Gay Marriage

[UnoMOTO]

Checks and balances, ya know.

That's why I've said REPEATEDLY that our system works better then any other on the planet.

 

[Duke]

That's why I've said REPEATEDLY that our system works better then any other on the planet.

Agreed - but you've also been saying "majority rules" a lot, too. That's all.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Agreed - but you've also been saying "majority rules" a lot, too. That's all.

Danoff is wanting some kind of individual utopia for our country where each person may do and say what they please. That would turn in to a nightmare in my opinion. Part of the Danoff confusion is that he thinks people understand the world has he does. There are many people that literally can’t and don’t want to think for themselves. Those people’s rights are currently protected by the majority.

 

[Zrow]

Dan off is wanting some kind of individual utopia for our country where each person may do and say what they please. That would turn in to a nightmare in my opinion. Part of the Danoff confusion is that he thinks people understand the world has he does. There are many people that literally can’t and don’t want to think for themselves. Those people’s rights are currently protected by the majority.

Your idea of a nightmare is a country where people can do and say what they please?!

And who's rights are being protected by not allowing gay marriage, anyway?

 

[Famine]

Danoff is wanting some kind of individual utopia for our country where each person may do and say what they please. That would turn in to a nightmare in my opinion. Part of the Danoff confusion is that he thinks people understand the world has he does. There are many people that literally can’t and don’t want to think for themselves. Those people’s rights are currently protected by the majority.

No - they're protected by the Constitution, regardless of the fiat of the majority.

 

[Duke]

Danoff is wanting some kind of individual utopia for our country where each person may do and say what they please. That would turn in to a nightmare in my opinion. Part of the Danoff confusion is that he thinks people understand the world has he does. There are many people that literally can’t and don’t want to think for themselves. Those people’s rights are currently protected by the majority.

No - they're protected by the Constitution, regardless of the fiat of the majority.

Ba da bing, ba da boom. And what about people who can think for themselves yet who are still in the minority?

 

[UnoMOTO]

No - they're protected by the Constitution, regardless of the fiat of the majority.

My post was regarding their voting choices as we are lucky to get 50% of people to turn out on vote day.

EDIT...they choose not to speak therefore not to be heard thus leaving it up to the majority.

Ba da bing, ba da boom. And what about people who can think for themselves yet who are still in the minority?

Nice one there TONY from BROOKLYN...
Then write your congressman or senator to get your individual voice heard.

 

[Famine]

My post was regarding their voting choices as we are lucky to get 50% of people to turn out on vote day.

EDIT...they choose not to speak therefore not to be heard thus leaving it up to the majority.

But their rights are protected by the Constitution, whether or not they vote and whether or not 99% of other people vote to have them shot.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff is wanting some kind of individual utopia for our country where each person may do and say what they please.

As long as they don't violate others's rights... why not?

Part of the Danoff confusion is that he thinks people understand the world has he does.

Actually I don't think that, which is why I spend so much time talking about it - I'm trying to get other folks who live in this country to understand it better (since they're citizens here afterall). Even Famine understands it better than you seem to, and he doesn't live in America.

There are many people that literally can’t and don’t want to think for themselves. Those people’s rights are currently protected by the majority.

Those people's rights are not protected by the majority, they're protected by the constitution. You're still showing that you need to learn quite a bit about your government. I thought they taught this stuff in grade school. It's amazing to think that there are many voters out there who quite simply don't understand the beauty of the government they're voting to change.

You do not live in a democracy, you live in a republic (a limited one at that). You do not live in a state where majority rules, you live under a system of limited government with checks and balances from each branch. Voters are not even close to the final say about what becomes law. At the very least, the courts have to determine that the law fits within the limited framework of our government.

More philosphically...

Justice exists independant of opinion. The majority cannot vote on what is just, it exists independent of the majority's decision (see Nazi Germany for an example of the majority getting justice wrong). Philosophically speaking, law is based on the concept of justice, which is not subjective, and not up for vote.

Edit: It's funny how often I end up repeating this. In many topics I eventually get to a point where the people I'm disagreeing with say something like "well that's what people voted for" as if that somehow makes everything ok. If the will of the people is that marriage should be discriminatory, that doesn't make it just. The will of the people in Nazi germany was the hitler was a great guy, and that jews should be considered less than human. It wasn't right then either, and it's one of the fundamental reasons that this nation is not a pure democracy. The founders of this nation understood well that the majority can and will get it wrong from time to time (they did with regards to slavery, even at the time of the nation's founding).

So please, stop saying that it's ok to vote for discrimination, and that if the vote passes that somehow makes it right.

 

[Pako]

I say yes (if the child is an adult), but I'm all in favor of a law preventing siblings from having children. Also, a special legal relationship is already given to parents and their children, so there is very little need to form a marriage to establish a legal relationship.

@Duke and Danoff:
Sorry for the late reply. Separate but equal remember?

If civil unions for gays exist then I say to you, and I quote:

Also, a special legal relationship is already given to parents and their children, so there is very little need to form a marriage to establish a legal relationship.

Just replace the word "parents" for "gays" and the word "children" for "life partner".

Also, the fact that you and Duke would allow the legal sanction and condoning of legal marriages between a parent and their child (age permitting, and reproduction detoured) pretty much sums up why I am against your stance of the lack of moral boundaries. There are certain things you don't do. Morals are something we should all have and if going to church helps to teach those to you guys, I would see it in your best interest to visit a moral establishment to refocus what your morals are. I would really suggest moving your moral boundary just a little more to the right.

 

[Danoff]

Separate but equal remember?

If civil unions for gays exist then I say to you, and I quote:

Also, a special legal relationship is already given to parents and their children, so there is very little need to form a marriage to establish a legal relationship.

Just replace the word "parents" for "gays" and the word "children" for "life partner".

The legal relationship of parent and child is, however, fundamentally different from the relationship between spouses. That's done for a very important reason, the child is not an adult. That's not a separate but equal scenario, it's a fundamentally different scenario - which is why I acknowledged that some people might actually want to create the legal relationship of marriage with an adult child (it would be strange, but they might want to do it).

So no, you're completely wrong by suggesting that the parent/child relationship is separate but equal with the marriage relationship. It's different, and perhaps more importantly, it's different for a rational reason - a legally legitimate reason - a non-religious, and quite critical reason.

 

[Pako]

I am the child of my parent. Am I not an adult? That's why I said "age permitting" in my example.

 

[Danoff]

I am the child of my parent. Am I not an adult? That's why I said "age permitting" in my example.

Your legal relationship with your parents is quite different than the legal relationship with your spouse. Furthermore, it changed when you became an adult.

All three relationships (spouse, adult/parent, child/parent) are legally distinct. They're distinct for rational, non-religious, important reasons. Again, not a case of separate but equal.

 

[UnoMOTO]

I was going to reply to your last post, but I'll think better of it. I like your spirit but I'm actually growing tired of your incessant need to complain about human rights and would rather not add fuel to your fire my friend. Keep up the good work as "Most Opinionated Member of GTP"...maybe we should call it the MOM award.

 

[Pako]

I thought you just said that there are legal relationships already in present so getting "married" in the legal since was not necessary. Now you're saying that the legal relationships are now in fact different so if they wanted legal benefits of marriage they would have to married?!?

 

[Danoff]

I thought you just said that there are legal relationships already in present so getting "married" in the legal since was not necessary. Now you're saying that the legal relationships are now in fact different so if they wanted legal benefits of marriage they would have to married?!?

I say yes (if the child is an adult), but I'm all in favor of a law preventing siblings from having children. Also, a special legal relationship is already given to parents and their children, so there is very little need to form a marriage to establish a legal relationship.

I said "little" need to form a marriage to establish a legal relationship between parent and child. That doesn't mean that no need exists. Which is why I said:

it's a fundamentally different scenario - which is why I acknowledged that some people might actually want to create the legal relationship of marriage with an adult child (it would be strange, but they might want to do it).

Like I said, it would be weird, and I don't think very many parents would find it useful, but I'm sure somebody would try it.

Just to set the record straight, the following three relationships:

- Spouse/Spouse
- Adult/Parent
- Child/Parent

overlap in some ways, but are legally distinct for critical reasons. It is unlikely that a parent would want the additional legal binding of a spouse with their adult child, because they're already legally bound to their child in many ways - but they might end up wanting it, and I don't see a problem with that as long as they don't produce deformed offspring.

 

[Talentless]

Could someone summarize the positions of the participants so far, or tell me where each person has lain their hat? I am on the pro gay marriage side.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Could someone summarize the positions of the participants so far, or tell me where each person has lain their hat? I am on the pro gay marriage side.

Did someone want a POLL maybe...nothing like a VOTE to decide.

 

[Talentless]

If that's easiest. A poll wouldn't resolve the matter but would about answer my question.

 

[Pako]

I said "little" need to form a marriage to establish a legal relationship between parent and child. That doesn't mean that no need exists. Which is why I said:



Like I said, it would be weird, and I don't think very many parents would find it useful, but I'm sure somebody would try it.

Just to set the record straight, the following three relationships:

- Spouse/Spouse
- Adult/Parent
- Child/Parent

overlap in some ways, but are legally distinct for critical reasons. It is unlikely that a parent would want the additional legal binding of a spouse with their adult child, because they're already legally bound to their child in many ways - but they might end up wanting it, and I don't see a problem with that as long as they don't produce deformed offspring.

Wheither it is unlikely or not, that isn't the question here. Rights should be able to protect the individual, not by popularity of the group. Like I said, condoning incest is morally wrong and would do an injustice to hide behind civil rights doing so. If you or other people fail to see the problem with that, it only confirms the moral decline of this country.

 

[Pako]

Could someone summarize the positions of the participants so far, or tell me where each person has lain their hat? I am on the pro gay marriage side.

Without going into detail there are three main camps.

1.) Pro Gay Marriage
2.) Pro Civil Union
3.) Pro Heterosexual Marriage

If we all agree on these three basic camps of thought, then we can define what each of these mean.

 

[Danoff]

Wheither it is unlikely or not, that isn't the question here.

When I said:

I said "little" need to form a marriage to establish a legal relationship between parent and child.

I intended it to be from the point of view of the parent and child. The two would see little reason to marry each other since they already have a legal relationship. Sure, marriage would be different, but the differences would likely not be desireable for those people. Still, if it were desireable it should be available.

Rights should be able to protect the individual, not by popularity of the group.

I agree completely. Which is why I don't think that the fact that gays are unpopular should affect their constitutional rights to be treated equally.

Like I said, condoning incest is morally wrong and would do an injustice to hide behind civil rights doing so. If you or other people fail to see the problem with that, it only confirms the moral decline of this country.

Like I said:

and I don't see a problem with that as long as they don't produce deformed offspring.

The reason incenst is immoral is because of the damage it can do to any children produced (and because it is often performed with minors who are unable to consent to sex). To prevent people from doing genetic damage to any children they might have, it would be important to make sure that creating a child via incest is against the law. Obviously an adult having sex with a minor must remain illegal.

...so I'm not sure why you're claiming that anything I've said is evidence of the moral decline of this country.

 

[Minnesota01R6]

Unnecessary[sp] labeling from a government who's job it is to treat its citizens equally.

Labeling? It's the definition of the word. Gay marriage proponents want to expand the definition.

How does that refute the concept of separate but equal? Michael Jackson made himself white, if that makes him able to use the white water fountain are we cool then?

Gay people are able to enter into marriage, they just have to do it with a person of the opposite sex like everyone else.

In your example, proponents of gay marriage aren't talking about two water fountains, they want everyone to be able to choose between a water fountain and a root beer fountain. The constitution says there is no discrimination because nobody gets access to a rootbeer fountain.

 

[Danoff]

Labeling? It's the definition of the word. Gay marriage proponents want to expand the definition.

Having two different terms for identical legal contracts depending on arbitrary characteristics of the people entering the contract is labeling, and it isn't something the government should practice.

Again, I point out that this would be akin to having legal contracts called:

Marriage - Only allowed to white people
Black Marriage - Only allowed to black people
Inter Marriage - Only allowed to interracial couples
Fat Marriage - Only allowed to fat people.
etc.

If each of those is legally identical, but the term is based on characterisitics of the people that enter the legal contract, it's labelling on the part of the government, and it's not a proper role of government.

Gay people are able to enter into marriage, they just have to do it with a person of the opposite sex like everyone else.

Why? I need a rational, non-religious, important reason that this should be the case.

In your example, proponents of gay marriage aren't talking about two water fountains, they want everyone to be able to choose between a water fountain and a root beer fountain. The constitution says there is no discrimination because nobody gets access to a rootbeer fountain.

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Duke]

@Duke and Danoff:
Sorry for the late reply. Separate but equal remember?

Separate but equal SUCKS, as I've said numerous times.

Also, the fact that you and Duke would allow the legal sanction and condoning of legal marriages between a parent and their child...

Please go back and READ my response to that question. Kthxbai.

Morals are something we should all have and if going to church helps to teach those to you guys, I would see it in your best interest to visit a moral establishment to refocus what your morals are. I would really suggest moving your moral boundary just a little more to the right.

There are morals and there are morals. "Consenting adults" for the first part constitutes my morals. Corollary to that is acknowledging and accepting the consequences of your actions, which makes up the other part. "Ignorance is no excuse" bats cleanup.

Morals are all well and good and they actually derive directly from the inalienable rights all humans have:

• Protection from violence
• Protection from theft
• Protection from lying/fraud (this one is purposely broad)

So far we're pretty much in agreement, and this covers most of the Ten Commandments. No argument from either side. I've also made numerous posts above about 'informed consent' and how it protects the rights of those who need assistance making proper decisions (children, mentally retarded, etc).

Where it gets problemental is when you start to say things that no longer derive directly from inalienable rights.

I wouldn't dare dictate to you who it was OK to marry. Always within the realm of 'informed consent', why would I dare tell two women they aren't allowed to marry? Why would I tell a group of 4 people who sincerely want to get married they may not? Here we've drifted away from morals that protect inalienable rights and start to dictate an arbitrary set of rules that may or may not be valid (certainly not for everybody).

If a woman enjoys taking her clothes off and exhibiting herself for a photographer, is that automatically wrong and immoral (assuming, of course, 'informed consent' for both viewee and viewers)? Many women wouldn't enjoy it and are therefore under no obligation to do it... but some do. Should they be prevented? Who does it "harm" if they do?

Anything that protects an innocent or unsuspecting party, I'm all for calling "moral" and supporting legally, because it derives from basic rights.

A law to protect innocent spouses who are cheated on is fine, under the "protection from fraud" right above. But that same law should not be applied to a couple with an open agreement where each may have other partners. There we've moved from protection of innocence to enforcement of arbitrary condition.

 

[Pako]

*snip*
...so I'm not sure why you're claiming that anything I've said is evidence of the moral decline of this country.

Since when is incest EVER acceptable where by is should be made legal to protect civil rights?

I'll tell you....evidence of the moral decline of this country is when people like yourself say it's acceptable.

 

[Sage]

Then count me in as part of the supposed “moral decline” – I sure don’t see what’s wrong with incest, provided it’s for non-reproductive purposes.

 

[Minnesota01R6]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Nobody gets to marry people of the same sex. Not straight people, not gay people. Nobody. (no rootbeer fountain).

The government isn't in the business of providing arbitrary services just because people's feelings are hurt either.

 

[Minnesota01R6]

Then count me in as part of the supposed “moral decline” – I sure don’t see what’s wrong with incest, provided it’s for non-reproductive purposes.

That's the problem with incest - sometimes non-reproductive purposes accidentally become reproductive.

 

[Pako]

That's the problem with incest - sometimes non-reproductive purposes accidentally become reproductive.

That's ok though. Deformities are not 100%. You can always kill the deformed baby's after they're born or better yet, as soon as they are detected as being deformed in the womb.

There, now we don't even have to exclude incest marriage to anyone, even if they do want to reproduce.

This is of course not my opinion or something I support but am showing you how far we can justify immorality.