if they love us.
Almost in no case are the only people consensually involved in an act the only people who are affected by that act.
Emotional harm is irrelevant. Only physical harm does. If we locked up everyone who hurt the feelings of another, everyone on earth would be locked up and we'd have nobody to close the door and turn the key.
If you think you have no right to prevent someone from shooting up heroin, why doesn't that person's child have the right to a drug-free mother?
Because the person doing heroin owns their body and themselves. The child has no claim to the body or the life of their mother. The child does have a right not to be endangered or physically harmed by the parent. If the heroin using mother is also endangering their child, the child can be assigned new parents
(as long as they are willingly taking this responsibility) where they won't be endangered.
Your rights don't include changing the person, property, or behavior of others as long as their actions do not
PHYSICALLY harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of another. Since the child has no claim to the body of their mother, they do not have a right to a drug-free mother. They only have the right to an endangerment free mother.
See, the trouble with "rights" they way you define them is that they tend to overlap or have blurry edges.
Nope. They are clear and simple, and easy to recognize. There are no blurry edges. There is nothing vague or ambiguous about it. You own yourself, and you have no claim to anyone else. End of story.
Which leads to the question of whose rights are more important.
There is no need to question this since our rights do not overlap. Your right to swing your fist ends where another person's nose begins.
And since "rights" are not immutable - in fact, are nothing more than a concept invented by man to define his sense of ethics - it comes down to who's got the loudest voice or the biggest weapon.
Don't agree? Prove it.
The Descent of Man - Charles Darwin
Natural Law and Natural Rights - James A. Donald
Second Treatise on Civil Government - John Locke
The Rights of Man - Thomas Paine
The Declaration of Independence - Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen) - National Assembly of France
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Magna Carta - Archbishop Stephen Langton
The Law - Frederic Bastiat
Natural Law - Lysander Spooner
Human rights have been self-evident for thousands of years throughout every part of the world. People have always known that freedom was the natural state of humanity. Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle even knew this. Rights are both self-evident and exist. You can't see air, but you can breath it. You can't touch gravity, but you know it exists. You have no proof that love exists, but few would doubt its existence. Humans didn't invent love. Nor did they invent rights.
Rights have existed for as long as the universe has existed and they come from the same place that created the universe and natural law. Human rights existed before humans existed and will exist as long as the universe does. They just are.
Are you having fun yet Juni? lol
To each there own...Just dont screw up my children
Well, you can list any number of opinions - smart men, great philosophers, but I'm still not convinced that is proof. Gravity can be proven and quantified. Love, much like rights, means different things to different people. Rights aren't something you can see, smell, touch, etc. so all those philosophers are just saying these "rights" are the way people should behave, ethically and ideally.
This argument is kind of silly anyway -- fundamentally we do not disagree. We do agree on what is right and wrong, what is best for society in general (with a few important exceptions).
I just don't think that life comes with any guarantees. The only "rights" you get are the ones you're lucky enough to be given or strong enough to take.
I do however appreciate your explanation of the pro-choice rationale. I disagree, but at least I understand better what I am disagreeing with.
Are you having fun yet Juni? lol
Yup. :D
The rights of a single person are more important the opinions, desires, and votes of millions.
In other words, YOUR VOTE DOESN'T MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE.
You have a right to express your opinion. You do not have a right to violate the rights of others or to vote for government to do it for you.
And this from the same a-hole who said throw out the bastards who don't agree with me. What a tard.
It's not that I'm always right. You're just always wrong when it comes to the Constitution, the role of the military, the founders, etc. and I just happen to be the guy to set you straight.
Just to throw in a thought or two. All this talk about rights, definition of marriage. What we are really talking about is changing deep cultural behavior/beliefs. Changing a deep cultural behavior, something that has been around for at least a couple of thousand years, probably won't happen in 50 years. It will take a bit more time for that to sink in.
Yeah, but queers have been around just as long. It's taken thousands of years to be tolerated, sanctioned probably won't take as long.
It's not changing anything. The marriage of straight people doesn't change one bit when gay people exercise their rights. Gay people aren't trying to force churches to perform gay marriages. They just want access to the same government services that any other citizen has access to.
And this from the same a-hole who said throw out the bastards who don't agree with me. What a tard.
Whatever you say douchebag. I didn't say people should be thrown out for disagreeing with me. I said they should be thrown out for violating the rights of other citizens. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing on a subject. If that's all that was happening, there wouldn't be a problem. It's not the words of the right-wing dickheads like you that bother me. It's the actions.
They are taking actions to violate the civil rights of one set of citizens simply because they don't like them. This makes them unworthy of living in America. In fact, it makes them unworthy to live period. If they get to decide on whether other people marry, then I get to decide whether or not they are allowed to live.
Now run along you little cock jockey and try to pretend that I haven't beaten you in every political debate we've ever had.
Yeah, but queers have been around just as long. It's taken thousands of years to be tolerated, sanctioned probably won't take as long.
Gay people have been around for as long as straight people. The fact that this is even an issue is insane.
Didn't they put the issue to vote in over 30 states this past election? It seems to me that the people have decided. Isn't that what you asked for? Now that it didn't go your way, you just sound like a sore loser.
Whatever you say douchebag. I didn't say people should be thrown out for disagreeing with me. I said they should be thrown out for violating the rights of other citizens. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing on a subject. If that's all that was happening, there wouldn't be a problem. It's not the words of the right-wing dickheads like you that bother me. It's the actions.
They are taking actions to violate the civil rights of one set of citizens simply because they don't like them. This makes them unworthy of living in America. In fact, it makes them unworthy to live period. If they get to decide on whether other people marry, then I get to decide whether or not they are allowed to live.
Now run along you little cock jockey and try to pretend that I haven't beaten you in every political debate we've ever had.
Well then you better stock up on bullets because you've got 6,156,848 "unworthy" people that you need to take care of oh Constitutional Savior.
Gravity can be proven and quantified
Anyone who believes that hasn't been paying attention to physics in the last 20 years.
"Gravity" is a mental marker for a collection of physical effects, the cause and functions of which nobody really agrees on. "Rights" is a mental marker for a collection of ethical interactions, the effects of which we can see, the cause and function of which nobody really agrees on.
Anyone who believes that hasn't been paying attention to physics in the last 20 years.
"Gravity" is a mental marker for a collection of physical effects, the cause and functions of which nobody really agrees on. "Rights" is a mental marker for a collection of ethical interactions, the effects of which we can see, the cause and function of which nobody really agrees on.
OK, you got me - I am not well versed in physics.
I suppose "gravity" itself cannot be proven or measured, but the effects of it can. But regardless of this, it can still be experienced - nobody can argue it does not exist. We can measure the effects of gravity. We can come up with mathematical formulas for gravity. You can't do that with "rights."
The effects of violating someones rights can also be measured. Ever heard of the revolutionary war? Civil rights marches of the 60's? India winning independence from the United Kingdom?
Well then you better stock up on bullets because you've got 6,156,848 "unworthy" people that you need to take care of oh Constitutional Savior.
I'm sure I could get all the bullets I want donated by those whose civil rights they violated. Although with that many people, I might have to set up a system like they had in Auschwitz. Either that or turn them into soilent green for starving African nations. It would certainly make America a better place to live in. If I killed them all, I wouldn't be doing anything worse than they did to gay people.
Here's the thing. Aside from nitpicky, circular-reasoning arguments about the definition and source of "rights," the point is what role popular opinion plays in our country's legislation.
Let's put aside the issue of constitutional interpretation too -- even if you're in love with the US constitution (and I have a lot of respect for it too) the fact is that it's experimental, it's constantly under review, and it wasn't handed down by divine authority. It is not imprimatur.
The point of this is to question whether it is possible, if it is proper, if it is ethically sound to prevent a majority of citizens within a governmental unit - state, country, etc. - to pass a law that goes against what others perceive as being natural rights.
Let's say for the sake of argument that 60% of a state's residents voted to make --oh, I dunno what -- anchovies on pizza illegal. Yet you, who love anchovies, and a lot of other people think it's your right to be able to order whatever pizza topping you want, and since it doesn't affect other people's pizza experience, you think it's a stupid law. Which it is. But if 60% of the people want it outlawed, you can't change that just by virtue of "having rights." Nope - your options are to go someplace that does allow anchovies, campaign to have the law rescinded, or eat them on the sly.
The point is that it is not possible to keep a government that legislates by popular vote from doing some stupid things.
The point is that it is not desirable to keep a government that legislates by popular vote from doing some stupid things. Why? Because to some, it's not stupid. The anti-anchovy activists believe in their cause. They are just as convinced that they have the right to ban toppings they don't enjoy. And maybe they do. It's totally a matter of opinion.
How would they have this right? To follow your logic, Radar, perhaps they have the right to ban anchovies in retaliation to another group's assertion of "rights" that pissed them off.
The effects of violating someones rights can also be measured. Ever heard of the revolutionary war? Civil rights marches of the 60's? India winning independence from the United Kingdom?
No, I've never heard of the Revolutionary War. What was that about?
You're awfully naive if you think those battles were fought for purely ideological reasons.
I suppose you think the Civil War was about rights, too.
It would certainly make America a better place to live in. If I killed them all, I wouldn't be doing anything worse than they did to gay people.
Oh shit, hang on - you're actually saying that voting against gay marriage is equivalent to murder?
I am debating with a madman. :headshake
Well, I was warned, and I didn't listen, eh?
No, I've never heard of the Revolutionary War. What was that about?
You're awfully naive if you think those battles were fought for purely ideological reasons.
I suppose you think the Civil War was about rights, too.
It was about rights. The rights of the people in some states to secede from the union. The states entered voluntarily into the unions, and according to the U.S. Constitution, they have the legitimate authority to leave the union.
It was about money and power, same as every war from the beginning of time. Rights were just a rationale, a PR spin.
Oh shit, hang on - you're actually saying that voting against gay marriage is equivalent to murder?
I am debating with a madman. :headshake
Well, I was warned, and I didn't listen, eh?
A violation of rights is a violation of rights. Just because you consider the right to life more important than the right to marry doesn't mean I agree. Nobody has the right to vote against gay marriage. They don't even have the right to put it on the ballot. It's no different to violate the rights of gay people to marry, than it is for me to enslave someone, or rape someone, or rob them, or kill them.
If you think that makes me a "madman", so be it. I think anyone who violates the rights of other people to be insane so I guess we have a similar opinion of each other. I think people who deny that rights exist to be monsters on an epic scale. They are in the company of people like Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mugabe, Milosevic, etc.
Huh. All rights are created equal, and I'm a monster. Ooh, not just a monster, an epic monster.
I'm like Hitler!
You learn something new every day.
The Northern States were bullying the Southern states (over money and power) because they had greater populations and were more industrialized and the Southern states decided to secede from the union because they didn't feel they were being fairly represented and they didn't like getting pushed around.
Lincoln violated the Constitution and got 600,000 Americans killed unnecessarily to prevent the union from breaking while under his administration.
The Southern states did nothing wrong when they left the union. Slavery would have ended even in the Confederate States of America within 20 years. It didn't make fiscal sense to keep them after Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. Slaves are expensive to keep. I realize the war was not over slavery, but this is often brought up by revisionists as the reason for the war. These are the people who look at Lincoln as a hero.
Personally, I believe the U.S. would have been far better off if Lincoln didn't try to stop the Southern states from leaving. We would have better government, a more enlightened society, better political leaders, etc.
Think about it, George W. Bush would never have been president. In fact, JFK might never have been killed.
Huh. All rights are created equal, and I'm a monster. Ooh, not just a monster, an epic monster.
I'm like Hitler!
You learn something new every day.
If you don't believe human beings have inalienable rights, yes....you are a monster. The good news is identifying the problem is half the battle. Now you can seek help to fix it.
:lol2:
I'll be sure to bring your name up at my next monster-anon meeting.
OK. You want to alter my opinion about these mythical "rights," you need to give me:
1.) a list of them
2.) the story of how they were "discovered":
Not really. Men discovered rights that always existed in much the same way Isaac Newton discovered gravity.
What equipment was needed for this discovery? Were they discovered orbiting Saturn? Were they discovered microscopically in someone's blood plasma? Were they lurking in a long-lost Dead Sea Scroll? Did an orange fall on someone's head, so mankind could at last compare the two fruits?
Listen, I am not heartless. I think we have a very nitpicky argument here about "rights" vs. ethics.
What I am saying is that "rights" do not exist, but ethics do -- there is always a question of what IS right. Therefore, good people will make an ethical decision based on the "golden rule" (treat others as you'd want to be treated). But the application of this depends on many things, not the least of which is money and power. Rights, like laws, are only worth their power of enforcement.
Ethics are rules to keep from treading on other people's rights.
Ethics are rules to keep from treading on other people's rights.
Ethics aren't rules. Ethics are an intangible sense of right vs. wrong.
I've never discussed "mythical rights". I've discussed the very real human rights that have been recognized as self-evident throughout the planet earth for over a thousand years.
1) List all of the stars in the universe, and then I'll list all of our rights. Both jobs will require similar effort.
2) The story is in the links I gave you. Read them.
3) What equipment was required to discover gravity? None. Someone sat under an apple tree and he was hit on the noggin with gravity.
If you actually read the items I posted, you'll have a clue about how they were discovered. I could add plenty more. Another very early writer on the topic of inalienable human rights is Saint Thomas Aquinas. You could also read Alexis de Toqueville, Harry Browne, Peter McWilliams, David Bergland, etc.
I know what you are saying, but you are wrong. Rights do exist, and ethics also. To deny the existence of rights is to say you would have no more right to complain if I rob you, rape you, enslave you, or kill you than you would to complain that it is raining.
You are asking me for answers, and I've already given them to you. I created links to each of those things that you can read. At the very least read "Natural Law" and "The Law" if you're too lazy to read anything else.
I've never discussed "mythical rights". I've discussed the very real human rights that have been recognized as self-evident throughout the planet earth for over a thousand years.
1) List all of the stars in the universe, and then I'll list all of our rights. Both jobs will require similar effort.
Very well. In that case, on what basis would you determine what is NOT someone's right?
Call me whatever you will, but don't you dare call me lazy. I've already read most of what you posted. As I said before, while I agree they were brilliant philosophers, they are not imprimatur. Theories. Opinions. Not proof.
3) What equipment was required to discover gravity? None. Someone sat under an apple tree and he was hit on the noggin with gravity.
He was hit in the noggin with an apple, not with gravity. And really, even that is a legend that may or may not have actually taken place.
I know what you are saying, but you are wrong. Rights do exist, and ethics also. To deny the existence of rights is to say you would have no more right to complain if I rob you, rape you, enslave you, or kill you than you would to complain that it is raining.
OK. Rights exist because you say they do. So mote it be. If you drag an argument out until your opponent ceases to give a shit, I guess you still can claim victory. Enjoy.
If you don't believe human beings have inalienable rights, yes....you are a monster. The good news is identifying the problem is half the battle. Now you can seek help to fix it.
Then I am a monster.
I believe in the civilising power of progress...through that progress we have identified a set of 'rights' which we currently deem inalienable...but they're not actually inherent in our humanity. I am a card carrying member of Amnesty International and campaign in my country on 'human rights': but I also recognise that these rights are an intellectual construct, a theoretical framework into which we place our understanding of ourselves. I like that intellectual construct, it is useful for us as a species, and allows us to transcend some of the less appealing aspects of our humanity.
In the identification and application of an agreed set of 'rights' we are able to transcend in large degree our animal selves.
But those rights are not inherent. If they are then they must also apply beyond our species to other animals. We are animals. Thinking, feeling, advanced animals.
[eta] in the centuries of philosophy to which you refer Radar, the concept of natural rights included within it an acceptance of inequality between the sexes. Tom Paine, whilst arguing for greater rights for all (including women) nonetheless drew a distinction. I'm paraphrasing now, because my copy of RoM is at my house and I'm down at mum's, but it goes something like this: Nature recognises no inequality except for that which exists between the sexes.
The rights of
man are not necessarily the rights of woman. To me, as a woman, the rights you speak of are profoundly alienable.
Dana, I understand your point of view, but you're wrong. The differences in rights that you perceive are cultural, not natural. You should know that there have been and still are matrilineal societies where women have dominant rights. If there are these, and patrilineal rights, too, then there can be no "inherent" applied to either sex.
Dana, I understand your point of view, but you're wrong. The differences in rights that you perceive are cultural, not natural. You should know that there have been and still are matrilineal societies where women have dominant rights. If there are these, and patrilineal rights, too, then there can be no "inherent" applied to either sex.
In what way does that make me wrong? I don't believe rights are inherent to either sex. I don't believe rights are inherent at all. I was merely pointing out to Radar that the sources he cites as evidence for the existence of rights (the fact that a thousand years' of philosphers and thinkers have all recognised the existence of natural human rights) do not actually point to a recognition of inalienable human rights at all. Many of the writers who suggested that natural rights exist, also suggested that those rights are not equally applied across the sexes.
By Tom Paine's logic, I, as a woman, am not equal in nature to Radar, as a man. I, as a woman, do not have the same human rights as Radar.
OK, reading again, I misunderstood your post. And reading my post again, I misspoke. I agree with Radar that we all have inherent rights, but I came across as saying that no one does.
And fuck Thomas Paine.
Whatever you say douchebag. I didn't say people should be thrown out for disagreeing with me. I said they should be thrown out for violating the rights of other citizens. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing on a subject. If that's all that was happening, there wouldn't be a problem. It's not the words of the right-wing dickheads like you that bother me. It's the actions.
They are taking actions to violate the civil rights of one set of citizens simply because they don't like them. This makes them unworthy of living in America. In fact, it makes them unworthy to live period. If they get to decide on whether other people marry, then I get to decide whether or not they are allowed to live.
Now run along you little cock jockey and try to pretend that I haven't beaten you in every political debate we've ever had.
I'm being affected by Prop 8. It's seriously pissing me off. I think each and every single person who voted for it should be deported. If you're stupid enough to think your rights include determining what rights other people have, you don't belong in America because you have no understanding of what rights are or what freedom means.
This specifically says things you believe to be fact:
1) You feel you are being affected by a group of individuals rights to use the system as it was set up and get a proposition on the ballot, open to a majority democratic vote.
2) You are pissed off by it. I can buy that but I can't buy your failure to recognize that others have a legal right to enact state law within the framework of their state constitution.
3) You think that these people are stupid, implying you are in some way smarter, which you are quite obviously not.
4) You have the right to determine that these people, legal US citizens, do not deserve to live in the US.
5) You are the only person who may determine an understanding of what rights are or what freedom means in this country. And you have been proven many times over to have nothing more than an opinion not based on anything other than your own understandings, misunderstandings, and prejudices. Many scholars disagree with you but you fail to recognize that others may have valid arguments which contradict your extreme views. And unfortunately for you, the scholars have credentials, you have none.
Now someone bring me some popcorn. :corn:
This specifically says things you believe to be fact:
1) You feel you are being affected by a group of individuals rights to use the system as it was set up and get a proposition on the ballot, open to a majority democratic vote.
2) You are pissed off by it. I can buy that but I can't buy your failure to recognize that others have a legal right to enact state law within the framework of their state constitution.
3) You think that these people are stupid, implying you are in some way smarter, which you are quite obviously not.
4) You have the right to determine that these people, legal US citizens, do not deserve to live in the US.
5) You are the only person who may determine an understanding of what rights are or what freedom means in this country. And you have been proven many times over to have nothing more than an opinion not based on anything other than your own understandings, misunderstandings, and prejudices. Many scholars disagree with you but you fail to recognize that others may have valid arguments which contradict your extreme views. And unfortunately for you, the scholars have credentials, you have none.
Now someone bring me some popcorn. :corn:
Wrong as usual.
1. The group does NOT have a right to use the system to violate the rights of another. I'm affected because they are misusing the system. Democracy doesn't mean one group of people gets to vote on the rights of another. Not everything can be voted on.
2. The legitimate powers of government are derived from the rights of individuals. Since no person has the right to force another not to marry, they may not give this power to government. No framework allows this because it all comes down to this fact.
3. You're not in a position to judge my intelligence since I'm obviously far more intelligent and well-educated than you and I'm smarter than anyone who denies the existence of rights or who thinks they have the authority to vote on the rights of others.
4. Neither you, nor I have any right to determine whether or not others may come into America. The federal government has no authority in the matter, and we have no authority to grant government such a power since we, as individuals, do not have this power.
5. I have more than an "opinion" about it. I've proven each and every single thing I've ever said about the Constitution, the limitations on the powers of the federal government, my vast and accurate understanding of civics, the Constitution, the founders, and the meaning of freedom. I've backed up everything I've ever said with facts, reason, logic, and historical documentation. My views are not extreme in the slightest, but if they were, I'd remind you of Barry Goldwater's line...
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"
Wrong as usual.
1. The group does NOT have a right to use the system to violate the rights of another. I'm affected because they are misusing the system. Democracy doesn't mean one group of people gets to vote on the rights of another. Not everything can be voted on.
2. The legitimate powers of government are derived from the rights of individuals. Since no person has the right to force another not to marry, they may not give this power to government. No framework allows this because it all comes down to this fact.
3. You're not in a position to judge my intelligence since I'm obviously far more intelligent and well-educated than you and I'm smarter than anyone who denies the existence of rights or who thinks they have the authority to vote on the rights of others.
4. Neither you, nor I have any right to determine whether or not others may come into America. The federal government has no authority in the matter, and we have no authority to grant government such a power since we, as individuals, do not have this power.
5. I have more than an "opinion" about it. I've proven each and every single thing I've ever said about the Constitution, the limitations on the powers of the federal government, my vast and accurate understanding of civics, the Constitution, the founders, and the meaning of freedom. I've backed up everything I've ever said with facts, reason, logic, and historical documentation. My views are not extreme in the slightest, but if they were, I'd remind you of Barry Goldwater's line...
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"
Radar's Rantings and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html#npdVery well. In that case, on what basis would you determine what is NOT someone's right?
I believe I've been very clear on this matter, but I'll say it again.
We have the right to do ANYTHING we was as long as our actions do not physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of a non-consenting other.
Governments are here to defend us from being harmed by others, but not to protect us from harming ourselves.
If your actions initiate force or the threat of force (coercion) to make other people act a certain way, you are stepping beyond your rights.
If you make a law that says people must stop at red lights, you are defending safety. Since we have a right to defend ourselves, we may grant this power to government. If you make a law that says people must wear helmets when riding a motorcycle, you are using coercion
(the threat that men with guns will show up and take away your freedom) to force someone else to do something against their will even though if they weren't doing it, it would not harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.
If you make a law against rape, you are defending non-consenting people against the aggression of others. If you make a law that says someone may not offer sexual services for money, you are saying that you have a more of a claim to their body than they have for themselves and that you get to make decisions over their body against their will. You are trying to defend them against their own decisions.
This is a very clear and easy way to determine what is or is not a right.
I like to use the "If I were on an island" test.
If I were on an island with other people and no laws or government, would I have a right to do this?
For instance, if I were on an island that has people on it but no laws or government, would I have the right to prevent a woman from getting an abortion? Of course not. It is her own body and I have no say over her body or its contents. I therefore could not grant this power to government, and neither could a million of me, or a billion of me. Zero times a billion is still zero.
If I were on an island that has people on it but no laws or government, and someone tried to steal the vegetables I was growing, would I have the right to use force to stop them? Yes, I would because I'd be using defensive force, not aggressive force. If my neighbors and I agree to band together to defend against a gang of thugs, are we within our rights? Yes, because we are defending. We aren't trying to use force against other people to make them do something against their will.
Call me whatever you will, but don't you dare call me lazy. I've already read most of what you posted. As I said before, while I agree they were brilliant philosophers, they are not imprimatur. Theories. Opinions. Not proof.
These people prepared well-reasoned arguments about why rights exist. I have heard nothing equally intelligent to the contrary.
In the end it comes down to this.
You either believe we are born with rights and we own ourselves, or you think we have no rights, and we are the property of someone else or a group of someone else.
Radar's Rantings and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html#npd
Stating that I'm more intelligent, well-educated, and well-reasoned than you is neither narcissistic, nor a disorder. It's just an accurate description of the facts.
Besides, you've got your own disorder to worry about...
OK, reading again, I misunderstood your post. And reading my post again, I misspoke. I agree with Radar that we all have inherent rights, but I came across as saying that no one does.
And fuck Thomas Paine.
Hear Hear!
Stating that I'm more intelligent, well-educated, and well-reasoned than you is neither narcissistic, nor a disorder. It's just an accurate description of the facts.
Besides, you've got your own disorder to worry about...
You fail again. It is all explained here:
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=504834&postcount=125
:corn:
Is linking to your own post, which I've already refuted supposed to prove something other than the fact that you got owned?
:corn:
Is linking to your own post, which I've already refuted supposed to prove something other than the fact that you got owned?
You have refuted nothing, only whined about your personality disorder.
:corn:
I'm with Juniper - and unfortunately for you Radar - my opinion, just like everyone else's counts just as much as yours. The people have spoken and you lost - stop whining.
:lol2: I gave up trying to have a logical discussion with that idiot a long time ago. You either agree with him or he has a tantrum. I could just see him slamming his fist on his keyboard and screaming at the computer because someone dared have a different opinion. It has become pretty entertaining if you ask me. :D
lol...sure.
I'm having mine with maltezers and a coke. :)
Thanks, I'll give it right back.
That's better...
:corn:
:lol2: I gave up trying to have a logical discussion with that idiot a long time ago. You either agree with him or he has a tantrum. I could just see him slamming his fist on his keyboard and screaming at the computer because someone dared have a different opinion. It has become pretty entertaining if you ask me. :D
By all means, point out where I've had a "tantrum". I have set you straight, and corrected you when you've either said something stupid, or tried to lie. You're welcome to have any opinion you want as long as you don't take action on that opinion and try to legislate it onto others. I could give less than a shit about your opinion, or that of other douche nozzles like classicman. Your mean nothing to me.
It's only when you take actions that violate the rights of others that I get involved. When your fellow citizens the free exercise of their right to marry any consenting other they choose regardless of things like religion, sexual preference, gender, race, etc. you are committing a crime against them.
I do find it amusing that you have this whole scenario in your thoughtless little mind where I am frustrated or angry and shout at my screen or slam my keyboard. I guess when your mind isn't busy absorbing information, it must wander and daydream. You're just not important enough to me to ever make me upset. The most I'll do is correct you when you're wrong and rub your nose in it like a dog.
For the record, you gave up trying to have rational discussions with anyone before you ever started having conversations, and you aren't in a position to call anyone an idiot, especially your intellectual, social, and moral superiors like me.
Oh geez...I'm outta popcorn.
Anyone got some gum?
Oh geez...I'm outta popcorn.
Anyone got some gum?
Yep, right here.
You're looking young these days Merc. You been moisturising? ;)
Right or wrong, saying things like "I'm smarter/superior/better educated" is pretty lame. Those who have truly achieved those superlative heights, whether it be knowledge, wealth, or spiritual virtue, have no need to TELL others how good they are. It either shows, or it doesn't.
But I guess you do indeed have the right to be an ass.
For the record, you gave up trying to have rational discussions with anyone before you ever started having conversations, and you aren't in a position to call anyone an idiot, especially your intellectual, social, and moral superiors like me.So stop making fun of my narcissistic personality disorder!
:lol2:
I think you're catching on now Juni. :D
You're looking young these days Merc. You been moisturising? ;)
Yeppers! Youth pills. Ya think I might have over done it? :D
Maybe just a little bit. ;)
Right or wrong, saying things like "I'm smarter/superior/better educated" is pretty lame. Those who have truly achieved those superlative heights, whether it be knowledge, wealth, or spiritual virtue, have no need to TELL others how good they are. It either shows, or it doesn't.
But I guess you do indeed have the right to be an ass.
It's nice to see I've convinced you that we have rights. As far as tooting my own horn goes, it has more to do with his inferiority than my superiority. The average 40 year old guy working at a fast food place has a lot more on the ball than Merc.
:corn: Ali, I still have some left, you want me to send you some?
Oh yeah...for Xmas. lol Yummy.
It's nice to see I've convinced you that we have rights.
That was sarcasm. :rolleyes:
This thread has become as entertaining as the 'liberal thugocracy' thread. :)
NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER
Diagnostic Features:
Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance, need for admiration, extreme self-involvement, and lack of empathy for others. Individuals with this disorder are usually arrogantly self-assured and confident. They expect to be noticed as superior. Many highly successful individuals might be considered narcissistic. However, this disorder is only diagnosed when these behaviors become persistent and very disabling or distressing.
Complications:
Vulnerability in self-esteem makes individuals with this disorder very sensitive to criticism or defeat. Although they may not show it outwardly, criticism may haunt these individuals these individuals and may leave them feeling humiliated, degraded, hollow, and empty. They may react with disdain, rage, or defiant counterattack. Their social life is often impaired due to problems derived from entitlement, the need for admiration, and the relative disregard for the sensitivities of others. Though their excessive ambition and confidence may lead to high achievement; performance may be disrupted due to intolerance of criticism or defeat. Sometimes vocational functioning can be very low, reflecting an unwillingness to take a risk in competitive or other situations in which defeat is possible. Individuals with this disorder have special difficulties adjusting to growing old and losing their former ?superiority?.
Comorbidity:
In this disorder, sustained feelings of shame or humiliation and the attendant self-criticism may be associated with social withdrawal, depressed mood, and Dysthymic or Major Depressive Disorder. In contrast, sustained periods of grandiosity may be associated with a hypomanic mood. Anorexia Nervosa, Substance-Related Disorders (especially related to cocaine), and other Personality Disorders (especially Histrionic, Borderline, Antisocial, and Paranoid) frequently co-occur with this disorder.
Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:
Believing that you're better than others
Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
Exaggerating your achievements or talents
Expecting constant praise and admiration
Believing that you're special
Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings
Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
Taking advantage of others
Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
Being jealous of others
Believing that others are jealous of you
Trouble keeping healthy relationships
Setting unrealistic goals
Being easily hurt and rejected
Having a fragile self-esteem
Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms
In the end it comes down to this.
You either believe we are born with rights and we own ourselves, or you think we have no rights, and we are the property of someone else or a group of someone else.
This is exactly right. Put aside your opinion of Radar's personality and think about it for a minute.
Natural rights. It's self explanatory.
It's true if you believe in the theory of yourself as the most important entity before all others.
This is exactly right. Put aside your opinion of Radar's personality and think about it for a minute.
Natural rights. It's self explanatory.
I am still unconvinced that rights exist as anything other than a human construct. Those rights which we have constructed and agreed upon (as a society) I deem worthy of defending and I see them as an integral part of 'civilisation' ... but they are something we, as humans have come up with and applied to ourselves.
I am still unconvinced that rights exist as anything other than a human construct.
So what you're saying is that the first humans had no rights until they became civilized enough construct them? That makes no sense to me. How is it that they were able to live and be free if they didn't have the right to?
Oppression of rights is a human construct. Privileges are a human construct.
So what you're saying is that the first humans had no rights until they became civilized enough construct them? That makes no sense to me. How is it that they were able to live and be free if they didn't have the right to?
Oppression of rights is a human construct. Privileges are a human construct.
They lived and were free (presumably) because they lived and were free. Rights have nothing to do with it. Lions live and are free. Mammoths lived and were free. Humans lived and were free. It has nothing to do with rights. We're just biological systems.
[eta] Humans had the
capacity to live and be free, rather than the
right.It's exactly the same thing.
Until someone (society/government etc) comes along and violates your rights... you have the right to live and be free and do whatever you want that doesn't violate someone elses rights.
Construct any notion of rights you like. Society treats you according to its definition, not yours. You can say "help, my rights are being infringed upon!" And you may well be right, by some knowable, provable philosophy. But your cries are meaningless to society, because society simply does not give a shit.
Having the rights is the really easy part -- if they're natural, you're born with them, mission accomplished. You can say that was the important part, but if you're, say, killed, the very notion that you would have any rights died along with your brain tissue. Defending the rights, now that's the tough part.
Why just today a guy was ruining my right to travel down the road at any speed I like, by driving in front of me at a slower speed.
So I shot him. Why take chances?
I lean towards Dana's thinking on this. We never knew what we had (rights) until we began to have societal constructs such as government to restrict our freedoms. Only then were we even able to define "rights" in the sense we discuss here. The "rights" described in the Constitution are another thing which man uses to describe where government can and cannot intervene.
Why do we (european settlers) make restitution to the native peoples of our lands? Is it because we realize we violated their natural rights?
They certainly didn't have any rights constructed within our society.... so fuck em right?
The US constitution defines some of the rights that government may not infringe upon, and others that it may protect. It does not grant any rights.
We have not made any restitution to anyone as far as I know.
Why just today a guy was ruining my right to travel down the road at any speed I like, by driving in front of me at a slower speed.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Didn't you take driver ed? ;)
Dana -- that's precisely it, very well stated.
Jinx -- if we did make restitution, it would probably be because the powers that be decided that this restitution was good for society in general. Oppressed people do not make good consumers for the retail industry.
What restitution? we put them on reservations and gave them shit. Now some are getting payback in the form of tax free gambling houses. But I still don't see that we gave them any form of restitution.
They don't get any perks Merc?
They don't get any perks Merc?
Few if any of substance.
Why do we (european settlers) make restitution to the native peoples of our lands? Is it because we realize we violated their natural rights?
They certainly didn't have any rights constructed within our society.... so fuck em right?
The US constitution defines some of the rights that government may not infringe upon, and others that it may protect. It does not grant any rights.
One group invades another and takes what they want, including rights. The right to live in peace. The right to a heritage. The right to culture.
Did they have those rights in the first place? Were they natural, or did those things evolve as time went on into something that the people took for granted till they were no longer possible?
It's the group with the power that has the rights. Natural or otherwise, it matters not. If you have no power, you have no rights.
I could give less than a shit about your opinion, or that of other douche nozzles like classicman. Your mean nothing to me.
Well well well. At least I have enough class to dislike you while still maintaining the opinion that your opinion still matters and I recognize you have been given the right to that opinion. Lucky for you, you live in America so that you can spout your drivel. Unfortunate for the rest of us.
For the record, you gave up trying to have rational discussions with anyone before you ever started having conversations, and you aren't in a position to call anyone an idiot, especially your intellectual, social, and moral superiors like me.
Bwahahhahahha - funny part is that you actually believe it. You truly are a legend in your own mind.
That was sarcasm. :rolleyes:
He doesn't usually catch that.
Oh shit, hang on - you're actually saying that voting against gay marriage is equivalent to murder?
I am debating with a madman. :headshake
Well, I was warned, and I didn't listen, eh?
Many people reach enlightenment in disputation with Radar, just not the way Radar intends. :)
Congratulations Juniper.
Remember that when you're dealing with Radar you are dealing with a man as incapable of respect as he is of compassion. At best, he finds a refuge in his tortured understanding of legalism. At worst, a clever opponent cuts him off from that refuge and exposes his crankery for all to see, which is why Radar doesn't get respect. He's too flawed as a human being, and he writes to demonstrate his flaws, whether that was his intent or not.
Hawaii civil unions bill stalled
State Senate leaders are wavering on whether to revive a civil-unions bill by pulling it from committee and are discussing possible amendments to advance it while preserving the integrity of the committee process.
While senators may have reservations in private, a vote on the Senate floor would put them on the spot publicly, and a majority have told gay activists they support civil unions.
State Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, D-21st (Nanakuli, Makaha), said she would like Senate Democrats to come to a consensus. She said earlier reports that the Senate had the votes to pull the bill from committee and to pass it on the floor were accurate at the time. But she said some senators are now looking at other factors, including the importance of maintaining the committee process.
"My position is that we need to ensure that the Senate does not damage itself, and I'm talking about the relationships among senators, as a result of any action taken," Hanabusa said. "So I am going to explore as many of the potential possibilities to see if the Senate can reach a consensus."
Ultimately, a majority of senators can control the chamber. But the Senate is guided by internal rules and has only rarely voted to pull a bill that has stalled in committee. The Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee deadlocked 3-3 last month on the civil-unions bill.
The bill would give same-sex partners the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as married couples under state law. It would also recognize domestic partnerships, civil unions and same-sex marriages performed in other states as civil unions in Hawai'i.
The state House passed the bill last month in a 33-17 vote.
Some senators said privately that Senate leaders are having second thoughts because of the large demonstration against civil unions at the state Capitol last month and the thousands of telephone calls and e-mails urging them to drop the issue. Supporters of civil unions are also doing outreach, but it appears the opponents have had the momentum since the bill left the House.
State Sen. Will Espero, D-20th ('Ewa Beach, Waipahu), has proposed amending the bill as a compromise. He said he would convert the state's existing reciprocal beneficiaries law, which provides same-sex partners some of the same rights as marriage, into civil unions with additional rights.
His proposal would give same-sex partners more rights than they have now but not the identical rights as marriage under state law.
"The intent of the amendment is to find a win-win situation where both sides will feel better," he said. "(The civil unions bill) as voted on now would make one side extremely happy and the other side extremely sad and disappointed."
The amendment could help the bill win broader support in the Senate but would likely raise complications if the bill moves into conference with the House.
Gay activists have told lawmakers that civil unions already are a compromise because they are less than full marriage equality. Same-sex partners in civil unions would not be recognized like married couples under federal law and the partnerships would not be honored in states that do not recognize civil unions.
Some senators also question why an amendment is necessary when a majority has already indicated they support civil unions. Some suggest privately that senators are looking for political cover through an amendment or the committee process to avoid taking a public vote now that the issue has turned so contentious.
State Sen. Les Ihara, Jr., D-9th (Kapahulu, Kaimuki, Palolo), said the state Constitution included the procedure for pulling bills from committee to protect minority rights. Drafters of the constitution, he said, wanted to prevent the majority from freezing bills in committee when at least one-third of the chamber wanted to bring the bill to the floor for debate.
Ihara said a vote on pulling the civil-unions bill should happen even if a majority of senators are unable to reach consensus. "This is really about protecting minority rights in the constitution," he said.
Many of the leading opponents of civil unions met yesterday afternoon at the First Assembly of God Church in Red Hill to discuss strategy. Dane Senser, a victims' rights advocate, said he believes senators are feeling the pressure. The 15 1/2-hour committee hearing last month, where opponents outnumbered supporters in often emotional testimony, was a taste of the public sentiment.
"This thing should be killed immediately," Senser said.
If religious people wish to restrict the rights of other people based on their religion (no matter how they dress it up, "definitions of marriage", etc), then perhaps we should take another look at their tax-exempt status.
TGRR,
Has made a point of being rotten to Mormons since they got involved in Prop 8.
I don't agree with Prop 8 but they used the system to pass the ban and now if they otherside wants to fight it they will have to do the same. The other side of the coin in people who support majority rule.
I had to bite my tongue in front of my parents just the other day re gay adoption. They used to have a green box in their kitchen in which they put all their loose change for St Francis Children's Homes. It's been there since I remember (a different box every year I hasten to add!) But the Church can't distribute or collect the full boxes any more, because the said charity has refused to comply to UK anti-discrimination laws. It will not allow Catholic children to be adopted by gay couples.
I'm pretty sure I've written about this before here. My parents believe it is the Govt sticking its nose into matters of faith. I believe it is the Church cutting its nose off to spite its face and is certainly NOT in the spirit of Jesus' teaching. He who broke so many taboos at the time. Not to mention of course the fact I don't believe in him and am tired of the, "this doesn't apply to me becos my God says..." reasoning.
My Dad is homophobic. Growing up poor, practically uneducated (due to poor schooling post War and dyslexia) in the post Blitz East End and with a harsh father and two older brothers, it's not all that surprising. Converting to Catholicism when he met and engaged Mum only gave him another reason for his prejudice. Funnily enough, Mum, who worked in the nursing, Ambulance and Police met more gay people than a dog has fleas. She accepts them as one of the anomalies God will sort out when she gets to Heaven.
And it has not affected me in any way growing up. I have had openly gay friends. And secretly gay friends. Somehow, like people with hidden or past eating disorders, people seem to realise they can confide in me.
The majority decision is not always right. Democracy was never meant to suggest that. Women would not have had the vote in this country when they did if democracy meant mob rule.
I don't agree with Prop 8 but they used the system to pass the ban and now if they otherside wants to fight it they will have to do the same. The other side of the coin in people who support majority rule.
Yes, but is it really fair for people to actively campaign and influence the outcome on a state ballot when they don't live in that state? I don't think so.
Once this passes, and I'm sure it will soon, that will mark the beginning of the "slippery slope." It will begin to pass in more and more states. Whether you agree with it or not isn't the issue. Those who are fighting it in CA are doing so preemptively to their own state.
On the other hand, Lobbyists do the same thing every day. So do groups like ACORN and a whole host of others... whats the difference with this, other than you disagree with them?
Yes, but is it really fair for people to actively campaign and influence the outcome on a state ballot when they don't live in that state? I don't think so.
Politics is not about "fair", it is about legal.
Once this passes, and I'm sure it will soon, that will mark the beginning of the "slippery slope." It will begin to pass in more and more states. Whether you agree with it or not isn't the issue. Those who are fighting it in CA are doing so preemptively to their own state.
On the other hand, Lobbyists do the same thing every day. So do groups like ACORN and a whole host of others... whats the difference with this, other than you disagree with them?
I believe we should get rid of lobbyists. They have completely polluted the political system.
Politics is not about "fair", it is about legal.
Sadly.
Which is why the electoral college needs to stay in place.
1. Prop 8 was a citizen initiative so it has little to do with lobbyists, but I do like how classic got his ACORN dig in.
2. Only 10-15 states have such an initiative process to amend the state constitution, so I dont see the slippery slope on this one.
3. The Cal Supreme Court has yet to rule on its constitutionality. although evidently the Court is not looking favorably to overturning it, but might very well prohibit it from being retroactive...a small victory for those same sex couples now legally married in Cal.
4. Congress and Obama can and may repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which woulld nullify much of the impact of state constitutional amendments like this in everything but name only (ie gay couples would have equal rights just w/o the formal marriage.)
1. Prop 8 was a citizen initiative so it has little to do with lobbyists, but I do like how classic got his ACORN dig in.
Thanks :) I learned that from tw.
2. Only 10-15 states have such an initiative process to amend the state constitution, so I dont see the slippery slope on this one.
Once one state has passed it, it will be much easier for other states as the precedent will have been set.
3. The Cal Supreme Court has yet to rule on its constitutionality. although evidently the Court is not looking favorably to overturning it, but might very well prohibit it from being retroactive...a small victory for those same sex couples now legally married in Cal.
Agreed
4. Congress and Obama can and may repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which would nullify much of the impact of state constitutional amendments like this in everything but name only (ie gay couples would have equal rights just w/o the formal marriage.)
That would be a start.
This issue is headed in the right direction. It will happen soon.
What the too-conservative are missing here is that a "union" encourages a lifestyle of commitment to one other, and thus encourages a life that isn't sexually promiscuous. Therefore, it's a social institution that causes gay people to be more like straight people -- and where would straight people complain on that score?
Even Saint Paul would approve.
X-Lydia sez to me rather often that the most determined support for Prop. 8 seems to come from the people who overdo on gender roles within marriage, and are made very itchy at visualizing a marriage that doesn't hew so rigidly to the gender roles they've been taught since babyhood. She regards this as a terrible intellectual failing.
What the too-conservative are missing here is that a "union" encourages a lifestyle of commitment to one other, and thus encourages a life that isn't sexually promiscuous. Therefore, it's a social institution that causes gay people to be more like straight people -- and where would straight people complain on that score?
They don't
want gay people to be more like straight people. They view the evolving attitude towards tolerance as "defining away deviancy".
The 'too conservatives' are threatened by gay people appearing to be ordinary in any way. It's the differences that make conservatives or anti gays feel superior. If they're the same, how will they then define their own relationships?
Even Saint Paul would approve.
You think?
Women-should-worship-God-by-worshipping-their-man St Paul?
The-reason-the-Catholic-church-can't-countenance-women-priests St Paul?
The-reason-evangelical-Christians-believe-women-should-be-barefoot-and-pregnant St Paul?
Of course I give him leeway for having written what he did a v-e-r-y long time ago. But given that the Church allows no such leeway I think you may have another St Paul in mind.
Oh yeah...the other St Paul.
What the too-conservative are missing here is that a "union" encourages a lifestyle of commitment to one other, and thus encourages a life that isn't sexually promiscuous. Therefore, it's a social institution that causes gay people to be more like straight people -- and where would straight people complain on that score?
So homosexuals are more sexually promiscuous then straight people?
This law will not change the lifestyles of homosexuals, it will just allow them to gain a social status and the benefits from that. The ones that want to be in a relationship are in a relationship. The ones that don't want to be in a relationship aren't.
Pre-AIDS, gays were notoriously more promiscuous. There were
bathhouses in every city where gays could go get laid anonymously. Bette Midler started her career entertaining in them.
Many of UG's notions of culture are decades old.
Straight people can get laid anonymously in my bathroom.
That's just begging to be a sigline...
True. Too long for a user title, do you think?
If it'll fit in I think its great lol
Robbie Williams said he completely understood George Michael getting a BJ on Hampstead Heath (notorious London open-air gay hangout), despite being in a relationship. He said if he was gay, and he knew somewhere he could get anonymous sexual acts, he'd be there with bells on!
Lesbians decide how to split the household expenses at the end of their second date.
I think it's more a male thing than a gay thing.
Just saying.
Yes, because straight people never have anonymous sex in public places...
Societally sanctioned relationships do obtain a social benefit in keeping the relationship going. External expectations of fidelity, duration, depth, value -- these serve to re-enforce what is already there.
In short, "my husband" carries far different connotations than "my boyfriend".
Yes, because straight people never have anonymous sex in public places...
Yes they do...err...well, so I've been told anyway. ;)
Societally sanctioned relationships do obtain a social benefit in keeping the relationship going. External expectations of fidelity, duration, depth, value -- these serve to re-enforce what is already there.
In short, "my husband" carries far different connotations than "my boyfriend".
yes, so does "my lover," which I would much rather say than "my husband." Of course, I wouldn't mind having a wife... :D
A lot of people refer to their husband or boyfriend or lover as their 'partner' these days which to me is somewhere in the middle and leaves a lot open for personal interpretation.
In short, "my husband" carries far different connotations than "my boyfriend".
Just make sure they don't meet each other, okay? Could be awkward.
A doctor, a lawyer and a physicist were discussing the relative merits of having a wife or a mistress.
The lawyer says: "For sure a mistress is better. If you have a wife and want a divorce, it causes all sorts of legal problems.
The doctor says: "It's better to have a wife because the sense of security lowers your stress and is good for your health.
The physicist says: " You're both wrong. It's best to have both so that when the wife thinks you're with the mistress and the mistress thinks you're with your wife --- you can go back to the lab and get some work done."
California high court upholds same-sex marriage ban
California's highest court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages Tuesday but allowed about 18,000 unions performed before the ban to remain valid.
Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in California, faced a constitutionality test but was upheld.
Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in California, faced a constitutionality test but was upheld.
Supporters of the November ballot initiative Proposition 8 hailed the ruling, but about 1,000 advocates of same-sex marriages who gathered outside the court building in San Francisco met the 6-1 decision with chants of "Shame on you."
Proposition 8's supporters argued that Californians have long had the right to change their state constitution through ballot initiatives. But opponents of the ban argued it improperly altered the state constitution to restrict a fundamental right guaranteed in the state's charter.
Tuesday's ruling found the proposition restricted the designation of marriage "while not otherwise affecting the fundamental constitutional rights of same-sex couples."
"We further conclude that Proposition 8 does not apply retroactively and therefore that the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid," California Chief Justice Ronald George wrote.
The court ruled in May 2008 that the state constitution guaranteed gay and lesbian couples the "basic civil right" to marry. That decision came four years after San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
But in November, state voters approved Proposition 8, 52 percent to 48 percent. The measure provided that only heterosexual unions would be recognized as marriages by the state.
We'll see if it gets changed next year.
D.C. is planning to pass a marriage equality bill; it may get in front of the SCOTUS quickly (since the Feds operate the District's court system).
It is now officially getting strange. The opposing lawyers who brought us Bush v. Gore are getting together to attempt to get SCOTUS to overturn Prop 8.
Gay marriage advocacy groups are not happy since they believe that this is the wrong court to make the argument to and a loss would be a large setback.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/05/27/2009-05-27_theodore_olson_and_david_boies_lawyers_on_opposing_sides_of_bush_v_gore_teams_up.html
LOS ANGELES - The legal eagles who fought on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore want to walk down the aisle together in federal court to overturn California's ban on gay marriage.
Theodore Olson, the ex-Solicitor General who represented George Bush in the 2000 ballot battle, and David Boies, who represented Al Gore, announced their partnership Wednesday, declaring Prop. 8 denies gay couples a "fundamental right" afforded in the federal Constitution.
The interesting bedfellows filed their lawsuit in U.S. District Court in northern California Friday and asked for an immediate injunction against Prop. 8 until the federal case is resolved.
"It's not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. We're here in part to symbolize that. This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States constitution," said Olson, a prominent Republican.
It really is quite entertaining. The same people who want to let the people rule by majority now want to reverse a legal states right issue to go the a minority. Should be quite interesting how they tap around this one.
has anyone considered just banning straight marriage?
Really not a bad idea. I think it would be much better to make all people who want to pregnant get a license.
Really not a bad idea. I think it would be much better to make all people who want to pregnant get a license.
Okay. Obama's crowd gets to decide who gets the license, right?
HAR HAR!
has anyone considered just banning straight marriage?
Now THAT'S funny.
Instead of just letting the Gays do their thing, the right would rather abolish their own marriages, do you think?
Schwarzenegger calls for same-sex weddings
By PAUL ELIAS Associated Press Writer © 2010 The Associated Press
Aug. 6, 2010, 8:04PM
SAN FRANCISCO — Lawyers for gay couples, California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed legal motions Friday telling a federal judge that allowing same-sex marriages to resume immediately in the state was the right thing to do.
Opponents of same-sex marriage said they want Proposition 8 to stay in effect until their appeal of Walker's ruling is decided by higher courts.
The governor and attorney general almost always defend state laws when they are challenged.
But in this case, both refused to participate in fighting the lawsuit aimed at overturning the ban.
Brown is the Democratic nominee for governor on the November ballot and he previously called the ban unconstitutional.
Schwarzenegger has been more circumspect on his Proposition 8 position and his motion
to immediately resume gay marriage was his boldest pronouncement on the issue.
If Arnold says it's so, so be it... :cool:
I completely support same sex marriage. Have at it.
So ... they're supporting the appeal to overturn the rejection of a decision which rejected the bill which overturned the ban on same-sex marriage ... is that it?
I'm more confused than a closet gay baptist.
Are illegal immigrants allowed to get married in CA, as long as they're straight?
:lol2:
You trouble maker!
How's this - illegals can ONLY have gay marriages. This would defeat the anchor-baby thing. :lol:
Excellent - get the paperwork started.
FOX News Poll;
Yes — Prop. 8 violates the Constitution. 71.1% (213,547 votes)
No — Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I don’t care what the judge thinks about the Constitution. 24.8% (74,455 votes)
I’m not sure but shouldn’t the voters views count for something? 3.6% (10,812 votes)
Other (leave a comment). 0.6% (1,685 votes)
Total Votes: 300,499
It would appear even FOX's viewers are thinking Prop 8 is crap.
Damm those evil Fox people....
Let me see....
One very popular new site vs....
everyone else.
Tell me again why they are the most popular News site over all others?
"We don't put the Bill of Rights to a vote"
Fox News / Mike Wallace interview with Ted Olson
http://cllr.me/KyVCalifornia Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down As Unconstitutional
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down Proposition 8, finding California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional because it deprives gay and lesbian couples of the equal right to wed.
With a decision that pushes the gay marriage issue a step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld former San Francisco Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who invalidated Proposition 8 in 2010 after an unprecedented trial.
"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins.
Judge N. Randy Smith dissented, saying there were "legitimate governmental interests" in restricting the definition of marriage to a union between a man and woman.
This is a good decision. I'm not gay, I have no intention of marrying a man. But I believe the government does NOT have any legitimate interest in saying what sex my partner may be in **ANY** consensual activity.
I'm not so sure the proponents of gay marriage want this to be decided by today's Supreme Court. Scalia, Thomas, et al. are cavemen. Going to the Supreme Court now could set the gay rights movement back a decade or more.
In four years, after Obama has had a second term and the opportunity to appoint a couple more justices, the court will be much more likely to have a progressive view on social matters like this.
... perhaps.
I still do not understand the Constituitionality of such an argument. What is the interest of the United States of America to permit a man to marry a woman, but forbid a man to marry a man? What is the country's interest and what is the constitutional basis for such an argument? Cavemen or not, I do believe they know about the Constitution.
Because married gays will sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.
... perhaps.
I still do not understand the Constituitionality of such an argument. What is the interest of the United States of America to permit a man to marry a woman, but forbid a man to marry a man? What is the country's interest and what is the constitutional basis for such an argument? Cavemen or not, I do believe they know about the Constitution.
If we allow gay marriage then we are opening the door to legalization of polygamy and humans marrying animals or inanimate objects. Of course, studies show polygamy has a strong negative effect on society, hurting basically everyone (children, women, and young poor men) besides rich older men and marrying non-humans has absolutely no value to the state since people will not spend and save differently as opposed to the marriage of two humans. I'm not exactly sure how either those relate to gay marriage but I'm sure there is some connection....
Or you can go the sanctity of marriage route. In that case I'm pretty sure The Bible makes it perfectly clear that gays should not be allowed to marry at any cost and we should just forgive adulters. I mean...its not like the "sin" of adultery was written in stone or anything like that...I think. Sorry, I always get confused which particular religious doctrine we are imposing on the population.
I've always wondered why people think that the only thing stopping the polygamists is that it's illegal.
Doesn't seem to have stopped them at all, really.
Obviously, having three wives at the same time is wrong. If you want to have three wives, you have to do what Gingrich did and dump them one at a time.:right:
It's called serial monogamy
...What is the interest of the United States of America to permit a man to marry a woman, but forbid a man to marry a man? ....
Or, more importantly, a woman marry a woman. ;)
If we allow gay marriage then we are opening the door to legalization of polygamy and humans marrying animals or inanimate objects. Of course, studies show polygamy has a strong negative effect on society, hurting basically everyone (children, women, and young poor men) besides rich older men and marrying non-humans has absolutely no value to the state since people will not spend and save differently as opposed to the marriage of two humans. I'm not exactly sure how either those relate to gay marriage but I'm sure there is some connection....
Or you can go the sanctity of marriage route. In that case I'm pretty sure The Bible makes it perfectly clear that gays should not be allowed to marry at any cost and we should just forgive adulters. I mean...its not like the "sin" of adultery was written in stone or anything like that...I think. Sorry, I always get confused which particular religious doctrine we are imposing on the population.
Many of god's chosen were polygamists. If you support the ban on uni-gender marriage based on the bible argument, you'd be hypocritical to oppose polygamy.
I'm not sure of the connection - where polygamy comes in to it - anyway.
Frankly, I think it’s plausible that Jesus was gay.
John 13
[21] When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
[22] Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.
[23] Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
[24] Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
[25] He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
[26] Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
John 19
[25] Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
[26] When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
[27] Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
John 20
[1] The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
[2] Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
[3] Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
[4] So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
John 21
[6] And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.
[7] Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
[8] And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes.
This polygamy question is interesting to me.
I support gay marriage. I think it's ridiculous that the government would let some consenting adults enter into a legal contract but not others.
But I oppose polygamy, because everything I've heard says that, in practice, it is bad for women and children. Basically, it's only good for men rich enough to take on several wives. And those wives live in virtual poverty.
So how do I, from a legal standpoint, embrace gay marriage and oppose polygamy? How can I say that adults can only enter into a contract with one adult and not more than one? If I'm entering into other contracts, I can do so with multiple people. I can divide my plot of land into smaller plots and sell them to multiple buyers. I can go into business with a bunch of friends and create one partnership with all of them. The government recognizes those contracts. If marriage is opened up to gays because they are consenting adults with equal rights, why wouldn't marriage be opened up to all consenting adults, including polygamists?
reductio ad absurda or ponzi scheme is the argument.
In a finite population, if some males have multiple spouses then other males are lacking.
In small polygamous communities, such boys are driven out by one means or another.
reductio ad absurda or ponzi scheme is the argument.
I'm not following you on either point. Can you flesh those out at all?
So how do I, from a legal standpoint, embrace gay marriage and oppose polygamy? How can I say that adults can only enter into a contract with one adult and not more than one? If I'm entering into other contracts, I can do so with multiple people. I can divide my plot of land into smaller plots and sell them to multiple buyers. I can go into business with a bunch of friends and create one partnership with all of them. The government recognizes those contracts. If marriage is opened up to gays because they are consenting adults with equal rights, why wouldn't marriage be opened up to all consenting adults, including polygamists?
I think there are two approaches you can take. The first is kind of a 'cherry picking' approach. There is more than enough studies that strongly show that polygamy is, overall, bad for society. It hurts everyone besides rich old men. Then, we can ban it the same way as we banned other things that are bad for society. Those reasons do not apply to gay marriage therefore it should not be made illegal. I would even make the argument that gay marriage is good for society. The downfall of this approach is that it is biased and someone make an argument how gay marriage or interracial marriage, etc are bad for society and should be banned.
The second approach is to step back and ask why the government should recognize marriage in the first place. Marriage is a contract that tends to make couples more stable and more likely to invest, bettering society. As long as a certain type of marriage does that, it should be legal. Polygamy and marriage of non-humans doesn't have the incentive to invest and stabilize, therefore it should be treated differently. I prefer this way since it is more objective.
marriage of non-humans
well, we don't even have to talk about those or even children. If you aren't a consenting adult, you can't enter into a contract. Dogs can't sign contracts. And children have very limited rights under the law.
Good point. I just wanted to cover the entire slippery slope argument.
Support the reduction of the human population = support for gay marriage.
GO GAY for the PLANET!
They should start their own PAC like moveon.
reductio ad absurda or ponzi scheme is the argument.
In a finite population, if some males have multiple spouses then other males are lacking.
In small polygamous communities, such boys are driven out by one means or another.
I'm not following you on either point. Can you flesh those out at all?
I was making the argument against polygamy, not gay marriage,
in a finite (small) population... and assumed there were "multiple wives"
If there are 100 men and 100 women, and 30 men have a total of 60 wives,
there would be only 40 single women left to wed among the remaining 70 single men.
The married men (in power) see this problem coming,
and so force the excess males (boys) out of the community.
Of course, gay marriage would be one solution to this situation. ;)
as would reversed polygamy where those 40 women have multiple husbands.
Don't laugh, supposedly the latter happened in isolated Eskimo families
In other (very large) cultures this "ponzi scheme" kind of problem is not as apparent,
particularly if the polygamous males are only a minority among the male population.
The bachelors probably still aspire to polygamy, so they are content with hope and dreams :rolleyes:
.
...reversed polygamy where those 40 women have multiple husbands.
Don't laugh, supposedly the latter happened in isolated Eskimo families
...
I can see where this is unlikely in a society where men hold all the wealth and power. While I believe that, in our society,
most wealth and power remains with men, the emergence of "cougars" may indicate that multiple husbands for women is not such a stretch these days.
All bathrooms will be outfitted with yellow carpeting.
I think in a culture of modern women such as we live in today, the risk of voluntary polygamy suddenly taking a significant hold in society is low. If polygamy were made legal today, I don't see much changing.
The real risk, in my mind, is abusing the polygamist "marriage contract" for corporate business means. Say a group of men want to form a company, but they want, for example, not to have to testify against each other if the company is ever sued, just as a wife has the right not to have to testify against her husband. So they all polygamist gay marry each other on paper.
I think you could successfully allow for gay marriage, while still outlawing polygamy on the argument that it would promote conspiracy and fraud.
Gay polygamy! The old boy network on steroids.
The real risk, in my mind, is abusing the polygamist "marriage contract" for corporate business means.
Interesting! That hadn't occurred to me.
Well, abolish the right of a spouse to not testify against their spouse(s). That is an old fashioned and sexist rule anyway.
Sexist how? It's a two-way street.
It is now, but when it was introduced it was with the idea that the man would be doing everything and the woman merely an assistant at best.
Found this on Facebook. One of the arguments against polygamy is that some families ended up on public assistance. In a modern economy, it's not as easy to have a homebound labor pool as it is on a farm.
It is now, but when it was introduced it was with the idea that the man would be doing everything and the woman merely an assistant at best.
I'm not sure how that is relevant to
spousal priviledge. It's about who can be called to testify, and by whom; not about the extent of their involvement in the crime.
It's there to avoid putting someone in the position of having to choose between condemning their spouse and perjuring themselves.
Another state steps up in the district of the 9th Federal Court of Appeals
Reuters
Nicole Neroulias
2/8/12
Gay marriage wins final legislative approval in Washington state
(Reuters) - A bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington state won final legislative approval
on Wednesday in a largely party-line vote that moved the state to the cusp of becoming the seventh
in the nation to recognize same-sex nuptials.
Washington's Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire said she looked forward to signing the measure
and "putting into law an end to an era of discrimination" even as opponents,
led by religious conservatives, vowed to seek its repeal at the polls in November.
HM ...
Okay. drop the sexist. Maybe even the outdated.
I think it is wrong. Why is there no parental priviledge? Sibling? Avuncular? Why should someone get away with a crime just because the main witness is their spouse?
I won't argue that. Probably something to do with "the sanctity of marriage".
Though my guess is there's a de facto family priviledge to some extent, as the danger of perjury, and the potential bad taste left in jurors mouths from forcing a parent to testify, may discourage prosecutors from doing so in many cases.
The spousal privilege only applies if both the defendant and their spouse want to keep the secret. If a wife wants to testify against her husband, she can, and there is nothing the husband can do to prevent it. Compare that to the privilege between an attorney and their client. The attorney can virtually never testify against their client, even if they want to.
meaning they can't be *compelled* to testify against their spouse.
It's now official in Washington State... Next is New Jersey :rolleyes:
MSNBC
2/13/12
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Gov. Chris Gregoire has signed into law a bill that legalizes
gay marriage in Washington state, making it the nation's seventh to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed.
It's a historic moment, but same-sex couples can't walk down the aisle just yet.
The law takes effect June 7, but opponents are already mounting challenges on multiple fronts.<snip>
------------
In New Jersey on Monday, the state Senate passed a bill that
would allow nuptials for same-sex couples.
Gov. Chris Christie has said he will veto such legislation.
The Senate's vote sends the bill to the Assembly,
which is expected to pass it Thursday.<snip>
The governor has said he does not believe marriage laws should be changed,
but he does support New Jersey's civil union law,
which grants gay couples the legal protections of marriage.
Christie said he wants to put a change in the definition of marriage to a public vote.
But gay rights groups oppose a referendum.
They see gay marriage as a civil rights matter and argue that it should not
be up to the masses to protect the rights of a minority group.
Five years ago, New Jersey's state Supreme Court ruled that gay couples should have
the same rights as married heterosexual couples. In response, the Legislature created civil unions.
Gay rights advocates say that because the civil union designation is hard to understand
and still treats committed gays differently from married couples,
the courts should eliminate civil unions and recognize gay marriage.
A lawsuit seeking to do that is in the state court system.
Are heteros allowed to have civil unions too? When they brought in civil unions in France, something like a third of hetero couples went the civil union path and cut the church out altogether.
I'm pretty sure civil unions for hetero couples have been common in the US just as they have been in Australia, for quite a long time. At least since the 60's.
The issue is that civil unions generally don't afford ALL the benefits of marriage and legally is in a separate category. On top of that, and on top of the longstanding (and constitutional!) problem with "separate but equal", the federal Defense Of Marriage Act prevents civil unions OR gay marriages from "counting" at the federal level. I assume that civil unions are available to everyone regardless of gender, but there is no advantage to civil unions over marriage, and quite a host of drawbacks. I'm sure it's not common, but it happens.
I believe whether the benefits are the same depends upon the state.
In VT, for example, they are the same. However those Civil Unions in VT may or may not be recognized in other states.
ETA ... thats not entirely true...
read this. I can't paste it because its a pdf.
Civil Unions in this country are for same-sex couples only.
To start with I thought we were progressive in introducing them at all. And certainly the gay press seemed to have that opinion.
After a few years now I am of the opinion that separate but equal doesn't cut it.
Civil Unions for all, with the choice of a church wedding for those who require the blessing of God.
There are churches in this country who would bless a same sex union.
I don't believe in forcing those with problems to do so - religion should be a private matter. But the unions should be equal.
Are heteros allowed to have civil unions too? When they brought in civil unions in France, something like a third of hetero couples went the civil union path and cut the church out altogether.
Hetero civil unions exist in the US, and are called marriages.
There are churches in this country who would bless a same sex union.
I don't believe in forcing those with problems to do so - religion should be a private matter. But the unions should be equal.
Agreed.
Civil Unions for all, with the choice of a church wedding for those who require the blessing of God.
This is my personal solution, too. The government shouldn't be in the business of validating religious ceremony. The civil contract legally uniting two adults, whether you call it a "civil union" or a "marriage", should be an ENTIRELY secular affair from the point of view of the government, and I think the way to do that is to not ("re")define marriage as between a man and a woman OR as between anyone, but to change the law so that the government recognizes ONLY civil unions that are the same as what are now recognized by the name of marriage.
Let the "religious" have the WORD "Marriage" for their religious ceremonies and let the legal term with all benefits and whatever be "Civil Union" keeping the two separate.
Next!
We have much larger issues to deal with.
What's the adjective you would put next to the box on forms instead of "married?"
Civil unionized? Civilized?
Civilly unioned?
Then when you break up you are uncivilly ununioned. Nah, that sounds too much like onion.
uncivilly de-unioned?
non-civilly disenunioned?
Then when you break up you are?
[SIZE="5"]FREEEEEEEEEEEE[/SIZE]Single
Engaged
In a Civil Union
Divorced
Widowed
I don't see the issue.
Then when you break up you are uncivilly ununioned. Nah, that sounds too much like onion.
un-union = un-unionized = ionized
You can't hide your ionize...
Why should you have to declare yourself divorced anyway?
For all legal and tax purposes you are single once a divorce is finalised.
Why should you have to admit to a failed union?
And no, I'm not being facetious.
I'm divorced myself and have always considered it a peculiar question.
I've actually wondered that too.
And engaged doesn't count.
Nor does pre-engaged, or engaged to be pre-engaged.
You're either in a union or you're not.
But...what about widowed?
Why can't losing your civil partner be called widowed?
I think Shawnee is asking - why is it necessary?
For Civil Union or Married.
Why can't losing your civil partner be called widowed?
Because it is a sacred institution, and gay widows would destroy traditional widowhood.
Civil Unions for all, with the choice of a church wedding for those who require the blessing of God.
There are churches in this country who would bless a same sex union.
I don't believe in forcing those with problems to do so - religion should be a private matter. But the unions should be equal.
Whoa Whoa Whoa. First you secularist declare war on Christmas and now marriage?!? hehe
Quite the opposite!
I'd prefer to see only regular church-goers get a blessing for their union in church. And all those who go just for a pretty location stop pretending.
The Church of England is pretty tolerant of people who attend three times in their life - Christening, Wedding and Funeral. I say good on them. But open it to all couples. So that gay church-goers have the same right of blessing as hetero unbelievers who will never come back.
ETA - I don't mean to contradict my previous statement.
I would not want any church, synagogue or mosque to be forced into a blessing. I believe progress in tolerance is inevitable and people will vote with their feet.
Because it is a sacred institution, and gay widows would destroy traditional widowhood.
Seriously. Can you imagine the widow walks on tops of old houses? They'd be converted to catwalks! They'd be FABULOUS. :p:
@Ibram...Sundae got what I meant. She was asking about having to report divorced instead of single, and I was making the tangential point of why widowed instead of single.
For some government programs, widowed does matter, because you are given certain benefits that would have gone to your dead spouse instead. But I've seen many forms that go so far as to offer a checkbox for "Separated." WTF business is it of theirs what bed a person sleeps in, if their marriage contract is still in effect?
Associated Press
By ANGELA DELLI SANTI
NJ Assembly passes gay marriage bill
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — The New Jersey Assembly on Thursday passed a bill
legalizing same-sex marriages, setting the stage for an expected veto by Gov. Chris Christie.
The 42-33 vote sends the bill to Christie, who won't take immediate action.
The Republican governor who opposes gay marriage had promised
"very swift action" if the bill passed both houses of the Legislature,
but the Assembly isn't required to send the bill to his desk until the close of business Friday.
The Senate approved the bill Monday.<snip>
The bill would need several Republican votes in each house to override the governor;
Christie himself essentially guaranteed that that won't happen.
NJ is different and interesting because the State's Supreme Court has already reviewed
the State's Civil Union Law, and has:
" instructed the Legislature to provide marriage equality to same-sex couples".
The article also describes strategies of the various parties.
I have rearranged the sequence of paragraphs below to (hopefully) make this post more readable.
msnbc.com
Miranda Leitsinger
7/13/12
Same-sex couple fights to stop deportation, gay marriage ban
DOMA, enacted by Congress in 1996, blocks federal recognition of same-sex marriage,
thereby denying various benefits given to heterosexual couples, such as the right to immigrate.
A Filipino woman who married her American wife in 2008,
when it was briefly legal to do so in the state of California,
should not be denied immigration rights that heterosexual couples receive
and should not be deported, her lawyers are arguing in a lawsuit.
Authorities approved her employer’s application for permanent resident status
for her in May 2006, and she had temporary lawful status until April 2011,
when immigration officials told her she was inadmissible to the country.
They said she had misrepresented her name and marital status
because she had entered the U.S. under the last name of her former
spouse [common law husband],
even though they were not legally married, according to the lawsuit.
The couple attempted to get a waiver based upon the hardship that deportation
would impose upon them and DeLeon’s 25-year-old son, whose immigration status
would also be affected if his mother was deported, but it was denied last November.
Authorities, the lawsuit said, did not reject the request because the couple
failed to prove the hardship claim, but solely because under the federal marriage law
she was married to someone of the same sex who was not recognized as a relative.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The lawsuit alleges that the federal marriage law [DOMA] denies due process
and equal protection under the law in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The couple is asking the court to grant their request to give class action status
to the lawsuit since their challenge affects innumerable others in their situation.[/COLOR]
The suit joins several others targeting DOMA, the federal law banning same-sex marriages,
including one filed by binational gay couples in New York.
The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to take up two of those cases:
one originating in Massachusetts and another in California, according to scotusblog.
The following is an editorial by Linda Greenhouse,
the NY Times reporter who covers the US Supreme Court.
Usually, her articles are straight reporting, with little to no "editorializing"
For a long time, I have followed her reporting and have respect for her knowledge and expertise.
But here is an article that is strictly her opinions.
I believe it is well worth reading in it's entirety because she speaks to
the Voting Rights Act and voter suppression, to equal rights for gay/lesbians,
and California's Proposition 8 vs the Obama Dept of Justice's
refusal to defend DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.
NY Times
LINDA GREENHOUSE
11/14/12
Changing Times
When people talked during the presidential campaign about the potential impact
of the election on the Supreme Court,most meant the impact on the court’s membership:
whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney would get to fill any vacancies during the next four years.
The vote on Nov. 6 settled that question, obviously, but it also raised another tantalizing one:
[COLOR="DarkRed"]what impact will other developments during this election season,
beyond the presidential vote itself, have on the nine justices?
[/COLOR]
If time is on the side of preserving the Voting Rights Act, it’s also on the side
of recognizing the right to, and federal recognition of, same-sex marriage.
Note that this observation is something well short of a prediction that the Supreme Court
will declare a constitutional right to marriage equality during its current term.
A vehicle for doing so, the Proposition 8 case from California (Hollingsworth v. Perry)
is sitting on the court’s docket, awaiting the justices’ decision on whether to take it.<snip>
The most likely scenario to emerge from the conference is a grant of review
in one of the DOMA cases, most likely Windsor v. United States,
decided last month by the federal appeals court in New York.
Along with the federal appeals court in Boston, in another case also now pending
before the Supreme Court, the New York-based United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit declared unconstitutional the statute that withholds
the many benefits of marriage available under federal law from same-sex couples
who are legally married in their state of residence.<snip>
Assuming the court grants one of the DOMA cases, I think the justices are likely
to put the Proposition 8 case on hold until the DOMA issue is decided.<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]I think there’s an excellent chance that the Supreme Court will overturn DOMA.[/COLOR]<snip>
When the history of how same-sex marriage became the law of the land is eventually written,
as it will be in the not too distant future, there will be many turning points to mark.
The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which held that
gay relationships could not be criminalized, will certainly be one landmark.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]But last week’s election results, when voters in four states had the choice
to say yes or no to marriage equality and said yes in all four, will stand,
I think, as the more important development.[/COLOR]
It didn’t necessarily tell the justices how to decide the cases now on their docket.
But in showing them that times are changing, it told them a lot.