02-06-2005, 02:02 AM | #121 (permalink) | ||
Banned
Location: BFE
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by daswig; 02-06-2005 at 02:09 AM.. |
||
02-06-2005, 09:15 AM | #122 (permalink) | |||
Loser
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
02-06-2005, 09:40 AM | #123 (permalink) |
whosoever
Location: New England
|
the logic is quite odd, as you note manx.
he seems to want to keep the laws on the books, in case of sex criminals. Why not make forcible sodomy illegal? That covers things well. Etc... The idea that the law is "usually" unenforced offers no protection to a politically dienfranchised group. And beyond that...a selectively enforced law is a danger in and of itself. the opportunity for a malicious prosecution is raised, the power of the government to threaten... the point is that laws should outlaw conduct that should be illegal, not be blankets that have uncertain interpretations. i don't trust the state to tell me what "sodomy" is good and what is bad.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 |
02-06-2005, 09:57 AM | #124 (permalink) | |
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/conten...3/660zypwj.asp Like I said, I ultimately found it unconvincing. Correlation != Causation.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. Last edited by FoolThemAll; 02-06-2005 at 10:02 AM.. |
|
02-06-2005, 01:26 PM | #125 (permalink) | |
Banned
Location: BFE
|
Quote:
Now if the law said "only straight men can marry women, as long as they are straight, too", THEN there's be a discrimination issue. But that's not the case. Look at hate crime legislation. I don't support hate crime legislation. Why? Because who has ever heard of a "friendly crime"? ALL crime contains some element of hate, and setting one group or another up for special protection is discriminatory to those who don't receive the special protection. If somebody shoots somebody else because they are gay, how is that WORSE than somebody shooting somebody else in the course of a robbery? The act is the same, the result is the same. Now differences based upon means of death, I don't have a problem with. For example, being dragged to death behind a pickup truck by a rope around your neck is a far more heinous or infamous crime than shooting somebody in the head from behind, instantly killing them without their knowing that they were ever in danger. Both are murder, but the means in the first case are more horrific than the means in the second case. The level of suffering inflicted is far different. But if there were two cases where people were dragged behind pickup trucks by ropes around their necks, and one dead person was black and the other white, varying punishment based upon the skin color of the attacker IS discriminatory. |
|
02-06-2005, 01:31 PM | #126 (permalink) | |
Banned
Location: BFE
|
Quote:
ALL laws are selectively enforced. Barring implementation of a full-fledged Big Brother Police State, all laws will CONTINUE to be selectively enforced, even strict liability offenses. |
|
02-06-2005, 02:28 PM | #127 (permalink) | |
whosoever
Location: New England
|
Quote:
but murder laws don't get winked at for certain folks. when the prosecutions are pretty much soley at the personal discretion of the prosecutor...doesn't that seem like a problem? YOU may never be charged for what you do with your wife. But there are a lot of folks who don't get that same leeway with the same law. the law should reflect what we ACTUALLY want to make illegal. no?
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 |
|
02-06-2005, 04:12 PM | #129 (permalink) | |
Banned
Location: BFE
|
Quote:
Now if the law is facially neutral, but enforced in a discriminatory manner (for example, if only homosexuals are charged with sodomy, and heterosexuals are never charged with sodomy), there's legal grounds to seek review the constitutionality of the law itself on the grounds that it's enforced in a discriminatory manner. Different levels of appellate scrutiny apply from a facially discriminatory law, but the law can indeed be struck down if it's used in a discriminatory manner. FYI: In the state where I reside, the sex crimes laws are enforced in an OVERWHELMING majority against heterosexuals, NOT homosexuals. Why? Probably because heterosexuals commit far more of the crimes in question than homosexuals do. I've personally seen dozens of cases where sodomy charges were brought against a heterosexual, virtually all of them involving mala in se crimes, and most of them involving crimes against children. I've NEVER personally seen a case where such charges were brought against a homosexual, either for a mala in se or malum prohibitorum crime. Is it possible that a homosexual could be charged with sodomy here? Sure. But from what I've seen, it doesn't happen often. |
|
02-06-2005, 04:52 PM | #130 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
Of course, each of your points has had numerous weaknesses. Such as this latest one, where the laws are not discrminatory because gay people can marry someone of another gender. This is clearly absurd, one need only look at your interpretation of the law and then apply it to brother and sister - techincally they should be allowed to marry according to how you read the law, but they are not. So your reading of the law is incorrect. It is obvious that marriage is meant to be provided for strong relationships - just look at INS, a marriage with a foreigner is constantly reviewed by the INS in order to ensure that the relationship is serious and not simply convenience. In your interpretation of marriage laws, the INS would have no business making such judgements: marriage need not be about relationship. Since your interpretation is not the interpretation of the gov'ts, it becomes clear that prohibiting gay marriage is indeed discrminatory - a gay person, if they want to be married, is forced to accept a relationship with someone that they are, naturally, not strongly attracted to. So again, your latest in a number of poor excuses is invalid. When are you going to address your first post, or do you expect it should simply be forgotten? |
|
02-06-2005, 05:29 PM | #131 (permalink) | |||
Banned
Location: BFE
|
Quote:
Quote:
You keep saying my reading of the law is wrong. Where did you get your J.D. from again? Consanguinity is a codified disqualification for marriage practically everywhere if it's within a certain distance. Will this need to be changed in case a pair of homosexual siblings wish to marry? Quote:
What, exactly, have I NOT explained to death about my first post? Please be SPECIFIC. |
|||
02-06-2005, 06:20 PM | #132 (permalink) | |
Crazy
|
Quote:
|
|
02-06-2005, 06:48 PM | #133 (permalink) | |
Banned
Location: BFE
|
Quote:
Man, woman, gay, straight, they all can marry. There's no gender-based discrimination there. There are certain restrictions on marriage. You can't marry your mother or father. You can't marry somebody who is already married. I can't marry Angelina Jolie even if I was single. You can't marry somebody of the same sex. You can't marry an infant. You can't marry a dead person, or an animal, or a host of other things like fireplugs. But men can marry, and women can marry. What other gender is there? |
|
02-06-2005, 07:33 PM | #134 (permalink) |
Psycho
Location: IOWA
|
Honestly, marriage by law is property and tax deal. That is mainly what marriage is by the LAW. Religiously it is much different, the churches can deal with the issues of gay marriage not the government. The BIG "G" shouldn't be able to tell us who we can marry.
__________________
Friends don't shake hands, friends 'gotta HUG! |
02-06-2005, 09:08 PM | #135 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
I'd have to be a lawyer of some kind in order to keep up completly with this. What about morally? Let's subtract law here for just a few posts (then we can jump right back). Let's just ask (hypothetically): Is it morally wrong for homosexuals to be allowed to marry?
Note: daswig, I'm counting on you responsding by saying something like "YOU CAN'T JUST TAKE LAW OUT OF THIS" Prove me wrong. In a hypothetical (adj.; of, relating to, or based on a hypothesis: a hypothetical situation) world, we can explore all possibilities and angles of something by subtracting something that exists in the real world. A hypothetical world is ruled over by logic and those who explore the scenreo. |
02-06-2005, 09:48 PM | #136 (permalink) | ||
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why are you against gay marriage again?
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
||
02-07-2005, 02:22 PM | #137 (permalink) | |
Banned
Location: BFE
|
Quote:
|
|
02-07-2005, 04:24 PM | #138 (permalink) | ||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Either the constitution is wrong, or the state law is wrong (or people can try to bastardise the constitution by saying that "all men created equal" doesn't apply to gays marriage rights). The only question that we should be asking ourselves is does "all men created equal" mean that gays should be allowed to marry (whether society is ready or not)? It's up to the judges. |
||
02-07-2005, 06:01 PM | #139 (permalink) | |
Banned
Location: BFE
|
Quote:
The majority of American people are NOT ready for same-sex marriage to become the law of the land; the 2004 state referendums prove this fairly conclusively. Even in Oregon, a pretty strongly "Blue State", a same sex marriage ban was approved with 57% of the vote. IF (and that's a HUGE "if", considering the makeup of the court right now) SCOTUS were to rule that same-sex marriages must be allowed, there'd be a Constitutional Amendment passed and ratified in RECORD time. There may be one passed even before SCOTUS gets a chance to rule on it. I'm reminded of the old T-shirt slogan which states "If we cannot reform it, we will abolish it." If this issue continues to be pushed while so many Americans oppose it, that's EXACTLY what will happen. And once the Constitution has been amended, the odds of it being repealed are slim at best (it's only happened once since the Constitution went into effect). In twenty years, the situation may be different, but right now, considering the level of popular approval out there on this issue, it's a complete loser of an issue for no reason other than the backlash. |
|
02-07-2005, 06:39 PM | #140 (permalink) | |||||
Loser
|
What is it that you think you are doing, daswig? Do you think you are providing a logical reason that gay marriage should not be legal? In this entire thread, you have provided two reasons that you believe gay marriage should not be legal:
1- Because gay people are perverted, apparently to a degree more so than yourself that should therefore prohibit them from being afforded the right to marry, a right that your own perverted-self enjoys. 2- Because the gov't wants healthy children and a gay married couple would negatively impact the possibility of healthy children. The rest of your energy in this thread has been almost exclusively devoted to describing your perspective on how gay marriage is presently not legal. Do you see the difference? No one is arguing whether gay marriage is legal. The standard discussion around this topic is whether gay marriage should be legal. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And really. If perverts is essentially the norm - why would you even use the word other than to be intentionally confrontational. |
|||||
02-07-2005, 06:51 PM | #141 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
|
|
02-07-2005, 09:32 PM | #142 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Morals (as you describe them, they aren't actually morals*) aren't like emotions They can be negative and positive.
Man 1: It's morally wrong to allow Jews to exploit our society. Based on that moral truth, we should persecute them. Man 2: Shut the f*** up Hitler. His "morals" were based in his perception of reality. Were his perceptions wrong? Almost certianally. His perceptions were fed by paranoia and a slew of mental and social diseases. There are people living in America right now who think it's morally acceptable to kill black people for simply being born black. Are they right? Of course not. The same thing is going on with homosexuals. People misinterpret the bible (ask your pastor/preist/rabbi/etc. if you should persecute those who live in "sin", then talk to me about how to treat homosexuals). Now we are stuck in this aweful situation where a group of people have been taught propoganda wrapped in the word of God, and they'll stick to it no matter what. It is alright with me if you want to believe that being gay is wrong. It is not alright for you to prevent them from living the way that makes them happy and doesn't hurt you. *Moral: of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character This is the way people are born. There is a genetic trait associated with being a homosexual. How can it be wrong to be born? Should we punish people for being born with detached or attached earlobes? |
02-07-2005, 10:23 PM | #143 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
|
|
02-09-2005, 01:58 AM | #144 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
Also, you make quite a few broad assumptions which aren't entirely based in fact: 1. I "persecute" those who live in sin. Really, I personally don't care what people do in their own homes, I'm not peronally trying to ban homosexuality. 2. If I believe that something is bad for society, it DOES hurt me if it goes on. Crimes not commited against me do not hurt me, but that doesn't make them right, nor does it mean I should support them. Again, I personally don't care about homosexuality, nor do I think it can be legally banned. However, that is not the issue, the issue is marriage not allowing the act. 3. That people are born homosexual has not been conclusively proven one way or the other. There are many people who lived a heterosexual lifestyle for many years before becoming homosexual. We could probably play duelling experts here, but it will boil down to there being no definitive scientific proof one way or the other. And as for people being punished for how they are born, it happens all the time. Just look at many inner cities, these people are punished for being born to poor parents. Many people are imprisoned for actions they commit due to mental illness (often that they are born with). |
|
02-09-2005, 02:35 AM | #145 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
actually, there are entire branches of philosophy devoted to objective morality. I don't know if they are currently running over in Philosophy, but someone over there should be able to direct you where to look if interested.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
02-09-2005, 11:40 AM | #146 (permalink) | ||||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The proof is possiblty on the way. Because there is no conclusive proof either way, shouldn't they be given the benifit of the doubt? I know people are punished for the way they are born, but that does not make it right. I'm surprised you would suggest that. We are talking about right and wrong here. People are being raped all over the world too, would you try to stop a rape if you saw one? Or would you say, "Well, it's going on all over the world."? |
||||
Tags |
ban, marriage, samesex, struck, york |
|
|