daswig

Chill, dude. It's far less optimal in the sense that the child was either orphaned in the first place (dead parents=bad), taken away from the birth parents by the State for their being bad (child abuse/endangerment = bad), or abandoned by the parents (birth parents not wanting baby = bad). You don't end up being put up for adoption because things in your life had gone WELL to that point. Adoption itself is fine and dandy, but you don't end up being adopted because your life is going great.

It'd be nice if every pregnancy was a wanted pregnancy, so that abortion was rare. We don't live in a "nice" world, however. Abortion MUST remain legal on demand and without apology, and I support full governmental funding for abortions for those who desire them but cannot afford them. I guess you missed the bit about my having volunteered as an abortion clinic "escort" to protect women from Operation Rescue lunatics in my post above...

Manx

Will might not want to call your position a contradiction, but clearly it is - you are a self-proclaimed pervert who is married to a pervert, yet you deny the right for perverts of the same-sex to marry. And with your apparent background this is all rather suprising, the contradiction is enormous.
In your ten thousand words in this thread, you have still not explained your first post. You have tried dodging the question (as above where you entirely ignore Will's question and instead focus on the your definition of perversion and the legality of perverted acts), you have tried to explain that the gov't wants to promote healthy children, as if this somehow eliminates its ability to support the gay lifestyle, and you have tried pointing to your supposed history in the gay community. Yet none of those methods have addressed the essence of your first post - that gays are perverted and are attempting to have laws changed and should therefore not be allowed to marry.

martinguerre

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

FoolThemAll

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia:

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.

daswig

It's a matter of special privilege. The marriage laws are written in a non-discriminatory manner. Sexual orientation is immaterial. Any man (straight or gay) who is legally able to marry can marry any woman (straight or gay) that can legally marry and that agrees to it. There's been a long history of homosexuals who have done just that.....married people of the opposite sex, for whatever reason. Many of them have indeed had children as a result of the marriage.

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.

daswig

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.

martinguerre

understood.

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

sob

I have to disagree, due to the continued freedom of the Alpha Jackass, Teddy Kennedy.

daswig

Murder laws are selectively enforced all the time. It's not a matter of who the persons involved are, but rather the circumstances of the case. For example, in cases where the prosecution thinks that a successful case can not be made, or a legal justification exists, charges will not be filed. That is done in the INTEREST of justice, so that people are not prosecuted unjustly. Think about it. Suppose somebody shoots and kills an armed intruder in their house. Should they be forced to go through a trial for either murder or manslaughter, at considerable expense to themselves and the government, when the prosecutor knows that the outcome of such a trial would be a not guilty verdict because of the circumstances?

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.

Manx

You're all over the place in this thread. I can't tell what your position is other than some generic form of opposition. Whenever you're asked to address one point that you have made, you switch to an altogether different point - as if adding a new point bolsters one of your older points.

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?

daswig

I assume you're referring to this definition:

Under this definition, you apparently missed the "that can legally marry" part. Other portions of the code specify what the disqualifications of marriage are.

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?

As I'm sure you're aware, immigration law is handled differently in many ways than standard civil law is. Checking for immigration fraud in the form of a sham marriage isn't about enforcing the marriage laws, it's about enforcing IMMIGRATION laws. You know this, but are either deliberately trying to obfuscate, or are grievously misinformed. IF MARRIAGE IS THERE TO PROVIDE STRONG RELATIONSHIPS, WHERE'S THE CIVIL LAW ENFORCEMENT VEHICLE? When was the last time you heard of a couple being busted for "marriage fraud" for engaging in a marriage of convenience????? Would you care to cite a statute which criminalizes marriages of convenience if the intent is anything other than a specific intent to defraud?

What, exactly, have I NOT explained to death about my first post? Please be SPECIFIC.

CShine

You don't seem to realize what you've just written. That's not non-discriminatory. What you're saying is that marriage law is always discriminatory. Apparently, if we make gender-based discrimination the rule in all cases then it's no longer discrimination. By this logic, any gender discrimination is perfectly OK as long as it's done ALL the time.

daswig

So you're saying a woman can't marry a man under current law, only the man can marry the woman?

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?

drakers

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!

Willravel

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.

FoolThemAll

The flipside of this argument is that same-sex marriage would not be a matter of special privilege. Males (both straight and gay) and females (both straight and gay) would be able to marry people of the same sex.

Why are you against gay marriage again?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

daswig

If marriage were completely divorced from the law, as in marriage was strictly a matter of religion, no State marriage license required, then I'd have no problem with same sex marriage, UNLESS a same sex couple tried to force a certain religion to let them marry. If the UUs or any other church wanted to have same sex marriage, it'd be protected under the First Amendment.

Willravel

Okay. So to clairify: outside of the law, you believe that they should be allowed to marry (unless they try to force their beliefs).

What the article (see page 1) is about is changing the letter of state law in that it contradicts the constitution. Usually when a state law butts heads with the constitution....what happens? You have told us you have a history with law, what do you think happens when the constituion (all men [people] are created equal) butts head with state law (those queers can't marry!)?

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.

daswig

The thing is that what you call the "bastardization" of the Constitution is in fact NOT a bastardization of the Constitution at all, since the interpretation of the Constitutionality of the issue we're talking about has been in place all along. Marriage has traditionally not been seen as a Federal issue at all, and rights not specifically granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution are retained by the States or the People. Now if SCOTUS ruled that same sex marriages were indeed Constitutionally protected (barring a Constitutional Amendment on the issue), that would be a different matter, but that's not what has happened. What happened was that a judge in a State trial court ruled one way, but that certainly doesn't settle the issue. Look, for example, at the procedural history of U.S. v. Miller, (1939). In that case, the trial judge held that the NFA 1934 was an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment. SCOTUS disagreed, and the law still stands to this day, although it's currently under attack in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Stewart on ICC grounds.

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.

Manx

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.

The entirety of it. Let me break it down for you:

Maybe from your perspective, the ability of a man and woman to be married is a special privilege, or maybe not. But from almost everyone else's perspective this is a right. So a person demanding the ability for two people of the same gender to marry is also the demand for a right. That they presently do not have that right does not make it a privilege above and beyond (a special privilege) the existing privlege afforded to heterosexual couples.


And the converse is true - as long as they are denied this, there is no accomodation that can be reached which will satisfy both parties. Either they stop demanding to have the same rights as heterosexuals, or heterosexuals stop preventing them from sharing those rights.

This is like claiming the woman brought the rape upon herself by wearing a mini skirt to a bar. It's utter nonsense. If there is a Constitutional Amendment along the lines of DOMA, it is going to suck for gay people, it is going to suck for heterosexuals and it will be very specifically due to the unfortunate intolerance and discriminatory mindset of the heterosexuals that create and lobby for it.

And here's your contradiction which I will now point out for the 4th time and that you have yet to explain or answer for. You have already claimed to be a pervert. You are married. So why shouldn't another pervert who does not have the right that you, as a pervert, have, be prohibited from acquiring that right simply because they ask for it? And what exactly does "force their beliefs upon the rest of the population" mean? Do you believe they are trying to force everyone to be gay? What about the fact that the rest of the population is trying... no, succeeding in forcing them to be heterosexual? Should heterosexuals therefore have their right to marry taken away from them? Almost all of them are perverts.

And really. If perverts is essentially the norm - why would you even use the word other than to be intentionally confrontational.

alansmithee

That's exactly why we can't discount the law-your morality might be different than mine. I personally think it's morally wrong, you probably don't. Whose morality is right? Neither of us can say for certain whose morality is correct. Therefore you can't remove law from the issue.

Willravel

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?

matthew330

RB: Love isn't even on the radar of my "political machine." Your blatently subltle attmepts at equating conservatives/the christian right (no need to convolute your position, call us all one thing), is nothing but a pretext for your "mobilized bigotry" argument. I'm not afraid of being called a biggot, but i'm sure you weren't speaking to me in particular, that was you're "political machine" talking. Marriage is a social concern, love isn't.

alansmithee

You are misusing the term moral. Every definiton I have seen of moral includes some form of "goodness" or "correct" or some other term. And all of those are subjective. Just because some people agree that something is good doesn't make it inherently good, you cannot prove that there is some absolute good. And without that you cannot have moral be anything but subjective.

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).

smooth

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

Willravel

That argument works both ways. How can being gay be morally wrong if it isn't univerally morally wrong? Becuase there is no such thing as "univerally wrong". If there is not a universal moral code to apply to, then differing moralities will butt heads. This is one such butt. The only way to coexist with different sets of moralities is if all groups agree not to try and force their specific moral code on another group. I was trying to illustrate that to you by showing you my moral code. If your moral code tells you that being gay is wrong or homosexuals cannot get married, then you should not be gay, or if you're gay, then don't get married. How can you try to dictate someone elses morals?

You're trying to keep them from being accepted in a legal union. We've explained before how this is a facet of anti-homosexual morality. Please explain how you are alright with gey people being gay in society, but you are not okay with them getting married.

What makes something "bad" for society? You are personally hurt by two people you've never met being able to get married?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...highlight=gene

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."?