Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage

[playa_playa]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

Its called the CONSTITUTION. It states that all men (people) are to be treated equally. Now, when one sexuality is given a privaledge and another is not, that is not equal. Therefore, denying gays the right to marry in unconstitutional. This makes it unjust and I'm sure many would argue inhumane as you are denying human rights. I won't even mention whther or not its "evil" as thats a silly concept to put in law as its far to relative to legislate.

But that aspect of the Constitution is based on traits that human beings have no control over, such as race and gender. I'm asking, is this the case with homosexuality. Well, does anyone know for sure? Courts deny addicts custody of their children sometimes. In your view, should this not be unconstitutional?

Such an argument could be made about anti-semitism. Are you born a Jew or are you a Jew by Religion alone? If so, it is not the societal norm and therefore there should have been nothing wrong with making separate laws treating them differently. Once start categorizing people by ANY stereotype and start using that category to determine that way they are treated, you are then being both unconstitutional and unjust. Slavery was once a "norm" of society and considered just fine as black people were considered more like cattle than human beings. Does that mean it shouldn't have been changed? Remember, what we consider to be "evil" and "unjust" often change as our societal norms change and the law should accomodate those changes as we develop as a society. People are people and they should be treated as such and therefore equally.

The difference is, the Jewish religion does not do anything that goes against the laws of the United States. Homosexuality is fine until it is put into question whether it should be validated in the form of marriage. In which case, it should rightly be questioned whether it is a genuinely human trait (hardcoded in our genetics).

And what's with this unconstitutional hoopla? Your views on the 14th Amendment is somewhat erroneous to your standards. Simply stated, the 14th Amendment does not force the government to stop categorizing people by stereotypes. Why do we give disabled people special previliges then?

Why, sadists love to torture people to attain sexual stimulation. Does that mean we let it go since well, sadists are just sadists and they're only people?

Please expalin how keeping laws in place that treat one group of people differently than another in constitutional and "just".

So, treating disabled people differently to give them previliges is unconstitutional? Uh-huh. Registering people under the sexual offenders list is unconstitutional? Right. The government should rightly treat people differently.

And why do you even care? How does legalizing gay marriage affect you? Why is it even illegal if it does not matter to anyone ecept those that are getting married?

If some aspect of the society condones ethically unsound actions, I shudder to think that the citizens should just stand by and do nothing. According to your views, marriages between brothers and sisters should be fine also (since it affects only those that are getting married). Problem is, it marks a moral bankruptcy of a society to allow an ethically unsound legislation to pass. Now, I'm not saying homosexuality is an ethically unsound behavior. I'm merely saying that we do not know for sure whether it is or it isn't (given the lack of genetic evidence). When this is the case, should we pass a legislation to change our norm to suit homosexuality? When we don't even know for sure its very nature?

[Professor S]

The problem with your argument is that you think its the government's responsibilty to legislate morals. Its not. Its the job of the family and religious affiliation. To legislate morals is the same as legislating religion as that is where morals come from. Are there existing laws that are based very much on religious morals? Yes. There is also a law in a town in MD that no monsters are allowed in the city borders and another in MA that states that all women drivers are to have their husbands in front of the car waving a flag to warn other drivers and pedestrians. Just because the law is on the books doesn't mean its logical or even enforced.

Also, this is not about repealing laws, as right now its a state issue. This is about creating NEW FEDERAL laws that prohibit homosexual marriage. So no laws are being repealed, they are being created to deny rights and legislate morals that should be kept relative to religion and personal belief.

And by the way, if brothers and sisters want to get married... more power to them. Incest between two people has nothing to do with me or anyone else besides them. After all, what right do we have to tell two grown people whats right or wrong if all they do affects only them? Thats for God and themselves to sort out.

[Bond]

Having a brother and sister become married is medically dangerous to their offspring though.
I think that's an entirely different issue.

[playa_playa]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

The problem with your argument is that you think its the government's responsibilty to legislate morals. Its not. Its the job of the family and religious affiliation. To legislate morals is the same as legislating religion as that is where morals come from. Are there existing laws that are based very much on religious morals? Yes. There is also a law in a town in MD that no monsters are allowed in the city borders and another in MA that states that all women drivers are to have their husbands in front of the car waving a flag to warn other drivers and pedestrians. Just because the law is on the books doesn't mean its logical or even enforced.

I'm going to go out on a limb and call you on this one; as I think our constitution (and ultimately the Declaration of Independence) is a supreme paradigm of liberal and utilitarianistic moral principles. If you have heard of John Locke, and his influence on our constitution through his ethical principles, I would HARDLY make a claim so as to assert: "it is not the government's responsibility to legislate morals." Unless you have an abnormally narrow definition of morals, I seriously cannot see your point (such as your examples of petty and needless ordinances and statutes). Why, your assertion that the government must treat its citizens equally in and of itself is an ethical principle. It is an ethical principle in that it emphasizes the dignity and individuality of human beings (hallmark of classic liberalism).

Also, deciding as a society the right of homosexuals to marry when we don't know for sure that it is intrinsic does not seem to be a strictly personal moral issue. Whether you like it or not, people's marriages have effects on other people. Case in point: divorces that ruin children, creating problems for the society. This is a socially-relevant issue. Therefore, the society must have a say.

Also, this is not about repealing laws, as right now its a state issue. This is about creating NEW FEDERAL laws that prohibit homosexual marriage. So no laws are being repealed, they are being created to deny rights and legislate morals that should be kept relative to religion and personal belief.

Well, the original topic pertained to gay marriages in general. And whether they should be allowed. Certainly, such a federal law should not be considered until there has been substantial amount of hard evidence.

And by the way, if brothers and sisters want to get married... more power to them. Incest between two people has nothing to do with me or anyone else besides them. After all, what right do we have to tell two grown people whats right or wrong if all they do affects only them? Thats for God and themselves to sort out.

Why do people delude themselves into thinking this way? Are people really disconnected from each other this way to have no effect on each other? Do you honestly think that a person's actions have no bearing on another?

It's like the argument with drug users. Right, they are only hurting themselves. Uh-huh. Suppose the addict OD's and requires medical attention but does not have the money to do so b/c he's spent it all on drugs. Who do you think will pay for his care? We, as a society, cannot look past him and merely say, "oh, it's all his fault so let him die."

This sort of assertion that the actions we take only affect ourselves is simply ludicrous. Unless you're living under a rock, everything that you do will have an affect on other people.

This is exactly why the government has limited rights to enact "moral legislations." I hate the idea of the government dictating our lives just as much as the next guy. But some people need guidance through laws.
Forsaking them in lieu of anarchistic privatism is an action of cowardice, not constitutionality.

[Professor S]

I think we have two very different ideaologies. I believe in personal responsibility for one's actions. I don't think I need someone telling me what I can or can;t do to myself. I believe drugs should be legalized, but with the same stipulatios that are put on alcohol abuse. If they get in trouble, they should get no more or less assistance than alcoholics get when they eventually rot away and die. Afterall, the only reason why alcohol wasn't included in the list of banned drugs is because those that made the laws DRANK.

I don't believe that any morals should be applied to the consitution, as I think its a violation of separation of church and state. Liek religion, morals are relative to everyone. By your logic, if premarital sex is considered immoral, then it should be outlawed.

And as for the damage that divorce does to kids, even more reason to allow gays to marry. We straight people can only get marriage right 40% of the time. Maybe we should give gay people a crack at it.

My political and social beliefs follow this simply axiom:

You should be able to flail your fist around as much as you like, as long as it stops at the end of my nose.

[playa_playa]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

I think we have two very different ideaologies. I believe in personal responsibility for one's actions. I don't think I need someone telling me what I can or can;t do to myself. I believe drugs should be legalized, but with the same stipulatios that are put on alcohol abuse. If they get in trouble, they should get no more or less assistance than alcoholics get when they eventually rot away and die. Afterall, the only reason why alcohol wasn't included in the list of banned drugs is because those that made the laws DRANK.

I don't believe that any morals should be applied to the consitution, as I think its a violation of separation of church and state. Liek religion, morals are relative to everyone. By your logic, if premarital sex is considered immoral, then it should be outlawed.

And as for the damage that divorce does to kids, even more reason to allow gays to marry. We straight people can only get marriage right 40% of the time. Maybe we should give gay people a crack at it.

My political and social beliefs follow this simply axiom:

You should be able to flail your fist around as much as you like, as long as it stops at the end of my nose.

I think you are misconstruing my assertions a little here. I'm not saying that governments should have total say over people's private lives; quite the opposite. I am merely saying that governments have a right to legislate laws that limit personal morality insofar as it may contribute to the downfall of the society and proliferation of cruelty. As with the example I gave with the drug addict, ultimately, the society suffers because of the addict's personal choice. I mean, what are we gonna do if the addict needs medical help? Deny him the help because he is an addict and because that is his personal moral choice to keep abusing drugs?

Premarital sex is not legislated against because it does not strictly result in harm for the society. And the last time I checked, some forms of premarital sex are strictly forbidden in the guise of statutory rapes. Could we say that it is only the couple's choice to have sex even if the girl is underaged? That, it is strictly their personal, moral choice to do so?

But let me emphasize the point again: the government does and rightly should enact ethical legislations insofar as they attempt to eliminate cruelty and regression, without violating genuine individuality. Do gays have a right to marry? Well, we don't know yet. But I know for a fact that we have, long ago, reached a consensus that not all things breathing should have a right to marry each other. So our burden falls on ascertaining whether homosexuality is a genuinely-human trait. If we do not determine this first and then let gays marry each other, why not let siblings, people and animals, and people and inanimate objects to marry also? Gee, I'd really hate to explain to my kids why a man and a cow strolling down central park are french kissing each other since laws are not allowed to have a say in ethics.

You're absolutely right in stating that you and I have very different ideologies. I have, long ago, inferrred that a government is an institution wrought not only to give people security and a place to call their country, but that it also fosters, not forces, a moral progress. Sure, masochistic self-afflictions can stay private. They just need to stay within the person. But does anyone obstinately believe that personal moral choices solely stay within the person? What if it has a deprecating, unwanted effect on other people also? In such a case, a government should step in(after a democratic consensus has been reached pertaining to the moral in question) and direct the society into achieving a moral progress.

[Professor S]

The trouble with the government spurring moral progress is that one person's morals are not necessarily another person's morals. As I stated earlier, morals are a reflection of religion. Christian morals differ from Islam morals which differ from Buddhist morals which differ from Shinto morals. So which morals should government spurr along?

Also, pre-marital sex IS detrimental to everyone. Unless you think teenage pregnancy, single parenthood and the world wide spread of sexually transmitted diseases aren't detrimental. The point is that its a reflection of personal choice. The fact that gay marriage is rebuffed while pre-maritial sex is accepted is a reflection of bigotry masking as reason, not high moral ideals.

But I guess some people will just continue to be more free than others as long as we continue to try and legisate morals relative to Christian beliefs in a supposed secular society.

[TheGame]

If you want to throw morals out of the window, guess it's ok for a 13 year old girl to have sex with a 50 year old man as long as they are married right? They aren't hurting you, right?

I think if there were no morals in law, I should be able to walk down the street with a shogun asking people for money, as long as I don't point the gun at thier head and give them the freedom to say no, it's ok right? Innocent until proven guilty, right?

I also guess I should be able to walk outside naked and whack off while women walk past me right? Like you said, waiving a fist in your face but not hitting you?

Laws that protect against this stuff are based off of morality... man should have freedom, but not that much. Morality is what keeps society from breaking down, and I think it has little to nothing to do with religion.

Now, I'm talking morality in general, not just on the gay marrage subject. I don't think that gay people should be allowed the same rights because we don't know if this is just a weird non-genetic sexual preference that is getting out of hand or not.

I don't see any good reasons to let hem be married, not only from a religios stand point, but from a Scientific and Social standpoint. I mean, it's not like they can't change who they are to fit in. This is FAR different from giving black people rights... because they can't change thier skin color, or even hide it no matter what they do. If it was as easy as lying and saying they are white, they would have just to fit in, but they couldn't.

Gay people don't have a sign on thier head saying that they are gay unless they want to. Some people who 'act' gay are some of the most homophobic people I have met in my life.

But, I guess what I'm trying to say is, gay marrage is just pushing it. Straight marrage should be supported because without a man and a woman having sex and producing children, NONE of us would be here. But gay marrage is a whole different thing... they can love each-other but why should it be protected by law? Is same sex marrage really going to help anything? All I can see it doing is pissing a bunch of people off.