dy156

what happened to conservatives that want the government out of the business of private individuals?! What happened to conservatives that want people settled down and productive members of society rather than roaming around at night clubs spreading AIDS? (a hint of sarcasm in that last sentence)
Someday, I keep hoping... the soccer mom mentality will lose its iron grip on Republicans and the intellectually honest conservatives (and the selfish liberals) will embrace a more libertarian perspective that is destined to be the party of the future, but is currently only championed -to the best of my observation- by the guvernator in CA.

Mojo_PeiPei

-The conservatives you speak of are Liberatarians(sp).

-Sarcasm detected aside, look at the statistics (which I will not at this point in time throw out, too lazy on a thirsty thursday, forgive), homosexuals are the largest growing group as far as carrying(sp) the HIV/AIDS virus, and they account for a sizeable percentage of the total carriers in the country.

-To the best of my knowledge this is still a democracy, and so long as people abide by the laws and regulations afforded them, there is no reason to knock them or attack them. I am getting pretty fed up of the thought that gays are constitutional afforded the same rights, read the laws, its there in plain black and white.

I get it that everyone is an arm chair justice, but this activist intent is getting ridiculous. No where in the constitution are gays rights expressly affirmed, nor are they denied, nor is there any implicit language that "makes them discriminated against" because they cannot marry. The right is deffered to the state, because it is upheld and within the spirit of the constitution.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

FoolThemAll

That could very well be the case for some, but it's not inherent in the concept.

What about the civil union folk?

You're assigning one motive to the opposition. But it's not the only possible motive. I didn't say they don't care, I said that they may not care for the reason you attribute to them. And no, it's not up to them to prove their intention, it's up to you. You're making the charge.

I'm not the best person to ask, but it seems like the two big reasons are protecting marriage (don't ask me how civil unions would be any less harmful) and keeping to a 'traditional' definition of marriage.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

filtherton

And what exactly does this have to do with anything? Is hiv carrying rate now the new determinant in who gets to get married? In that case, according to this:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/2004SurveillanceReport.pdf
Texas, New York, and Florida are the biggest states in terms of diagnosis of hiv. Perhaps it would make sense if we bar citizens of these states the special right of marriage.

While this is true, i don't see anywhere in the constitution where it says that the definition of both marriage and discrimination shall be decided by a heteromajority.

I don't need a constitutional basis for claiming discrimination. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the constitution is the sole arbiter of righteousness in terms of human behavior.

JimmyTheHutt

So, I guess the Equal Protection Clause doesn't really apply if you are gay....
The notion that any citizen of the United States can be DENIED rights, which you just expressly stated, on the basis of sexual orientation is ludicrous. There needs to be no law specifically ALLOWING them to be married, but somehow there needs to be a constitutional amendment to PREVENT them from getting married?

I absolutely agree this is a state's rights issue. However, when a state is enacting what amounts to new Jim Crow laws, something needs to be done.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

__________________
Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs....

"This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end."
-ShadowDancer

JimmyTheHutt

How is a negative perspective not inherant when someone considers something unnatural? I think you may have a point here, but I'm not making the logical leap on my own.


What is the difference between civil unions and marriage? Why is one ok, but the other not? If its the religious connetation, then the matter should be up to the church in question, not mandated by the State or Federal Government. From the government's perspective the two should be identical, and no legal seperation should be required.


I don't believe I'm assigning one motive. I belive they are proclaiming it pretty loudly with every statement they make. If they care enough to make it UNCONSTITUTIONAL for someone to enjoy the same rights and benefits they enjoy, that pretty much indicates a strong emotional commitment. Given the circumstances, the only emotions available are pretty negative. Something like this isn't approved by 74% of the population based off of puppies and kittens and flowers. This is definitely a "make them sit down, shut up, and go back in the closet" maneuver.


The "tradition" of marriage doesn't exist. It's manufactured. Sure marriage has been around, but largely for political, and financial positioning. It has also rarely been the "nuclear" concept that Americans hold so dear. There is nothing to protect it from. It's not like homosexuality is going to stop if they aren't allowed to get married.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

__________________
Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs....

"This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end."
-ShadowDancer

FoolThemAll

It's not in the definition of 'unnatural'. There are many unnatural things that are positive. Telephones, for one.

I don't know, and that's besides the point. Point being that the civil union folk, depending on what exactly they'd have a civil union entail, would not be opposed to gay couples receiving the same rights.

No, there is an emotion much less negative than that: "Let's protect an institution that has done the world much good and is falling apart." And once again, (1)the quality of the reasoning is irrelevant so long as the position is superficially plausible and (2)the civil union faction strikes down the generalization that they're all out to deny gay couples benefits. They're still out to deny something, but it's likely to be framed in the erroneous 'separate yet equal' mindset. "It's deserving of the same legal framework, but it's not marriage. It's something else."

And honestly, I don't think it takes all that much in the way of emotional commitment to mark a box on a piece of paper. Just a vague idea that you're helping to preserve society would be enough. I don't think it needs to take much more emotional commitment than buying groceries, it could be taken as just another errand.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

JimmyTheHutt

Okay, I understand what you are saying then. We are speaking of two different contexts of unnatural. I would say that they use unnatural to describe homosexuality in the same way that they would use unnatural to describe beastiality, i.e, sick and wrong.


If it depends on what they would have a civil union entail, then civil unions is simply another gateway for oppression, like Jim Crow laws in response to african-american voting rights. The fact that they are willing to make a completely seperate category for relationships, just for homosexuals, indicates an attempt to ghettoize and seperate that portion of the population. If they did that with african-americans, or asians, or any ethnicity, they'd be called racists and rightfully so.


If they have two brain cells to rub together, they should understand how vile the concept of "seperate but equal" is, from their own history. If they do not, this implies either one of two things. Either 74% of Texas didn't make it through American History, or they are willfully discriminating. While the former is possible, it is unlikely. Therefore, the second is the more realistic possibility. This means that regardless of their voiced stance or approach, they consider homosexuals as inferior or less deserving of rights.

Considering the low voter turnouts this country routinely experiences, the motivation to get out and vote for this particular issue represents a more substantial emotional commitment then buying groceries.

__________________
Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs....

"This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end."
-ShadowDancer