Gay Marriage

[Axtech]

Anyways I really don't have much to say about this. A woman has the right to choose since it's her body, and we shouldn't be able to force beliefs upon someone.

This is the Gay Marriage thread.

[nelison]

oh hell the same thing applies

[Corey]

who says straight people have the right to marry?

Uhh... all of the straight people who can go out and get married any time they want.

I don't really consider marriage a "right".

[One-Eye]

Because some people don't want to pay for fat asses that stuff their faces and then have heart attacks or strokes. Some people don't want to pay for drug users who OD and need rehab treatment. Some people don't want to pay for sluts that go and have unprotected sex and catch all sorts of diseases. Some people don't want to pay for "X-treme" athletes that choose to do asinine stunts and break every bone in their bodies. But due to a majority rule and "community healthcare" they have to take care of people who choose not to take care of themselves.

That's a little extreme, wouldn't you say? You make it sound like lots and lots of people are running around destroying themselves just so you can write the check. Sure, people are going to abuse the system, but in my opinion, that doesn't automatically make the system bad. I think the benefits of public healthcare would far outweigh the costs, but that's my opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree with me. And since no one's ever going to agree on these things, and since we still have to live together under the same rules, I support democracy. Of course majority rule is imperfect, but it's better than any of the alternatives.

And for the record.. I said "public" places... should smoking be allowed in airports/hospitals/government buildings/etc?

Well, I don't think smoking should be allowed in hospitals - that's a health hazard. As for other "public" places, I'd support a smoking ban. With privately-owned businesses it's one thing - people who are allergic to smoke/asthmatic/don't like it/have other health risks don't have to patronize those businesses. But since everyone has to use the same government buildings and airports and whathaveyou, I think it'd be best to ban smoking in the public areas. Of course, smoking should be allowed in private businesses (e.g. bars) inside airports. Second-hand smoke is a known health risk, and people shouldn't have to put their health on the line when they're using government-owned property. Again, though, my opinion.

Though I don't know her exact position, I'd say that if other human beings have the right to marry, so should they.

You know, being human beings, too...

Exactly. In my country, we have a little document called the Bill of Rights, and denying people access to marriage is a violation of it. America was founded upon the ideal that all people are equal, and to make a law that denies people access to a constitutional right based on their sexual orientation is unconstitutional. And unless the majority votes to change the Constitution (and for constitutional amendments, that takes a hefty majority), I'll stand by it.

Doug, you and I have different views because we have different ideals. I've given up trying to convince you that you're wrong for the same reason I've given up trying to convince religious people that they're wrong. Politics and religion are not governed by proof, but by ideals, and those cannot be objectively validated. Although I disagree with you, I respect your beliefs and your right to practise them. Please do me the same favor and don't resort to petty invective.

[Axtech]

who says straight people have the right to marry?

Uhh... all of the straight people who can go out and get married any time they want.

I don't really consider marriage a "right".

Okay. Then why should straight people get the privilage of marriage while gays should not?

[Corey]

good question... but then again... why not?

Why am I not allowed to drink the day before my 21st birthday but the next day I can?

There are lines drawn for a lot of different things.

My point is simply this. I stand by democratic decisions. If the people vote on and decide gay marriage should be illegal in one state(keep in mind, gay people are also given the chance to vote on the subject) then so be it. That doesn't mean it can't be legal elsewhere. In addition, gay couples can still have their ceremonial unions and all that, they just don't get the paper.

If we just let any democratic decision be overturned, then the whole system loses merit and there is no point to having one in the first place.

That being said, I support gay marriages, mainly because I'm avidly opposed to "domestic partnerships". I just think we need to be careful with how we treat our "democracy". Also, I get overly-aggrevated when people make sweeping generalizations such as people who are against gay marriaged wish to kill all gays.

[One-Eye]

If we just let any democratic decision be overturned, then the whole system loses merit and there is no point to having one in the first place.

Yes, I agree. The thing is, though, that the Constitution trumps majority rule, until and unless the Constitution is changed. The reason it's set up that way is to guarantee certain "inalienable rights" to everyone, whether or not the populace in one particular area agrees. That's the reason that even the most racist city in the deep South can't make laws to restrict the rights of African Americans, even in their own jurisdiction. Married people are granted certain priveliges under the law that single people don't have, such as survivor benefits, joint taxes, and the like. To deny access to marriage to one particular group is unconstitutional.

Also, I get overly-aggrevated when people make sweeping generalizations such as people who are against gay marriaged wish to kill all gays.

Well, my fish-eating post was intentionally being over-the-top. For the record, I know most anti-gay and anti-gay-rights people don't want to kill all gay people. And if the majority really wanted to ban people from eating smelly fish in public, hey, go ahead. What I was making fun of in that post is people who can't live and let live; gay marriage (and other people's fish-eating habits) do NOT affect the rights of any of these people, yet they still want to ban it, mostly for religious reasons or reasons of "I think homosexuality is deviant and gross". I think a lot of things are deviant and gross, but I would never support making them illegal, and that's what bothers me about much of the anti-gay-marriage movement.

[Corey]

To deny access to marriage to one particular group is unconstitutional.

Not if the definition of "marriage" is between a man and a woman. Gay is not a race. No race is being denied marriage. Therefore, it is not unconstitutional. It is a matter of interpretation.

Is it unconstitutional that people under the age of 21 are not allowed to drink? Under 21 is a group. No, it is not because the same rule applies to all races.

[xjsb125]

Discrimination is not solely limited to race. It can include gender, age, ethnic background, and sexual orientation.

[Corey]

true... but that doesn't really address the definition of marriage.

And yes age... that's why I brought up the drinking age.

[Axtech]

Where does it say that the definition of marriage is a man and a woman? I didn't realize that there were marriage guidelines set in stone somewhere - you know, seeing as how it's just something that people made up and has developed over time. Seeing as how women used to be forced to marry, but people don't seem to object to their having a choice now, I think forward developments are a fairly welcomed practice - unless, of course, those developments involve giving equality to a group of people around which there is still a major social bigotry.

[Random Name]

The origins of marrige came from religion where a man and women would wed. Because of this, a lot of people want to keep marriage that way because it's maintaining the tradition. Unfourtunately I don't think that arguement still applies because marrige has become something that is governed by the state and not by the church. There are benifits to marrige now that didn't once exist. So, even if it is still a man and women getting married I don't think the tradition is being held.

That being said, since the government does control marrige, religious traditions don't really apply anymore. Making a decision on whether gay marriges should be legal should be based on enforcing equal rights and what they are, insted of what your religion used to say.

[Axtech]

Exactly. Letting homosexuals get married doesn't mean forcing priests to do it, so it's not like it would be harming the rights and freedoms of others...

[Corey]

right, but marriage is not a right. People are currentry trying to DEFINE what marriage is and PUT it in stone. Tell me how defining marriage as a man and a woman infringes on ANYONE's rights? Gays are still allowed to be gay. Just please explain to me why it is someone's RIGHT to get married?

[Axtech]

Because you cannot define that it's okay for one group of people to do something if in that definition you distinctly say that it is not okay for another group of people to do it.

It's a matter of segregation. Marriage is one of the staples of modern society. By not letting homosexuals marry, it's saying that they are not allowed to be a part of that society - or that if they want to be a part of it, they have to be labelled as different than everyone else (which kind of negates being a part of the society anyways).

[mosaik]

And since no one's ever going to agree on these things, and since we still have to live together under the same rules, I support democracy. Of course majority rule is imperfect, but it's better than any of the alternatives.

guh. for starters, i can think of a better alternative. it's baffling... you accept the fact that nobody will ever agree 100%, and yet you still support FORCING those who disagree to fall in step.

and FORCING them to fund your majority, btw.

you're so close. why not take the plunge?

And unless the majority votes to change the Constitution (and for constitutional amendments, that takes a hefty majority), I'll stand by it.

what you are saying here, basically, is that you ONLY believe that the constitution is correct because the majority agrees with you.

translation: you have no principles. you believe what the mob believes.

am i getting this right or am i misunderstanding? i'm not patronzing - i don't know if i'm understanding your point, but to my eyes this is the only conclusion i can draw from your post.

Doug, you and I have different views because we have different ideals.

I believe in freedom, ethics and choice.

Are your ideals different?

I've given up trying to convince you that you're wrong for the same reason I've given up trying to convince religious people that they're wrong. Politics and religion are not governed by proof, but by ideals, and those cannot be objectively validated.

all i want is the right to live by my ideals. but that's another story.

[Corey]

Because you cannot define that it's okay for one group of people to do something if in that definition you distinctly say that it is not okay for another group of people to do it.

It's a matter of segregation. Marriage is one of the staples of modern society. By not letting homosexuals marry, it's saying that they are not allowed to be a part of that society - or that if they want to be a part of it, they have to be labelled as different than everyone else (which kind of negates being a part of the society anyways).

I'll ask for the 3rd time. Then why is it ok to disallow individuals under 21 the "right" to drink alcohol? That's unconstitutional! Right?

I will draw this out very clearly. We all agree there is a line to what marriage is, right? Otherwise people could marry babies, dogs, multiple partners, or even hammers. Different people have different views as to where the line falls. You have yet to prove why your line is better than theirs.

And segregation? When you start seeing "Gay bathrooms" and "Straight bathrooms", come back and we'll talk.

And doug... get over yourself.

[One-Eye]

guh. for starters, i can think of a better alternative. it's baffling... you accept the fact that nobody will ever agree 100%, and yet you still support FORCING those who disagree to fall in step.

and FORCING them to fund your majority, btw.

No, I don't support FORCING anybody to do anything. I support people being ruled by their own consent. Majority rule goes like this: everyone votes according to their own position, but, if the majority feels differently, everyon agrees to live under the majority's law. It's based on the idea that people generally know what's best for themselves and the society they want to live in, so even if you're not with the majority on certain points, your life won't be unbearable.

I've stated before that I agree with you that you should not be forced to live under a government that you disagree with, however. If you don't buy into the majority rule thing, fine, you shouldn't be forced to live under it. And you aren't. But you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You don't want to work too hard to start up your own lawless society; you don't want to move away to a place that would better suit your ideals. So all you're doing is whining about it. Not very revolutionary.

you're so close. why not take the plunge?

Because I'm fine with the social contract as is.

what you are saying here, basically, is that you ONLY believe that the constitution is correct because the majority agrees with you.

translation: you have no principles. you believe what the mob believes.

am i getting this right or am i misunderstanding? i'm not patronzing - i don't know if i'm understanding your point, but to my eyes this is the only conclusion i can draw from your post.

You are misunderstanding. I do stand by the Constitution because I agree with the principles therein. If someone were to change the Constitution in order to deny people their basic rights, I would not support it, and I would be livid. However, I trust that that won't happen. I trust my fellow Americans to know better. And if I'm proven wrong in this trust - if the Constitution is amended to, for instance, ban gay marriage, I would work to change people's opinions. If the majority in America ever voted for something I truly couldn't live with, I'd do my damnedest to work for change, or I'd move to another country.

I believe in freedom, ethics and choice.

Are your ideals different?

We define them differently, yes. I believe in freedom, but I understand that freedom must necessarily be limited, else it infringe on the freedom and rights of others. I believe in ethics, and I believe a society governed correctly is an ethical one. I believe in choice, which is why I believe in democracy. No, not everyone's going to be happy in a democracy, but most people will be. I believe very few people would be happy in an anarchist society; there'd be no sense of safety, there'd be no trust of your neighbors, there'd be no one to turn to when things went wrong.

all i want is the right to live by my ideals. but that's another story.

And I've said time and again that you should be allowed to - and furthermore, that you are allowed to; it'll just take a lot of work and a lot of other people who agree with you. You may disparage majority rule, but it's a known truth that the greater your numbers, the more influence and power you'll have to get what you want.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: If most people shared your ideals, we'd be living in an anarchist society today.

[One-Eye]

I'll ask for the 3rd time. Then why is it ok to disallow individuals under 21 the "right" to drink alcohol? That's unconstitutional! Right?

I will draw this out very clearly. We all agree there is a line to what marriage is, right? Otherwise people could marry babies, dogs, multiple partners, or even hammers. Different people have different views as to where the line falls. You have yet to prove why your line is better than theirs.

And segregation? When you start seeing "Gay bathrooms" and "Straight bathrooms", come back and we'll talk.

And doug... get over yourself.

I personally don't agree with drinking age laws, either, although I know why they exist. The difference, for me, is that a person's age changes over time. A young minor is very different from a grown homosexual person. Children are too young to make major life decisions, they are too young to work for a living, they are too young to understand the way society works. And thus, as their capabilities are limited, so must their freedoms be. Hell, child labor laws could be considered "ageist". But children grow into their majority, and eventually receive all the responsibilities and benefits of adult citizenship.

Being gay, however, is a lifelong status, like being black or being Jewish. Scientists agree it's not a "chosen" lifestyle, but at least in part a matter of genetics. Marriage offers benefits to couples; if people did not benefit by getting married in the eyes of the state, they wouldn't do it; they'd stick to religious ceremonies of their own. But marriage does profer various benefits, and, as of now, those benefits are only available to straight couples. Gay couples show all of the same behavior as straight couples except that they 1) have sex differently, and 2) cannot naturally bear children together. I don't understand why either of those two criteria should mean they can't have access to all the social/economic benefits that straight couples have. Defining marriage so as to exclude a certain group of people is definitely unconstitutional, and it perpetuates outdated, bigoted stereotypes about gay people (that they live an "immoral" lifestyle, that they can't have families, that they are inherently "less worthy" than straight people, etc.)

[Corey]

Being an expert on what is and isn't constitutional and all, why isn't Affirmative Action unconstitutional?

Also, if taxpayers don't want to pay for the benefits that are given to a couple in a marriage that they don't believe in, shouldn't the taxpayers have the choice of whether or not the marriage should be legal?