Best Solution For The Homosexual Union Issue

[michaeledward]

I would just ask sgtmac_46 "What Would Jesus Do?"

(I am probably not the first person to come up with that sentence ... it is awfully clever, somebody else must've thought of it by now.)

I would point out two things;

That being a 'conspiracy' and people believing 'God ... condemns homosexuality' are not mutually exclusive.

And ...

Please do not think that I, in any way, condemn people of faith as being superstitious. I know many people draw a great deal of strength, comfort and community from religion. I fully support people who choose that path.

That is not in any way in conflict with my fairly commonly stated position as an athiest. I spent a good deal of my life within organized religion. I am a recovering alcoholic, which demands faith in a higher power commonly referred to as God.

Hopefully, all will note the actions I would ask those believers who fear God's wrath on our country because of homosexuality ... that they follow the teaching of Joshua, son of Joseph ... whom is commonly called Jesus.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

Have you Americans ever considered just setting aside some desolate, worn out land, and tried relocating them all there? Let them make their own laws and such like you did with your indians? You had your internment camps, and your reservations, why not create a homosexual reservation as well? Seems right up your old alleys, I would think.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Probably the same restrictions the ACLU applies to being offended at crosses built at World War I memorials....that being that being offended is equal to being injured. Can't have it both ways, either everyone has the right to NOT be offended, or no one has that right.

Personally, I think homosexual marriage should be legal AND World War I memorial crosses should be left where they have been for 70 years, even IF that land suddenly became government land. I think the offended be damned in either case.

While I have argued for the removal of God from our money and from our oaths of office and such, I never said to destroy any existing documents, and I agree that the crosses in place you be allowed to remain as well as any other symbols of faith that might be there.

 

[Shu2jack]

Have you Americans ever considered just setting aside some desolate, worn out land, and tried relocating them all there? Let them make their own laws and such like you did with your indians? You had your internment camps, and your reservations, why not create a homosexual reservation as well? Seems right up your old alleys, I would think.

Right, because the United Kingdom, in it's long and glorious history, has done no wrong what so ever.

Really, I feel your post is uncalled for.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

The subject sir, is the status of a group of individuals, and their rights in your great land of freedom. You are the nation which is currently leading the crusade to bring Democracy to the world. One would expect that the nation which professes "Liberty and Justice for All", would be able to live up to that. Your history however is such that you place those groups into little "camps". You put your indians on reservations, you put Japanese into camps, you round up and send your arabs to camps. Why not do the same with your duckies? Seems a right American thing to do.

The sins of the United Kingdom and our brilliant leadership is not really fit for this topic, I would say.

 

[Shu2jack]

The subject sir, is the status of a group of individuals, and their rights in your great land of freedom. You are the nation which is currently leading the crusade to bring Democracy to the world. One would expect that the nation which professes "Liberty and Justice for All", would be able to live up to that. Your history however is such that you place those groups into little "camps". You put your indians on reservations, you put Japanese into camps, you round up and send your arabs to camps. Why not do the same with your duckies? Seems a right American thing to do.

The sins of the United Kingdom and our brilliant leadership is not really fit for this topic, I would say.

I'm not defending the United State's past actions. Our current generation is not, and should not be, limited to the actions and sins of our forefathers. Implying we should just repeat our sins to "solve" our problem and implying that we as a whole are keen on such an idea is not very productive to this discussion and does not add anything to it. Unless you have anything of value to add to the conversation, I ask that you refrain from posting in it.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

I merely point out an option that hasn't been broached yet here, and it is one that it seems a few would at least support. It "moves them away" as seems preferred. They can of course come here, where same-sex partnerships are legal and protected by law, as of this month I believe. Really, you Americans are quite behind the times. Join us in the 21st century won't you?

BBC Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4493094.stm

Now, I have to go pick out a gift. My cousin is planning his wedding. Nice chaps, rather good rugby players.

 

[Shu2jack]

Really, you Americans are quite behind the times. Join us in the 21st century won't you?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It's a valid point. While the US is trying to legislate against same-gender marriages, Spain, Canada, New Zealand and the UK are legalizing them, and passing laws to protect them. In fact, much of Europe seems to be going or has gone towards legalizing and protecting them though there still remains much to reach true equality. Seems that we're going backwards here in the US.

 

[Shu2jack]

I was more taken to his attitude rather than the fact that the U.K. is legalizing gay marriage.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The subject sir, is the status of a group of individuals, and their rights in your great land of freedom. You are the nation which is currently leading the crusade to bring Democracy to the world. One would expect that the nation which professes "Liberty and Justice for All", would be able to live up to that. Your history however is such that you place those groups into little "camps". You put your indians on reservations, you put Japanese into camps, you round up and send your arabs to camps. Why not do the same with your duckies? Seems a right American thing to do.

The sins of the United Kingdom and our brilliant leadership is not really fit for this topic, I would say.

It's a bit disingenuous to equate a legitimate discussion about whether homosexual marriage even constitutes anything resembling a right, with segregation and concentration camps...It's hyperbolic, it's fallacious, and it's quite frankly a little pretentious.

What's more, just calling marriage a 'right' is not the same as it BEING a right. I want a right to free cable...it doesn't make it so. Homosexuals of late have decided to petition the government for the right to engage in a contract to 'marry'. Some states, and their residents, have decided that there exists no right to marry, and have decided to refuse to grant the request to expand the definition of marriage. However, again, that's far from putting homosexuals 'on an island'.

I frankly am not concerned about legalized gay marriage, however, some have some issues with it being portrayed as some necessary right. I'm sure civil unions for homosexuals will ultimately be legal in all 50 states, and maybe rightfully so. However, that's far from the belief that just because Europe does it, that it's the true path to enlightenment. I think it might be that attitude that he was referring to.

As far as 'our history' being checkered, this is quite humorous come from a European. Considering that much of the crimes of humanity in the last 400 years has been a direct result of European imperialism and, specifically, British imperialism. From India, to the Atlantic Slave trade, the United Kingdom has engaged in more acts of barbarity than they could ever accuse us of. Keep in mind that the UK was responsible for MOST of the slaves brought to the New World during the Atlantic slave trade.

So as far as your assertion that the history of the US is the topic, you altered that when you started quoting, chapter and verse, all the sins of our past. If that is the topic, then it sounds like you broadened the issue from the original narrow discussion of simply homosexual marriage, right or not.

As for 'muslims in prison camps', thats ironic considering that Great Britain kept large sections of the Islamic world under it's gun for over a century. In fact, it was as much British and other European interference in the Arab world, as anything we have done, that has created much of the problems we see today. How many native peoples on how many continents were subjugated by her majesties soldiers?

Before people start quoting the history of the US, they might take a close look at their own. There's more than enough skelatons in the collective closets to go around.


What the opposition to the gay marriage issue in the US boils down to is this, and this is a point often ignored, state legislatures, for the most part, didn't push amendments to block gay marriage. Voters voted on ballot issues in several states, direct democracy in action. They decided, collectively, that they didn't desire to expand the definition of marriage to encompass homosexuals. Well, that's all well and good. Many folks give lip service to democracy, until voters do something they don't like. Then they talk about the right thing to do being to go against the will of the voters. Then they seek a way to enforce their will on the majority, and start coming up with hyperbolic instances in history when the 'people' were wrong...as justification for subverting the will of the people.

Again, I always find it ironic how positions on democracy flip flop depending on whether the voters are with you or against you on a given issue. The same person who, on a different topic, might say 'The will of the people should be the deciding factor' then switch and say 'sometimes we need to do the right thing, despite the will of the people'....to which I always ask, right thing based on who's judgement, theirs?

Whatever we think about states passing anti-gay marriage legislation, it is NOT tantamount to concentration camps, and is also not based on some dictatorial mindset....it is what the majority of collective citizens of that decided was going to be their states stance. Like it or hate it, it's their RIGHT as citizens to make those decisions.

 

[Shu2jack]

sgtmac_46,

Thank you. You articulated why I didn't care for Edmund BlackAdder's posts much better than I did.

Something I did want to bring up in your post though,

Again, I always find it ironic how positions on democracy flip flop depending on whether the voters are with you or against you on a given issue. The same person who, on a different topic, might say 'The will of the people should be the deciding factor' then switch and say 'sometimes we need to do the right thing, despite the will of the people'....to which I always ask, right thing based on who's judgement, theirs?

Whatever we think about states passing anti-gay marriage legislation, it is NOT tantamount to concentration camps, and is also not based on some dictatorial mindset....it is what the majority of collective citizens of that decided was going to be their states stance. Like it or hate it, it's their RIGHT as citizens to make those decisions.

I agree that a lot of peoples' position on democracy tend to change depending on the situation and how the voting turned out for their position.

I personally believe that the will of the majority should be followed, but I have a hard time swallowing that for every situation. At one time the voting majority didn't like the idea of blacks have equal rights or going sharing public schools with whites. Where does one draw the line between majority rule and overruling the majority? It was once mentioned that humans have certain unalienable rights.

It could be argued that some states simply voted against expanding the definition of marriage and that majority rule should be followed. On the other hand, isn't marriage one of those rights that should not be denied to the "average" person? I don't know if it the right of the citizens to make the decisions to deny others certain rights.

Sorry if my ideas are kind of fuzzy. Been up many hours with very little sleep.

 

[sgtmac_46]

sgtmac_46,

Thank you. You articulated why I didn't care for Edmund BlackAdder's posts much better than I did.

Something I did want to bring up in your post though,



I agree that a lot of peoples' position on democracy tend to change depending on the situation and how the voting turned out for their position.

I personally believe that the will of the majority should be followed, but I have a hard time swallowing that for every situation. At one time the voting majority didn't like the idea of blacks have equal rights or going sharing public schools with whites. Where does one draw the line between majority rule and overruling the majority? It was once mentioned that humans have certain unalienable rights.

It could be argued that some states simply voted against expanding the definition of marriage and that majority rule should be followed. On the other hand, isn't marriage one of those rights that should not be denied to the "average" person? I don't know if it the right of the citizens to make the decisions to deny others certain rights.

Sorry if my ideas are kind of fuzzy. Been up many hours with very little sleep.

And i'm not dismissing that argument, merely pointing out an obvious problem...Who decides when the will of the people is 'wrong'? We all disagree with the will of the majority from time to time. Does that mean that we simply do whatever is necessary to invoke our view on the majority? Isn't that what dictator's do? Many of them also did it for the same reasons, i.e. they believed it was the right thing, despite the people's views (especially in the name of communism).

I merely ask who appoints themselves as the person who decides when the people are and are not correct in their decisions.

What's more, I haven't heard a decent argument describing marriage as an absolute right. Some want to make it a right, that's a far cry from it being so. Is it necessary to be married to pursue happiness? Some would claim just the opposite is true.

Either way, I find it hard to believe that marriage is some sort of absolute right. Irregardless, I feel that if homosexuals want to engage in marriage, personally I have no problem with it. Many voters disagree. I just dispute that it's a forgone conclusion that marriage is an absolute human right.

We throw the word 'right' around a little too easily. It seems to simply have become a word to describe anything we just decided we 'wanted to do' but can't....so now we'll call it a right and demand it. That's a little different from a slave demanding his physical freedom, or someone oppressed, demanding a right to education and self-determination.

It seems that since we have fought and won against socieities greatest evils, we are picking progressively more and more trivial battles and calling it a 'crusade for human rights'. Anything we suddenly want to change about society, becomes the next great evil to be defeated. It's gotten to the point where the 'rights' being demanded are complete fabrications. I say allow gay marriage, but lets not assume it's anywhere close to an absolute human rights issue.


That having been said, if two people, regardless of their sex, race, religion, or sitcom preference, believe (usually mistakenly) that marriage will somehow enrich their lives and bring them happiness, more power to them. As I said in a past post, I voted against the ballot issue in my state to restrict gay marriage, not because I believed it was an absolute human right, but because I felt if they wanted to ruin their lives, let them. I believe homosexuals shouldn't be immune from the living hell that can be marriage. Once they reach their 3rd or 4th marriage, then they will see that marriage is NOT a human right, it can, in fact be, down right INhuman. Marriage...It's not a word, it's a sentence.

 

[michaeledward]

While I have argued for the removal of God from our money and from our oaths of office and such, I never said to destroy any existing documents, and I agree that the crosses in place you be allowed to remain as well as any other symbols of faith that might be there.

There have been many who have fought from other faiths. So, I would imagine there would need to be Crecents and six point stars in those memorials tooo.

Over the past year, there was a populat country song about a soldier dying and being buried at Arlington National Cemetary. One of the lyrics mentions 'crosses'. It may be poetic license. Or it may be ignorance. There are no crosses are Arlington.

There is reportedly a quote from Vice President Cheney (who served as secretary of defense in Bush I) about being 'row upon row' of crosses Arlington.

Might not religious symbols in National Memorials lead itself to a Theocratic government?

 

[michaeledward]

I merely ask who appoints themselves as the person who decides when the people are and are not correct in their decisions.

I think, that the cheif executive appoints the judges who decide when the voters may have made a wrong choice in protecting fellow citizens. It was the courts that de-segregated the schools, wasn't it?

Some states also elect judges don't they? Are there any State Supreme Courts that have elected officials? I get so confused about when a judge is being 'Activist', and when they are performing their jobs.

What's more, I haven't heard a decent argument describing marriage as an absolute right. Some want to make it a right, that's a far cry from it being so.

I am wondering why a couple that commits themselves to each other are not allowed to file a joint tax return. That is an absolute right of a married couple, isn't it? Social Security survivor benefits, that a right too, isn't it?

These arguments have been made, and many say 'civil unions' which codify all of those rights are the same thing as marriage, and gay people should be satisfied with that.

I have argued that marriage is more than just the 'rights' associated with it. It is difficult to define the 'intangivles' (Rumsfelds "unknown unknowns") of marriage, but certainly, you won't deny that there are intangible benefits to marriage?

So, if you "haven't heard" a decent argument for same-sex marriage, please help me understand why this argument does not meet that standard? I'm not asking you to agree with it, just why is it not a 'decent argument'? Is it unfair? Is the premise false?

Curiously?

 

[sgtmac_46]

There have been many who have fought from other faiths. So, I would imagine there would need to be Crecents and six point stars in those memorials tooo.

Over the past year, there was a populat country song about a soldier dying and being buried at Arlington National Cemetary. One of the lyrics mentions 'crosses'. It may be poetic license. Or it may be ignorance. There are no crosses are Arlington.

There is reportedly a quote from Vice President Cheney (who served as secretary of defense in Bush I) about being 'row upon row' of crosses Arlington.

Might not religious symbols in National Memorials lead itself to a Theocratic government?

Sorry, you may have missed the point. The cross in question was erected 70 years ago, at a time when it was private land, to honor world war one dead from that area.

The idiotic position the ACLU takes, that offense is tantamount to damage, is offensive in itself. It need not be necessary to represent EVERY religion on the planet, at a site where a cross was originally erected, in order to appease any group who decides to assert themselves because they've decided to be offended that day.

By this logic, if the federal government acquires a piece of land with a historical church on it, it should either tear it down, or construct a church or place of worship representing every religion and interest group on the planet. It's idiotic. We need to stop assuming that everytime some individual is offended, that we should pander to their desires. I wouldn't make any different claim if this cross was, say, a buddhist shrine that the courts demanded be removed...but I strangely suspect you might.

It is nothing but pre-text on the part of the ACLU anyway, and I, for one, will be glad to see them restricted from being awarded attorney's fees in these kind of cases, when the legislation goes through. If they are so altruistic in their motives, then they won't mind doing these sort of cases for free.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think, that the cheif executive appoints the judges who decide when the voters may have made a wrong choice in protecting fellow citizens. It was the courts that de-segregated the schools, wasn't it?

Ah, appeal to legislation from the bench. And it is the people who elects the chief executive who appoints the judges. Again, we come back to the will of the people. And if the judges disagree with you, who do you appeal to?

Some states also elect judges don't they? Are there any State Supreme Courts that have elected officials? I get so confused about when a judge is being 'Activist', and when they are performing their jobs.

Well, allow me to alleviate your confusion. They are doing their job, when they follow a narrow interpretation of the constitution. It is the job of legislatures to legislate, not the job of judges. The idea of a 'living constitution' as activist judges define it, is nothing more than the subversion of the will of the people. You might justify it from time to time as a necessary evil, for a greater good....but, then all tyrants justify their actions as necessary. I'm merely pointing out that one shouldn't get to comfortable just arbitrarily subverting the will of the people for any triffle they decide to label 'a right' for simply that purpose.

I am wondering why a couple that commits themselves to each other are not allowed to file a joint tax return. That is an absolute right of a married couple, isn't it? Social Security survivor benefits, that a right too, isn't it?

Filing taxes is a 'right'? Again, I think you've gone a little loopy with defining every little thing as a 'right'. Many things are simply priveleges. Driving, for example, is a privelege, but many assume it is a 'right' simply because they want to do it. If marriage was a right, then the other party wouldn't be able to divorce you, would they. If they divorced you, they'd be violating your 'right' to be married. Sorry, doesn't wash. No one has a right to be married, otherwise your rights would be violated any time someone turned down your proposal.

These arguments have been made, and many say 'civil unions' which codify all of those rights are the same thing as marriage, and gay people should be satisfied with that.

Satisfied or not, it's not a rights issue. It's an issue for the people to decide.

I have argued that marriage is more than just the 'rights' associated with it. It is difficult to define the 'intangivles' (Rumsfelds "unknown unknowns") of marriage, but certainly, you won't deny that there are intangible benefits to marriage?

Intangible benefits do not equal 'a right'.

So, if you "haven't heard" a decent argument for same-sex marriage, please help me understand why this argument does not meet that standard? I'm not asking you to agree with it, just why is it not a 'decent argument'? Is it unfair? Is the premise false?
Curiously?

It's a false premise, it's predicated on the belief that marriage is a right, which it is not. If you are demanding that the privelege of marriage be extended to homosexuals, then I, personally, would extend that support to extend the privelege of marriage to homosexuals. However, casting this as a human rights issue is really rather petty, given the history of REAL rights issues.


I'll vote for it, but not because I believe it's about absolute human rights.
It's because if it makes them happy, let them have it. It doesn't really harm anything.

 

[michaeledward]

OK .. I got it.

Brown v Board of Education was legislating from the bench.

Bring back segregated schools.

 

[Ray]

Filing taxes is a 'right'? Again, I think you've gone a little loopy with defining every little thing as a 'right'. Many things are simply priveleges. Driving, for example, is a privelege, but many assume it is a 'right' simply because they want to do it. If marriage was a right, then the other party wouldn't be able to divorce you, would they. If they divorced you, they'd be violating your 'right' to be married. Sorry, doesn't wash. No one has a right to be married, otherwise your rights would be violated any time someone turned down your proposal.

That's an interesting arguement...I can't tell if it holds water or not, but if I use some analogies then I come to the conclusion that marriage is a right. But, of course, the right to marry would have restrictions as do other rights (you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't marry a poodle no matter how cute it is).

Here's an anology: there is "freedom of the press," right? Just because I want to have my views printed, the local paper is under no compulsion to print my views (the anology is to "your rights would be violated any time someone turned down your proposal").

I also have a "freedom of speech." But if someone refuses to listen to me, they are not violating my freedom of speech; that is another anology to "your rights would be violated any time someone turned down your proposal").

I also have a right to vote. I can vote for whoever I want to...I can literally vote for someone who is legally incapable of holding the office (voting for a foreign born govenor of California for president, for example)...I can vote for someone who's not interested in the job (like James Brolin)...They are not required to take office just because I vote for them ("your rights would be violated any time someone turned down your proposal").

Oh yes, and if I do vote for someone and they do take the office but later decide to resign then they haven't violated my right to vote. That's my anology to "if they divorced you, they'd be violating your 'right' to be married."

Marriage, as a social institution, is defined by society. If our society legalizes homosexual marriages {which I'm opposed to} then it'll be just like other things that are legal that I'm opposed to. Marriage as a right, should be limited to marriage between a man and a woman {and includes some restrictions, not limited to incest, age restrictions, etc}.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Intangible benefits do not equal 'a right'.

It's a false premise, it's predicated on the belief that marriage is a right, which it is not. If you are demanding that the privelege of marriage be extended to homosexuals, then I, personally, would extend that support to extend the privelege of marriage to homosexuals. However, casting this as a human rights issue is really rather petty, given the history of REAL rights issues.

On the contrary, the 9th and 10th Amendment state:

Amendment IX


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



The Supreme Court has taken the stance--in deference to these articles, as well as the others concerning equal protections--that there have to be compelling reasons for the restriction of a freedom. One could argue that there is no right to homosexual sex, yet in 2003 the Court ruled that there wasn't sound reason for restricting that freedom.


In short, there are (and were in the 18th century) far too many rights to be outlined in the Constitution--or ANY Constitution. No legislature has the time or the omniscience to anticipate every single conceivable right. The Constitution doesn't grant us the right to have a child; play or own rock music; pick our noses in the privacy of our own homes; or have consensual--if slightly deviant sex--with our spouses. It doesn't restrict our hemlines; mandate our hair length; dictate how we color coordinate our clothes. These freedoms are taken as given...and any threat of infringement on those freedoms has to meet a test of Constitutionality. It is the restriciton of the freedom that meets the test--not the allowance of it.


The Constitution and its judicial interpretation is intended to enumerate rights and restrict the powers of government. It wasn't drafted to handcuff us. The one great limiting amendment was the 19th, prohibition, and as we all know it was overturned. All others either extend the freedom of the people or delineate the governments role.



If we don't like something or are offended by it, we have a tool to fight it: The power of the frown. Public censure can be far more effective than passing a Constitutional amendment...and it insures the safety of that ideal the Constitution serves: Liberty.

Regards,


Steve