Gay Marriage

[Mark T]

Yes.

That is where we differ.

Gay marriage is about opinions. Over half of the American people voted against gay marriage. Are they all wrong?

On the other hand, the people who voted for gay marriage, were they wrong?

It's about opinion as seen widely in this thread. Either way there's going to be a whole bunch of gay, gay people and a whole lot of unhappy people.

That's where I have to draw the line in this thread.

 

[Duke]

Well, looking at the one thread about logic. I would think there would have to be a basis to start from and then logical conclusions. Not logic itself being a foundation.

The ideal is that ANY decision requiring legislation would be made logically and rationally. That's the foundation to which I'm referring. It's also unfortunately more likely to remain firmly in the realm of "ideal" rather than "reality".

Or black, or hindu, or latin, or polish. Do I have to go on?

...yet you're espousing LEGAL discrimination against a particular subgroup (gays) when you'd rightly protest discrimination against any of the subgroups above.

Note that I'm NOT equating "discriminating against" with "failing to provide affirmative action for". I'm not asking for special consideration for gays in any way. I'm asking for legal EQUAL TREATEMENT for gays.

Wow Duke, you really missed my point there. My point is that the constitiuion is a logical extension from the paragraph I quoted. So, I too, would die for the constitution. I'm simply talking about the foundation from which the ideals in the constitution came from.

Except that it's NOT a logical extension. You're claiming relatively orthodox Christian background for a document that was specifically framed to avoid any king of orthodoxy AT ALL, and you're basing it on your interpretation of "their Creator" to mean "God" in the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is stretching the truth past the breaking point considering that many of the key players in the Consitutional Convention (Jefferson chief among them, but not limited to) were deists at best, and not Christians at all.

I can provide some backup quotes for this if you wish.

 

[Pako]

*snip*

I want to be called Native American and recieve governmental aid because I deserve it.

Are you OK with that?

 

[Swift]

Then we would have no soldiers who are single and childless. We'd have no soldiers with dead parents, with nothing but an ideal to fight for. The ideal is freedom, it's capitalism, it's a country where you are not discriminated against by your government - that's what people fight for. They want everyone they love to live in that world friends, family, anyone. But they also want that world to exist for humanity in general, not just the people closest to them.

No, I reject outright the notion that family is the only thing worth fighting for.

Wow, talk about reading into a statement. Did I use the word family at all? Freedom, that's what I'm talking about. Freedom, while we see it as logical it's NOT logical to everyone. It is a fairly unique concept, especially at the time of the formation of this country. So in a round about way, you made my point for me. Even soldiers with dead parents can still fight for their parents. They do it all the time.

Agreed.

Well, as usual, we reached at least one point of agreement in an issue.

But equal treatment from the law certainly does. I honsetly can't believe you said this. You're right, marriage doesn't come up in the constitution, I guess I shouldn't ever refer to the consitution in this discussion... is there anything that could possibly be relevant to this discussion in the constitution...

let me think....

Equal protection? Why yes, yes I think that's the part of the constitution that says that the government should not discriminate against it's people based on arbitrary things like skin color, weight, sexual orientation, wealth, fashion sense...

Do you honestly believe that people have equal treatment/protection under the law?

"Separate but equal"

I've already defeated this line of thinking. You didn't respond.

I did, because it's not separate.

Check my signature. You do NOT have the right to vote away the RIGHTS of others. And I will oppose you at every pass if you attempt to suggest that others should vote along side you to take away one of the most fundamental aspects of America - equal treatment from the government. It's un-American, it's irrational, and it's immoral.

Actually, you're very correct. But how is giving them 100% of the same "rights" as a traditional married couple voting away their rights?

Except that it's NOT a logical extension. You're claiming relatively orthodox Christian background for a document that was specifically framed to avoid any king of orthodoxy AT ALL, and you're basing it on your interpretation of "their Creator" to mean "God" in the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is stretching the truth past the breaking point considering that many of the key players in the Consitutional Convention (Jefferson chief among them, but not limited to) were deists at best, and not Christians at all.

I can provide some backup quotes for this if you wish.

You're absolutely killing me, Duke. I didn't not mention God or christianity in any of my statement and yet you put it in there.

WITHOUT regards to spirituallity. This paragraph:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Sets up every law that we have on the books. Are you saying that's not the case?

 

[Duke]

If I meet certain classifications to obtain benefits through the law, it is my right to accept those benefits, but I'm not going to say I'm something I'm not to obtain those benefits that do not apply to me.

You totally avoided my question here:

Or are you denying the possibility that gay people actually can be in stable, lifelong, committed, loving relationships?

Do you think gay people are lying about loving each other in order to call themselves married so they can claim whatever 'benefits' there are?

I want to be called Native American and recieve governmental aid because I deserve it.

Are you OK with that?

Pako, I thought better of you. Frankly I can't believe you're being pigheaded enough that you're honestly drawing this as a parallel. Apparently you do think that homosexuals are incapable of lifelong, committed, monogamous, romantic love.

I'll make it clear, though I shouldn't have to: fraudulently claiming to be Native American in order to steal UNEQUAL redistribution of wealth from the government is IN NO WAY equivalent to truthfully claiming to be in homosexual love so that you can have an EQUAL marriage to everyone who is not gay.

 

[Swift]

Do you think gay people are lying about loving each other in order to call themselves married so they can claim whatever 'benefits' there are?

Some are, but so do some idiotic straight people. So, as far as my argument goes, that's not part of it.

 

[Pako]

You totally avoided my question here:

I'm sorry, I thought you were asking me what I was saying so I tried to re-word it so you understood what I was saying.

Do you think gay people are lying about loving each other in order to call themselves married so they can claim whatever 'benefits' there are?

Chances are that some do and some don't, some will and some won't. Is this question relevant to the current topic at hand? Unless you elaborate, I don't see how it is.

 

[Duke]

OK, I'm sorry. I'm trying my best to debate this here using clear ideas and logic. But frankly, you two seem to have checked out and left your luggage at this point. It's becoming surreal.

Maybe I'll be back when this argument won't give me vertigo.

 

[Pako]

*snip*

Pako, I thought better of you. Frankly I can't believe you're being pigheaded enough that you're honestly drawing this as a parallel. Apparently you do think that homosexuals are incapable of lifelong, committed, monogamous, romantic love.

I'll make it clear, though I shouldn't have to: fraudulently claiming to be Native American in order to steal UNEQUAL redistribution of wealth from the government is IN NO WAY equivalent to truthfully claiming to be in homosexual love so that you can have an EQUAL marriage to everyone who is not gay.

Sorry, didn't see your edit. This is in response to Danoff's "Seperate but Equal" stance on everything. I was merely pointing out that we do have legitimate classifications of people and unless I meet a certain classification, I can't expect to obtain those benefits. Although I can't claim to be Native American and any governmental benefits attached to that, there are other programs that I can submit an application to that I do meet the correct criteria for.

 

[FoolKiller]

Gay marriage is about opinions. Over half of the American people voted against gay marriage. Are they all wrong?

Read Danoff's sig....again. I can give you all kinds of crazy numbers that will make you think people are idiots.

For instance, in the civil war thousands fought to defend slavery (among other things). Were they wrong?

And to answer your question: Yes, I was wrong when I voted against gay marriage in my state.

On the other hand, the people who voted for gay marriage, were they wrong?

No.

It's about opinion as seen widely in this thread. Either way there's going to be a whole bunch of gay, gay people and a whole lot of unhappy people.

That's where I have to draw the line in this thread.

The thing about opinions is that they can be right or wrong. If I said I was of the opinion that outlawing Islam was a good idea everyone in this room would tell me that I was wrong. I can't shrug that off by saying it is my opinion and we just have different opinions.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Check my signature. You do NOT have the right to vote away the RIGHTS of others. And I will oppose you at every pass if you attempt to suggest that others should vote along side you to take away one of the most fundamental aspects of America - equal treatment from the government. It's un-American, it's irrational, and it's immoral.

Its a darn good thing that we don't do it the way you would like to have it. Every Tom, Dick and Harry could come up with some kakamami idea and say that I must bend over because his feelings have been hurt. Your emotional state of mind is not a RIGHT and because you feel something does not entitle you make me agree with you by way of the law. As respectfully intelligent as I view you, I am glad that our founding fathers were more wise then you and have come up with a near perfect system to obtain the best possible situation for human rights on the face of this earth.

 

[Famine]

I am glad that our founding fathers were more wise then you and have come up with a near perfect system to obtain the best possible situation for human rights on the face of this earth.

... that you'd vote against.

 

[UnoMOTO]

... that you'd vote against.

My personal opinion about a particular issue has no bearing on how I feel the system works or how it should be changed.

Danoff, I believe feels things with his heart and wants the system to change to fix it in leau of using the current system to get what he wants.

To clerify that system would be the majority voting for the rights of the minority.

 

[Swift]

Check my signature. You do NOT have the right to vote away the RIGHTS of others. And I will oppose you at every pass if you attempt to suggest that others should vote along side you to take away one of the most fundamental aspects of America - equal treatment from the government. It's un-American, it's irrational, and it's immoral.

Ok, you might be able to get away with the un-American part. But the irrational and especially the immoral part are very personal. I'm talking here in direct reference to calling gay unions, "marriage".

 

[Danoff]

Ok, you might be able to get away with the un-American part. But the irrational and especially the immoral part are very personal. I'm talking here in direct reference to calling gay unions, "marriage".

How many times have I stated that religious belief is irrational? In how many threads? How many times have you claimed that gay people are immoral?

Do you not agree that allowing the government to discriminate arbitrarily is immoral? Do you not agree that religious belief is not based on rationality, and that religion is in fact irrational? The fact that it isn't rational shouldn't phase any religious person, faith isn't based in rationality - so if you're willing to have faith, you have to let go of the importance you place on rationality.

 

[Pako]

Danoff, although being Super Hot and Sexy, I don't see him as the touchy feely type where he is lead by his emotions. I could be wrong....but... I will say that he is certainly passionate about his opinion.

 

[Zrow]

The point is, freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If you think gay marriage should be outlawed, you are forcing your religion on others, THAT is anti-American and immoral.

Don't even try to say it's not about your religious beliefs, because that's bull.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry, didn't see your edit. This is in response to Danoff's "Seperate but Equal" stance on everything. I was merely pointing out that we do have legitimate classifications of people and unless I meet a certain classification, I can't expect to obtain those benefits. Although I can't claim to be Native American and any governmental benefits attached to that, there are other programs that I can submit an application to that I do meet the correct criteria for.

I've said many times that the government shouldn't do that. Offering marriage only to heterosexual couples is akin to offering money to certain groups, offering tax breaks to certain groups, or offering different drinking fountains to certain groups - even if civil unions exist. The government should not discriminate in these ways, I'm aware that it does and it's wrong in each instance.

Wow, talk about reading into a statement. Did I use the word family at all? Freedom, that's what I'm talking about. Freedom, while we see it as logical it's NOT logical to everyone.

Logic is not subjective - just like math isn't subjective.

It is a fairly unique concept, especially at the time of the formation of this country. So in a round about way, you made my point for me. Even soldiers with dead parents can still fight for their parents. They do it all the time.

Is this really the best you can offer to support the claim that our nation was founded on "family values" which you cannot name?

Do you honestly believe that people have equal treatment/protection under the law?

No, but they should. If they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion because any two people could get married legally.

Actually, you're very correct. But how is giving them 100% of the same "rights" as a traditional married couple voting away their rights?

It's not. Voting to discriminate against a part of our society is the same as voting away their right to be granted equal protection under the law. Any discrimination from the government violates that basic principle of government.

Its a darn good thing that we don't do it the way you would like to have it. Every Tom, Dick and Harry could come up with some kakamami idea and say that I must bend over because his feelings have been hurt. Your emotional state of mind is not a RIGHT and because you feel something does not entitle you make me agree with you by way of the law.

You're preaching to the choir here. In no way have I advocated that hurt feelings should comprise law, and at no point have I claimed that I'm entitled to have you agree with me. What I did claim, however, was the voting to get the government to discriminate against it's citizens is un-American and wrong. It violates the fundamental notion that the government is by and for the people - that it's citizens are guaranteed equal treatment under the law - that in America no person is superior to any other.

As respectfully intelligent as I view you, I am glad that our founding fathers were more wise then you and have come up with a near perfect system to obtain the best possible situation for human rights on the face of this earth.[/COLOR]

You're advocating damaging that beautiful system even more than it has already been damaged.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Do you not agree that allowing the government to discriminate arbitrarily is immoral?

The government isn't arbitrarly doing it. Its us voters that are making it unlawful for gays to be married. Your angry at the wrong entity.

From good old wiki

"In contrast, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage.""

You're advocating damaging that beautiful system even more than it has already been damaged.

How so?! I didn't say that there was anything wrong with the system did I? We have some bad leaders but its not the system that is wrong with our country.

 

[Danoff]

The government isn't arbitrarly doing it. Its us voters that are making it unlawful for gays to be married. Your angry at the wrong entity.

The government is the people, I'm well aware of that. I'm upset with the right peopel, namely, people like you, who are willing to attempt to vote to make the government violate it's own charter by discriminating against its people.

How so?! I didn't say that there was anything wrong with the system did I? We have some bad leaders but its not the system that is wrong with our country.

You're advocating violation of one of the rules of our government - the rules that says government cannot discriminate. Our constitution says that you cannot do that, you cannot pass a law that is found unconsitutional.

However, the constitution can be ammended - a necessary evil to prevent flaws in the original constitution from persisting for ever. It allows this nation to change rather than be overthrown completely - but it offers the opportunity for something very evil... for the majority to vote away the rights of the minority.

If push came to shove, the constitution could be ammended to say that not all citizens need to be treated equally under the law. At that point, we could pass a law that said "Jews must die", or "Black people must be slaves". This law would be perfectly legitimate at that point - and completely immoral.

That is why I try to remind people that it is not their right to oppress the voting minority. Yes, America offers you that ability, but it is immoral to take it.

 

[Pako]

I've said many times that the government shouldn't do that. Offering marriage only to heterosexual couples is akin to offering money to certain groups, offering tax breaks to certain groups, or offering different drinking fountains to certain groups - even if civil unions exist. The government should not discriminate in these ways, I'm aware that it does and it's wrong in each instance.

Just so that I'm not misunderstanding you, what are some examples of this that's happening today besides the classification of marriage for heterosexuals and civil union for homosexuals? For further thought, if these examples that you list are beneficial for a particular group, would those benefits be taken away or given to all groups? Would this change in policy be good for our country and how? I will be completely honest in saying I have not spent a lot of time researching or thinking about the good and bad of "separate but equal" concern that you have until the past couple of days.

Sorry for the big questions, but clearly you see something behind it that I do not and you have clearly ran more scenarios than I have in regards to this topic of getting rid of "separate but equal" policy.

 

[UnoMOTO]

The government is the people, I'm well aware of that. I'm upset with the right peopel, namely, people like you, who are willing to attempt to vote to make the government violate it's own charter by discriminating against its people.

I am just ONE vote. ONE opinion of how I want the country I live in to be. Thats MY RIGHT. Just because my ONE vote is part of the majority shouldn't make me a bad person in your eyes. I am not personally taking anything away from anyone with my one vote. If my piers and I agree that the country should go in a certain direction then you should stop complaining that the system doesn't work. The minds of many are more powerful then the mind of the few as for the need to have majority rule...like it or not!

 

[Pako]

Danoff,

I understand your signature:

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). - Ayn Rand ​

It's right, it's how it should be. Our system is designed to protect the individual that can't protect themselves. This is a good thing, but when the rights given to homosexuals through civil unions is the equal to rights of heterosexuals that are married, no one's rights are being violated here. Being called 'Married' isn't a right but a privilege in my eyes and maybe that's where my ( in the words of Duke ) pig headedness comes from. I think it's important to be able to discern the difference of a right from a privilege.

 

[Mark T]

It's not possible to have a government that doesn't discriminate. I go back to my earlier example. There was obviously a vote at some point in every government where they declared the age of sexual consent, age to marry, age to drive, age to drink alcohol. Read the following statement below:

Unlawful discrimination can be characteristed as direct or indirect. Direct discrimination involves treating someone less favourably because of the possession of a legally protected attribute (e.g., sex, age, race, religion, national origin, military status, disability, etc

Is it just me or are all the age restricted laws discrimitary. After all somebody decided on my behalf what age I could; drive, drink, have sex, get married and leave school.

Another example. In the UK if you rent a property from a private landlord and you lose your job and can no longer afford to pay your rent you can apply to get housing benefit to help you. I have a mortgage on my house. If I lost my job I cannot apply for housing benefit to help me pay my mortgage. Am I being discriminated against indirectly because I have a mortgage. I think so.

 

[Swift]

Logic is not subjective - just like math isn't subjective.

OK, so what is the basis of the logic that guides our laws?

Is this really the best you can offer to support the claim that our nation was founded on "family values" which you cannot name?

You mentioned freedom. How is freedom just logical because? It's not, freedom was what was born from oppression. We desired freedom because we didn't have it. Freedom for us, our friends and family. There are many people that have died, are dieing today and will die with NO family to speak of just so someone else can be free. Is sacrifice for loved ones not the greatest "family value"?

Look at the stress that our judicial system puts on the family. It's very difficult to get a child away from their natural mother. To the point that a mother that abandoned her child can change her mind later, claim the child, and have the courts award it to her. Why? In the interest of family values. The concept to keep family together. The natural parents of a child have to severely neglect or abuse a child for the courts to separate the family.

Our country is also strong into bloodlines. The law will go along the bloodline when it comes to ownership of assets from a deceased person.

This country and it's laws have always been concerned about the family. Even back when slavery was legal, slave owners recognized that the slaves worked better when they kept the family around them.

The values that I'm talking about are the intangible connection that loved ones share that can't be put on paper. The desire for happiness of your loved ones, sacrificing for them, supporting them and so on.

No, but they should. If they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion because any two people could get married legally.

and arabs wouldn't be profiled at airports, blacks wouldn't be profiled for driving a nice car and latinos wouldn't get profiled for shoplifting.

It's not. Voting to discriminate against a part of our society is the same as voting away their right to be granted equal protection under the law. Any discrimination from the government violates that basic principle of government.

Sounds like a country I'd like to be in. Can you tell me when it's created?

 

[Zrow]

I am just ONE vote. ONE opinion of how I want the country I live in to be. Thats MY RIGHT. Just because my ONE vote is part of the majority shouldn't make me a bad person in your eyes. If my piers and I agree that the country should go in a certain direction then you should stop complaining that the system doesn't work. The minds of many are more powerful then the mind of the few as for the need to have majority rule...like it or not!

I am not personally taking anything away from anyone with my one vote.
People that don't think blacks should be able to vote have an opinion of how they think the country should be. That's their right. But it does make them a bad person in my eyes, and they are wrong. Right?

I am not personally taking anything away from anyone with my one vote.

You are personally taking away the right for two consenting adults to marry with your vote.

If my piers and I agree that the country should go in a certain direction then you should stop complaining that the system doesn't work. The minds of many are more powerful then the mind of the few as for the need to have majority rule...like it or not!

It's easy to accept the majority rule when it swings in your favor. Try to see it from the other side of the fence.

 

[Danoff]

I am just ONE vote. ONE opinion of how I want the country I live in to be. Thats MY RIGHT. Just because my ONE vote is part of the majority shouldn't make me a bad person in your eyes. I am not personally taking anything away from anyone with my one vote. If my piers and I agree that the country should go in a certain direction then you should stop complaining that the system doesn't work. The minds of many are more powerful then the mind of the few as for the need to have majority rule...like it or not!

Majority rule is not necessarily moral rule. If you government is just, it must not simply carry out the will of the majority, it must adhere to a concept of justice that exist externally. Our government is set up in this way, which is why our constitution currently says that you cannot vote to "kill all redhaired Americans" or some such unjust act.

Quite simply put, no matter how many people you get with you to vote for something, you do not have a right to deprive a minority of voters of their rights. This is a key point that all American voters need to understand. It is possible to vote for something that is unjust, if a majority votes for it that does not somehow make it just.

Just so that I'm not misunderstanding you, what are some examples of this that's happening today besides the classification of marriage for heterosexuals and civil union for homosexuals? For further thought, if these examples that you list are beneficial for a particular group, would those benefits be taken away or given to all groups? Would this change in policy be good for our country and how?

The categorization of Americans into tax brackets is another example of arbitrary classification. The categorization of Americans into race for the purpose of public university admissions is another good example. I've seen publicly funded universities hold job fairs for people with particular skin colors - which is another example. Our tax code actually does a great deal more categorizing than just income bracket, it also categorizes people who have mortages and people who do not, people who have medical expenses and people who do not, people who contribute to government retirement accounts and people who do not. Your tax liability is adjusted according to which of these groups you belong.

All of these are examples in which the different groups get different benfits. The only way to rectify this is for the government to treat all people equally. So your tax liability is independent of the types of products you buy, and your chances of being admitted into a university that your tax dollars subsidize do not depend on your skin color.

Keep in mind when dealing with these examples that I'd eliminate all public schools and income tax (in favor of sales tax) anyway.

I'd have to think about current categorization that made no legal difference. I'm not sure I can think of an example where our government puts a label on people that has no impact....

Our system is designed to protect the individual that can't protect themselves. This is a good thing, but when the rights given to homosexuals through civil unions is the equal to rights of heterosexuals that are married, no one's rights are being violated here. Being called 'Married' isn't a right but a privilege in my eyes and maybe that's where my ( in the words of Duke ) pig headedness comes from. I think it's important to be able to discern the difference of a right from a privilege.

It's a privilege earned by what? Being heterosexual? The government shouldn't be handing out privilages based on sexuality.

It's not possible to have a government that doesn't discriminate.

That's true, but it is possible for the government to treat everyone equally under the law. Arbitrary discrimination is what I'm against.

Is it just me or are all the age restricted laws discrimitary. After all somebody decided on my behalf what age I could; drive, drink, have sex, get married and leave school.

Restricting rights to adults is age discrimination, but it's not arbitrary to discriminate based on age - it's ciritical. But that's the key point here, when it's rational to discrimiante - when you have legitimate reasons for discrimination. When I say "legitimate", I mean from a legal stand point, as in - what is it legitimate to base law on. Religion is not one of those things in a nation that practices freedom of religion.

Another example. In the UK if you rent a property from a private landlord and you lose your job and can no longer afford to pay your rent you can apply to get housing benefit to help you. I have a mortgage on my house. If I lost my job I cannot apply for housing benefit to help me pay my mortgage. Am I being discriminated against indirectly because I have a mortgage. I think so.

Yes, and arbitrarily so. If that were the law in America I'd be all for eliminating it.

 

[Swift]

The point is, freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If you think gay marriage should be outlawed, you are forcing your religion on others, THAT is anti-American and immoral.

Don't even try to say it's not about your religious beliefs, because that's bull.

It's not. I was against this before I was a Christian. Marriage needs to be reserved to a man and a woman. For all the reasons I've stated before.

 

[Danoff]

OK, so what is the basis of the logic that guides our laws?

Was it not you who started off my "Human Rights" thread with a basis under which all men should be free. You determined this rationally with only one axiom - that we could not judge one man objectively superior to another.

That's the rationality I'm talking about.

You mentioned freedom. How is freedom just logical because? It's not, freedom was what was born from oppression. We desired freedom because we didn't have it.

See above.

There are many people that have died, are dieing today and will die with NO family to speak of just so someone else can be free. Is sacrifice for loved ones not the greatest "family value"?

I think you just proved that it's a "value" that's greater than the "family". How can it be a "family" value if it's shared by people who are not part of a family? At some poitn I assume you get to the point where you decide that you get to pick what constitutes a family and what does not.

Look at the stress that our judicial system puts on the family. It's very difficult to get a child away from their natural mother.

Perhaps because she gave birth to the child? Perhaps because it shares her genetics? There is a very rational reason for that to be the case.

The concept to keep family together. The natural parents of a child have to severely neglect or abuse a child for the courts to separate the family.

The rights of the child are balanced against the rights of the parents to the child in this case.

Our country is also strong into bloodlines. The law will go along the bloodline when it comes to ownership of assets from a deceased person.

...in the absense of a will. The government has to pick somebody - who else should they pick?

This country and it's laws have always been concerned about the family. Even back when slavery was legal, slave owners recognized that the slaves worked better when they kept the family around them.

...sounds more practically motivated than motivated by "family values". You say yourself it was just to get slaves to work harder.

The values that I'm talking about are the intangible connection that loved ones share that can't be put on paper. The desire for happiness of your loved ones, sacrificing for them, supporting them and so on.

I gotta tell you, some of my family members won't be getting any sacrifices or support from me.

and arabs wouldn't be profiled at airports, blacks wouldn't be profiled for driving a nice car and latinos wouldn't get profiled for shoplifting.

Profiling and discriminating aren't quite the same thing. Grabbing a bunch of people of a certain race (let's say asian) and imprisoning them even though you have no evidence that they've done anything wrong (let's say, we're concerned they're spies for Japan) is discrimination and it's immoral.

Looking for a 6'2" suspect with a blue hat and red jacket isn't arbitrary discrimination, it's backed with a legitimate rational reason - the description obtained from the victim. Looking twice at a middle easter man getting on an airplane fits this later description. Robbing him of his rights in the absense of evidence of wrong doing would cross the line.

 

[Duke]

It's not. I was against this before I was a Christian. Marriage needs to be reserved to a man and a woman. For all the reasons I've stated before.

Which are... because it should be. No one has yet answered my allegation that someone else's relationship can in no way harm your marriage.