posted
I eat that too....num,num,num.....sorry typing with my mouth full
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: what's worse is that some guy took the law into his own hands and these types of things are what makes us gun owners and other "conservatives" look really bad, it's intolerable IMO...
Isn't that what me, BF, Pagan etc. have been saying...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rounder1: I guess the answer to that is because it is inherently different....it involves a member of the opposite sex.
Why do we differentiate anything other than to point out the fact that it is not the same....
Why not call all sports involving a ball.....simply...."Ball"
If I am scared of the association.....how is that different than gays being scared of exclusion.
If it truly should not matter to me.....what is gained by the proponents of gay marriage?
Maybe it is not about what's gained.....perhaps the battle is over what can or cannot be defiled....(I can already anticipate the response to that).
Ball. does that equally describe football, soccer, and baseball? Do you understand how they are played? No.
Marriage. Does that equally describe a relationship where two people have taken a vow to love cherish and honor each other for the rest of their lives and entails the establishment of a contract regarding the rights and benefits of responsibility and inheritance for the persons involved? I'd say that does a pretty damned good job. The only real difference is that you disagree with person standing in the place of the bride.
Now...I'd just guess we have all at one time or another felt the pain of exclusion. Could you please give me an example of the pain of inclusion and association? Cuz the only thing I can think of is when I had to let girls into my 'boys-only' treehouse. (i.e. a privileged class was ruined)
Equal treatment under the law is what is being sought after by the proponents of gay marriage. Something our country is suppose to believe in more than any other.
I will keep your statement of defilement and your second post regarding spiritual beliefs on hand for my history of marriage that I hope to bring to the board tonight or tomorrow.
Cheers!
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: its about being equal..in all ways..
being gay is no different then being straight..
its normal to be gay..
its normal to be straight..
Its normal to be gay? If it is then why do male and female sexual organs complete eachother? Im not trying to bash here, but nature has spoken.
Now...being DIFFERENT is normal. Sure, hes gay, hes straight, they are different....thats normal. Gay though is not normal, or should I say natural.
Ah! Sorry CCM but you walked into this the moment you wrote the word natural.
Is it normal to be gay? The answer is no. Normal would mean something generally agree upon, usual, and commonplace. We have already identified the gay community to make up 10% or less of the community at large making homosexuality impossible to meet that definition.
HOWEVER
You second choice of word is the word natural. Natural would mean something inherent, instinctive, native, universal. If we look over human history and throughout the natural world you will see that yes indeed homosexuality is in fact natural.
It has existed and continued to exist throughout the centuries though there are few actions that could lead to greater persecution then homosexual behavior in nearly every human culture in history.
It has been observed in nearly every species of animal who's reproductive mechanisms resemble ours. In indicator species such as frogs scientists have even been able to influence the percentage of the population that engages in homosexual behavior by changing the environmental factors surrounding the population.
No CCM, if being gay were not natural we would have bred it out of existence centuries ago.
[ June 01, 2009, 19:23: Message edited by: The Bigfoot ]
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: what's worse is that some guy took the law into his own hands and these types of things are what makes us gun owners and other "conservatives" look really bad, it's intolerable IMO...
Isn't that what me, BF, Pagan etc. have been saying...
dude, the guy had explosives in his car too...
when are you going to understand that the only way to keep guns or any other weapons out of peoples hands is to have a govt like the one in China or put them in jail..
even jail isn't for sure, and you already told me you don't want to live in China.
an i'm pretty sure you should let Pagan and Big speak for themselves, this gathering of supporters is wrong. 2 against one is not an argument of logic.
i'm not clear on Pagan's gun opinions at all and in the past? he's refused to respond that he agrees with you when i point out disagreements which is a defacto admission itself.
as for Big, i agree that he says he's not for banning them but you have said in so many words that you are for banning them even tho you deny it at other times when it becomes convenient for your argument, so i guess the answer is no that's not what you and BF and Pagan have been telling me.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: dude, the guy had explosives in his car too...
when are you going to understand that the only way to keep guns or any other weapons out of peoples hands is to have a govt like the one in China or put them in jail..
even jail isn't for sure, and you already told me you don't want to live in China.
an i'm pretty sure you should let Pagan and Big speak for themselves, this gathering of supporters is wrong. 2 against one is not an argument of logic.
i'm not clear on Pagan's gun opinions at all and in the past? he's refused to respond that he agrees with you when i point out disagreements which is a defacto admission itself.
as for Big, i agree that he says he's not for banning them but you have said in so many words that you are for banning them even tho you deny it at other times when it becomes convenient for your argument, so i guess the answer is no that's not what you and BF and Pagan have been telling me.
All i am saying in this particular post is agreeing with what i quoted of you just now.... that these headline mass murders are making responsible legal gun owners look bad... had better controls been in place to keep the guns out of wrong hands then we would see less and less of these violent headlines that make you, the good gun owner look bad.
As for Pagan and BF, I am not speaking for them since they have already spoken in their past posts. I am merely repeating what I read of theirs. That were not for banning and that these high profile incidents are making responsible legal gun owners look back and they should be outraged and be open minded to solutions for these things to not happen. Obviously there is flaws in the system for this to happen over and over. I don't know the stats but i would bet the U.S. is up there with mass killings by a single gunman ala Columbine, Virginia Tech etc. I am sure you can find out via your research.
But as for me being for banning, I'll said it once and I'll say it again and I hope you acknowledge and remember what I am saying. In the PERFECT world I would be for banning all guns BUT we do not live in the perfect world and never will so the next best solution is CONTROL and NOT banning since that is an impossibility. Are we clear about what my thoughts are on this now?
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guns and the gay man do not generally go together well. Lets keep em separate.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: [QUOTE]Originally posted by CashCowMoo: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by jordanreed: [qb]
HOWEVER
You second choice of word is the word natural. Natural would mean something inherent, instinctive, native, universal. If we look over human history and throughout the natural world you will see that yes indeed homosexuality is in fact natural.
It has existed and continued to exist throughout the centuries though there are few actions that could lead to greater persecution then homosexual behavior in nearly every human culture in history.
No CCM, if being gay were not natural we would have bred it out of existence centuries ago.
Well BF, if that is how you define natural....then serial killers, rapists, child molesters, and murderers would also be defined as natural...you agree?
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
serial killers, murderers, rapists, child molesters, are just a few examples of individuals (mostly men) exploiting weaknesses and vulnerabilities for personal gain. Yes, exploitation of the young, weak, and ill can be found throughout history and throughout the natural world, it would qualify for the definition natural.
I assume you are trying to point out the difference between what is natural and what is desirable?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been out of pocket for a day or so....(work is crazy right now)......but I was glad to re-connect and see that my new cyber buds are still at it......I even had a very well constructed and thought out opposing view from B.F......my heart is warmed.
quote:Ball. does that equally describe football, soccer, and baseball? Do you understand how they are played? No.
Marriage. Does that equally describe a relationship where two people have taken a vow to love cherish and honor each other for the rest of their lives and entails the establishment of a contract regarding the rights and benefits of responsibility and inheritance for the persons involved? I'd say that does a pretty damned good job. The only real difference is that you disagree with person standing in the place of the bride.
Now...I'd just guess we have all at one time or another felt the pain of exclusion. Could you please give me an example of the pain of inclusion and association? Cuz the only thing I can think of is when I had to let girls into my 'boys-only' treehouse. (i.e. a privileged class was ruined)
Equal treatment under the law is what is being sought after by the proponents of gay marriage. Something our country is suppose to believe in more than any other.
I will keep your statement of defilement and your second post regarding spiritual beliefs on hand for my history of marriage that I hope to bring to the board tonight or tomorrow.
I guess that "Ball" does not equate to marriage....never really thought that it did. I just thought that it was fitting seeing as how the biggest difference is where you have to put the "ball" to score (just kidding).
B.F.,
Thus far (I know I am new....not you) I am very impressed with all of your posts and this one is no exception......your positions are very well thought out and your articulation and passion are compelling even if your position is not.
However, first I think that we should concede that my opinion is not changing no matter what you post.....and I am pretty sure that your's will not either, but the arument is still provacative.....so I will bite!
No, "Ball" was not really intended to be the summation of matrimony.....rather it was quick, down, and dirty way of saying that we, as individuals, feel the need to differentiate. Scientist go to great links to classify things into categories that make sense due the characteristics that things have in common.(i.e. Kingdom, Phylum, Order, Family, Genus, and Species)
My example of "ball" being sufficient for all sports was poor, but your definition of what all a marriage entails was no better but infinately more eloquent.....gave me goosebumps. You stated that (paraphrase) marriage is all about the same types of things that you say in your vows.....I have only been married for 8 years, but the honorable ideas found in the vows are the very least of marriage. Followed closely by the rights that are recognized by our governent as a result of the union (I put those in reverse order unintentionally, but I am to lazy to re-type it....so, like Willy Wonka said; "scratch that, reverse it".
If you look back through this thread you will see that I have said (and I think more than once); that I do not seek to hinder Gays from any sort of goverment recognition or entitlement.....my argument was......That life is different from mine and I would like to keep the distinction......simple.
This issue can be re-hashed to infinity......I have already confessed that I am a hypocrite in many areas of my life......"A walking contradiction; partly truth and partly fiction" (Christopherson...I think). However, in very short order; I have realized that you are too. You simply take too many strong positions not to be one; I do as well.
For instance....(I know nothing about you but); I would be willing to bet that you have a very strong position one of the following:
Guns abortion politics religion economics entertainment
(Bare with me here)
This is nothing.....What if I told you that none of those topics meant anything in the world to me....I bet there is one in there that is very near and dear to your heart. Are you "pro-gun".....No......too bad.....our constitution says that guns are okay. Hence forth, you will be classified as an NRA supporter.....are you anti-republican.....what the hell gives you the right to assume that you can differentiate yourself based on your fundemental beliefs and call yourself a Democrat.
If our beliefs, opinions, feeling, etc...... are not grounds to hold true to ourselves; then I suggest that you give up your discriminations first; then I will think about mine.
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been out of pocket for a day or so....(work is crazy right now)......but I was glad to re-connect and see that my new cyber buds are still at it......I even had a very well constructed and thought out opposing view from B.F......my heart is warmed.
quote:Ball. does that equally describe football, soccer, and baseball? Do you understand how they are played? No.
Marriage. Does that equally describe a relationship where two people have taken a vow to love cherish and honor each other for the rest of their lives and entails the establishment of a contract regarding the rights and benefits of responsibility and inheritance for the persons involved? I'd say that does a pretty damned good job. The only real difference is that you disagree with person standing in the place of the bride.
Now...I'd just guess we have all at one time or another felt the pain of exclusion. Could you please give me an example of the pain of inclusion and association? Cuz the only thing I can think of is when I had to let girls into my 'boys-only' treehouse. (i.e. a privileged class was ruined)
Equal treatment under the law is what is being sought after by the proponents of gay marriage. Something our country is suppose to believe in more than any other.
I will keep your statement of defilement and your second post regarding spiritual beliefs on hand for my history of marriage that I hope to bring to the board tonight or tomorrow.
I guess that "Ball" does not equate to marriage....never really thought that it did. I just thought that it was fitting seeing as how the biggest difference is where you have to put the "ball" to score (just kidding).
B.F.,
Thus far (I know I am new....not you) I am very impressed with all of your posts and this one is no exception......your positions are very well thought out and your articulation and passion are compelling even if your position is not.
However, first I think that we should concede that my opinion is not changing no matter what you post.....and I am pretty sure that your's will not either, but the arument is still provacative.....so I will bite!
No, "Ball" was not really intended to be the summation of matrimony.....rather it was quick, down, and dirty way of saying that we, as individuals, feel the need to differentiate. Scientist go to great links to classify things into categories that make sense due the characteristics that things have in common.(i.e. Kingdom, Phylum, Order, Family, Genus, and Species)
My example of "ball" being sufficient for all sports was poor, but your definition of what all a marriage entails was no better but infinately more eloquent.....gave me goosebumps. You stated that (paraphrase) marriage is all about the same types of things that you say in your vows.....I have only been married for 8 years, but the honorable ideas found in the vows are the very least of marriage. Followed closely by the rights that are recognized by our governent as a result of the union (I put those in reverse order unintentionally, but I am to lazy to re-type it....so, like Willy Wonka said; "scratch that, reverse it".
If you look back through this thread you will see that I have said (and I think more than once); that I do not seek to hinder Gays from any sort of goverment recognition or entitlement.....my argument was......That life is different from mine and I would like to keep the distinction......simple.
This issue can be re-hashed to infinity......I have already confessed that I am a hypocrite in many areas of my life......"A walking contradiction; partly truth and partly fiction" (Christopherson...I think). However, in very short order; I have realized that you are too. You simply take too many strong positions not to be one; I do as well.
For instance....(I know nothing about you but); I would be willing to bet that you have a very strong position one of the following:
Guns abortion politics religion economics entertainment
(Bare with me here)
This is nothing.....What if I told you that none of those topics meant anything in the world to me....I bet there is one in there that is very near and dear to your heart. Are you "pro-gun".....No......too bad.....our constitution says that guns are okay. Hence forth, you will be classified as an NRA supporter.....are you anti-republican.....what the hell gives you the right to assume that you can differentiate yourself based on your fundemental beliefs and call yourself a Democrat.
If our beliefs, opinions, feeling, etc...... are not grounds to hold true to ourselves; then I suggest that you give up your discriminations first; then I will think about mine.
I have found that marriage is about the things that really can not be put in to words....(maybe a poet can get close to it.....but a poet; I am not). Rather, it is about the undescribable; the ideosyncracies of you spouse's character.....the stuff that made them unique enough, and special enough, to captivate you in the first place.....the real challenge of marriage is holding on to those things over time.....not letting familiarity, circumstance, and hardship rob you of "your rose colored glasses."
Here is the kicker.....I do not assert that homosexuals can not meet that criteria. There are probably many that have a richness in relationship that far outstrips my own......that does not change the fact that I hold the idea of homosexualtiy to be wrong.....based on my beliefs....my understanding.....my consciencenous.
Give them the rights that should be afforded to them......I have no quarrel with that......just make a distinction between us.
You know......I am exactly like most evil people in the world.........except they enjoyed and condoned behaviours that I do not (i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, Dahmer, Gacey, Manson, Fish, Bundy,...... etc.......) And before you tee off on my ass about that association....understand.....I do not equate the two types of behaviour at all...... I am simply using an exagerated example to show.....one type of behaviour is all that it takes to make someone want to be considered "apart."
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
sorry guys....did not mean to post that book of mine twice....I hit the wrong button before I was finished........
Btw....serial killers fascinate me. I have done several papers on them (nothing publishable).
I would say that for the most part they are made....but....I believe there is an underlying genetic reason for why two persons can experience virtually identical circumstance.....one will be a recluse.....the other a monster.
Very long way of saying its both..imo.
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
serial killers, murderers, rapists, child molesters, are just a few examples of individuals (mostly men) exploiting weaknesses and vulnerabilities for personal gain. Yes, exploitation of the young, weak, and ill can be found throughout history and throughout the natural world, it would qualify for the definition natural.
I assume you are trying to point out the difference between what is natural and what is desirable?
No...just looking for consistency in your criteria of what constitutes "natural".
Guess I am not clear WHY defining homosexuality as "natural" was important enough to you to call CCM out on it...
It really is irrelevant...
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's my view. I'm all for lesbians getting married as long as their pretty hot looking. If their fat and ugly then it's just plain wrong.
Posts: 492 | From: new york | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets take the words gay and straight out of this and look at just marriage and the question has to be no marriage is not a civil right. If it was it would have been stated so in the bill of rights. So where does one take this fight from here?
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jgrecoconstr: Here's my view. I'm all for lesbians getting married as long as their pretty hot looking. If their fat and ugly then it's just plain wrong.
There is a lot more truth in this statement than you meant it to have jg. Especially if you add (or men) after the word ugly.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
serial killers, murderers, rapists, child molesters, are just a few examples of individuals (mostly men) exploiting weaknesses and vulnerabilities for personal gain. Yes, exploitation of the young, weak, and ill can be found throughout history and throughout the natural world, it would qualify for the definition natural.
I assume you are trying to point out the difference between what is natural and what is desirable?
No...just looking for consistency in your criteria of what constitutes "natural".
Guess I am not clear WHY defining homosexuality as "natural" was important enough to you to call CCM out on it...
It really is irrelevant...
Perhaps for some it is irrelevant.
For me it is important to show that homosexuality is natural because for so long it has been thought that there is something "unnatural" about it. It is very easy to rally support against an unnatural thing which is partly why the homosexual community has had to endure such degradation for so long.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Big, I can see why women would be attracted to each other. Some women just have a natural sensuality to them that you can plainly see in some. Men is just strange for me. I know quite a few gay men and a few lesbians. The men are decent I just have trouble getting by the fact that they can find another guys ass attractive. There is so much more to women sexually speaking. The hole anal sex thing to me is repulsive, why would anyone want to have anal sex homosexuals or heterosexuals. If they want to get married then that's actually fine with me. I was slightly joking on the hot lesbian commments although it is most mens fanatsy with two women. The only concern I would have is if they adopt from birth is it going to be a learned lifestyle for the child or will they make their choices on their sexuality on their own?
Posts: 492 | From: new york | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Do you not also recognize the muscles strength, strong jaw lines, and tight abs of an attractive man? I do...but I don't feel the sensuality that naturally exudes from them. That's cuz I am not wired that way but most women are.
For a woman to be attracted to a woman is more understandable from both sexes point of view because culturally speaking women are "supposed to be" attractive and alluring. But when speaking of sensuality we are speaking of the way our brains are wired to interpret the visual, nasal, etc. stimuli that we are being subjected to.
I don't know if it was Freudian or intentional that you used the word 'hole' when talking about the backdoor but that also made me laugh. Without getting too personal I get it and yet I don't. Bundles of nerves, sensitive tissues, intimacy. It has a lot of the same features of regular sex.
Your concern about learned behavior. That's a good one and one that I don't think anyone can really answer yet because it is only recently that openly gay couples could have children. We don't have enough examples yet to know if nurture during childhood can have lasting effects on sexuality or if nature overrides all programing. I will say I would rather have a child growing up in a loving homosexual home than in an unloving heterosexual one.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
However, first I think that we should concede that my opinion is not changing no matter what you post.....and I am pretty sure that your's will not either, but the arument is still provacative.....so I will bite!
I don't expect anyone's position to actually change during a debate. Sometimes I do try to find middle ground (like in the guns thread) when I think there may be some unrealized opportunities that boths sides of the spectrum could get behind in common cause.
In my opinion it isn't important to win or lose the discussion, but it is very important for the discussion to be had. It sharpens the wits, clarifies positions, exposes erroneous and misleading information, and gives everyone who listens (or in this case reads) food for thought. It is how we grow as a society a little bit at a time. I am thankful for respectful opposition that allows me to attack their position with everything I have without them taking offense and I hope my opposition feels I extend them the same courtesy.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok so we have all come to the conclusion that gay marriage is not a civil right then.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
no we have come to the conclusion that marriage is not a civil right be it gay or be it straight.Nowhere is marriage brought up by subject that anybody has a right to it.
Now I can say as a christian my particural donomination has a lot to say about marriage and how you are suppose to treat your spouse and how you are to act and I do so follow that set of rules.And that is the way I live,by choice.
Now I also am an american, Living in a country that I love very much and the thing I like about it is we can all be what we want to be as long as it is not at the expense of others . The best thing about living hear is I can't take my life style and make all others live it. that is the main reason most of our folks left eourpe and came hear.
So the way I feel is Gay marriage is no more of a civil right than a straight marriage.And realizing that should not be thought of as anything that should stopped because of opinion,predjudice,or a person with a serious id problem and nobody has a right to call an election over gay marriage any more that an election over wether we should allow straight marriages
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Your concern about learned behavior. That's a good one and one that I don't think anyone can really answer yet because it is only recently that openly gay couples could have children. We don't have enough examples yet to know if nurture during childhood can have lasting effects on sexuality or if nature overrides all programing. I will say I would rather have a child growing up in a loving homosexual home than in an unloving heterosexual one."
We already know that Children that grow up in traditional heterosexual homes still become Gay. One of my friends in HS, grew up in a traditional household with a Mother and Father and had 2 brothers and 3 sisters. Throughout HS he had a Girlfriend. Once he left home and went to college(out of state)he realized that he had always been gay. He was always attracted to men but because of his upbringing had attempted to date women. None of his brothers or sister were gay.
The point being that children are going to grow up to be whatever they are. It's not like children of Gay couples will be living in isolated communities and not have the opportunity to see man woman relationships.
IMO, as long as religious organization that oppose gay marriage are not forced to marry a gay couple it should not present a problem.
After all these words come from our Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Marriage in and of itself, be it Straight or Gay may not be a Constitutional right but it should be a civil right. My reasoning for this is that if the government gives special rights to Married couples, which they do, then it should be a right for all regardless of sexual orientation.
Heck, I've been through 2 marriages and divorces so I think that the Gay community should be able to go through the same divorce process that a Straight couple goes through and that has nothing to do with happiness.
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Ok so we have all come to the conclusion that gay marriage is not a civil right then.
unfortunately it's not that simple.
for instance, there's "natural rights" granted by God and considerd to be available to all people and non-natural rights..
non-natural rights are created by social contract, such as the Govt..
so, to say that "we" have concluded that it's not a civil right would be wrong,
Dick Cheney himself said it should be up to the various and individual states.here's why:
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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 Fedral Govt is expected to stay out of business not delegated to it by the constitution, but the questions can be tricky- "of Privacy" for instance is tricky, Personal Liberty would imply privacy to ME but not to many other people, it seems to be a hobby of many to invade others privacy at every opportunity.
we do have the right to enter into contracts, and marriage, like it or not is a contract.
Each government may also establish, within its jurisdiction, "corporate persons" such as governmental entities, associations, corporations, or partnerships, in addition to the Common Law "natural" persons, but the "personhood" of such corporate entities is not created by the government. Its corporate personhood derives from the personhood of its members. Corporate persons must be aggregates of natural persons.
this would be the aproach i expect the lawyers taking it to SCOTUS will take.
it will be a very difficult aproach to beat too, becuase contractual rights are protected.
then there's this:
Article 4-Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
basically? a legal marriage in ANY State is legal in ALL states...
and there' not damn thing anybody can do about it.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: : the nonpolitical rights of a citizen ; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress
Wikipedia lists the characteristics of civil and political rights to be:
quote: * Ensuring peoples' physical integrity and safety * Natural justice (procedural fairness) in law (such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy) * Protection from discrimination (based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.) * Individual political freedom, including rights of individuals (freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of movement) and the right to participate in civil society and politics (freedom of association, right to assemble, right to petition, right to vote)
My argument is that while I would say that marriage is not necessarily a civil right it has become a civil service. If that can be established then it follows that denying a citizen of America a civil service because of their sexual orientation does indeed violate their civil right of protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
That a church can choose to deny marriage to a minority group is fine with me (That is their protected right as a religious institution in America.) That a state, which is performing marriages with a government officiant as a civil service, can choose to deny services to a minority group is not. That is discrimination.
The way I see it our country really only has three options.
1: The first would be to stop all future weddings presided over by state or federal employees and leave marriage in the sole jurisdiction of religious institutions. (Wanna kill marriage for a good chunk of America, pick option one.)
2: The second would be to allow state and federal employees to perform gay marriages as refusal to perform said ceremonies violates a homosexuals right to equal treatment under the law.
3: The third which perhaps many of you would like best is to allow state or federal employees to perform same-sex ceremonies but have ALL ceremonies (hetero and homosexual) performed by state or federal employees legally defined as civil unions. This way a differentiation would be available as long as you were married by a pastor or priest but the government would be functioning without bias against same-sex couples.
However, in order for the third option to be workable at this point for both homosexual and heterosexual couples using civil ceremonies it would first be necessary for the government to undo the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, allow the courts to perform same sex ceremonies, and enact further legislation to make civil unions fully comparable and recognized by the federal government and all fifty states.
If you can get your conservative religious and political leaders to undo these roadblocks that they have been erecting and defending for the past couple decades then I would call my liberal representatives and urge them to support option three.
Otherwise it is gonna have to be option one or option two and if left without resolution for another year or two eventually the courts are gonna ram option 2 down as the only applicable option left.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good lord just let them marry and get it over with. We are more scientific today we nknow that being gay is something that a person is born to.
200 years ago people thought it was demonic possession or something you wanted to be. We are way beyound that now at least 80% of the country is
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Each government may also establish, within its jurisdiction, "corporate persons" such as governmental entities, associations, corporations, or partnerships, in addition to the Common Law "natural" persons, but the "personhood" of such corporate entities is not created by the government. Its corporate personhood derives from the personhood of its members. Corporate persons must be aggregates of natural persons.
Okay, I am not a lawyer....but what I get out of this is:
That corporate persons (a union or contract involving more than one person). can not be established by the government (why are justices performing ceremonies?) Rather, it is a recognition by the members of said personhood (the persons confering the title of corporate person; which is not supposed to be the government)that confers any rights pertaining to the union. Corporate persons must be the aggregate of "natural persons? Has someone tried to marry a vibrator.....?
Common Law was done away with in Georgia sometime ago....and I am not sure about the part concerning all states will recognize the law of other states. I can think of one example in particular where that does not happen....
However, I hope that the decision is not left up to "states rights"; that has historically caused some conflict.
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Corporate persons must be the aggregate of "natural persons? Has someone tried to marry a vibrator.....?
Its corporate personhood derives from the personhood of its members. Corporate persons must be aggregates of natural persons.
bear with me, i'm not a lawyer, but was raised by one.
the government i s granting the natural persons the right to form entities larger than themselves- a corporate person with rights as a corporation.
a corporation exists because the govt allows it to, it's rights are extensions of the people involved in it.
i don't "like " it, but this is what marriage has become, since we allow divorce and property is distributed in the breakup? a marriage in the eyes of the law is not much more than a contract or the formation of a corporation, that is what i beleive gay couples should have the explicit right to do anyway.
you cannot force a Church to perform ceremonies since we cannot legislate religion, but you cannot restrict certain persons from forming legal partnerships either, banning civil unions between gays will prolly not stand up in the Supreme Court.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Isn't that what me, BF, Pagan etc. have been saying...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
