|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Quote:
See my above reply. Society by and far does not hold that inter-racial marriage goes against any value or moral. It does hold that gay marriage violates same.
Actually, according to Gallup polls, almost the same percentage of people accept homosexual relationships as inter-racial relationships -- approximately 65%.
I'm sure we could find other statistics that prove that the same percentage of people also accept and approve of X and Y.
I really don't know why you made this post, as it is not up to your usual quality. It is completley irrelevant.
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Originally posted by Sandman333:
No, not really. Everyone is prohibited from same-sex marriage also. This includes hetero and homosexuals.
IMO the introduction of the qualification "same sex," by definition continues to introduce a discriminatory function.
We simply have differing opinions then...
Quote:
Originally posted by Sandman333:
Again, it depends on your point of view. Homosexuals (moreso today than at any other time) seem to insist that we change our long-held values and definitions by beating us over the head again and again that they are somehow being victimized. I don't buy it.
Are they really? I'm not so sure. And if they are, is it really any different than accepting that there are religions that have over time come to this continent that don't adhere to our long-held [Christian] values and definitions?
So, then, we should accept certain Satanist sects that believe in the practice of animal/human torture and murder, among other socially unacceptable behavior?
Quote:
Originally posted by Sandman333:
No one is preventing homosexuals from making a will (living or otherwise), or making a host of other legal documents that would give their partner the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. They would actually pay a penalty come April, as any married couple who files taxes can attest to.
With respect I don't believe this is relevant. If it were, then you could equally argue that there is no longer any need for heterosexuals to get married. The tax penalty for married couples should be addressed through tax reform, and does not really, IMO, have any relevance to the issue of gay marriage.
I was trying to make the point that they are attempting to get something that could potentially cause them financial harm, and hence from that aspect it is not logical if there is an alternative, which there is.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sandman333:
The conclusion, then, is that homosexuals want to change our societal values and norms. They want a legal requirement that we respect them. Sorry, it's not going to happen. The opposite is more likely, that their fight for legal respect will in turn spur social backlash and violence, neither of which I advocate. They are trying to force their beliefs and values on society.
Again, I really don't see this. I see that they are trying to have discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation banned.
IMO you are not being asked to adopt their lifestyle or any element of it, you are not being asked to respect any one individual or group, and you are not being asked to approve of their values ... just the same as no one can be compelled to adopt or approve of yours.
Originally posted by Sandman333:
Sorry, but they are far, far in the minority, and unless we want to start making ridiculous applications of the law similar to what I hinted to in a previous post, we really don't want to go there.
Universal application of a law threatens no one's rights, universal application of a right, threatens no one's values, IMO.
Unless, of course, the vast majority hold values contrary to the supposed "right".
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Originally posted by Sandman333:
Originally posted by sigma:
Quote:
See my above reply. Society by and far does not hold that inter-racial marriage goes against any value or moral. It does hold that gay marriage violates same.
Actually, according to Gallup polls, almost the same percentage of people accept homosexual relationships as inter-racial relationships -- approximately 65%.
I'm sure we could find other statistics that prove that the same percentage of people also accept and approve of X and Y.
I really don't know why you made this post, as it is not up to your usual quality. It is completley irrelevant.
I'm sorry, I don't see how it's an irrelevant reply to your statement that society finds gay marriage immoral but doesn't find inter-racial relationships the same. If that was the case, there would be a significant difference between the number of people that accept inter-racial relationships and the number of people that accept homosexual relationships.
Quote:
He said marriage, not relationship. Could you please post a link to the poll that states 65% of America accepts gay MARRIAGE? I have not seen such numbers...
He said marriage, yes. I never disputed that. But if an activity is immoral it is immoral whether it's a relationship or marriage. I doubt there's a group of people out there that find inter-racial marriage acceptable but not inter-racial relationships.
The percentage of people that accept gay marriage is about 35%. The percentage of people that accept gay civil unions is about 65%.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
Unless, of course, the vast majority hold values contrary to the supposed "right".
Why does this continue to be brought up?
Virtually every single piece of civil rights progression has been made in this country in spite of the majority not holding the same values. We'd be a hundred years behind where we are today if we waited until the majority's values changed in pace with the various civil rights movements of women and minorities.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by Sandman333:
We simply have differing opinions then...
Only if you believe that laws and rights do not necessarily have to be applied equally to everyone.
Quote:
So, then, we should accept certain Satanist sects that believe in the practice of animal/human torture and murder, among other socially unacceptable behavior?
Not at all â?¦ this is the â??slippery slopeâ?? argument with a different face. Animal/human torture and murder are against the law; a law that applies equally to everyone without exception.
Originally posted by Sandman333:
I was trying to make the point that they are attempting to get something that could potentially cause them financial harm, and hence from that aspect it is not logical if there is an alternative, which there is.
Yes, I got that â?¦ but this is something equivalent to saying that itâ??s noisy and bumpy at the front of the bus, why would Black people want to ride there anyway. This is certainly not a valid argument to deny a certain minority having the right to do so, even if the back of the bus is a good alternative.
Originally posted by Sandman333:
Unless, of course, the vast majority hold values contrary to the supposed "right".
This IMO is a contradiction. The very essence of a â??rightâ? is that it protects a minority, or even an individual, from the majority. That is their purpose â?¦ that is the founding principle upon which their need was established.
I believe the latter half of your sentence contains the real meat of the issue â?¦ are homosexuals protected from discrimination according to the same principles that protect citizens from discrimination on the basis of race and gender. And IMO, this is a simple â??yesâ? or â??no.â? question. IMO the answer is yes.
I think the following quote illuminates some of these ideas â??? itâ??s from Madison who for a time did not believe there was a need for a Bill of Rights in addition to the constitution. Jefferson and others persuaded him otherwise and this is how he apparently expressed it (I have bolded what I think are the most relevant words):
â??By the fall of 1788 Madison had been convinced that not only was a bill of rights necessary to ensure acceptance of the Constitution but that it would have positive effects. He wrote, on October 17, that such "fundamental maxims of free Government" would be "a good ground for an appeal to the sense of community" against potential oppression and would "counteract the impulses of interest and passion."
Bill of Rights link here
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Originally posted by Sandman333:
Originally posted by sigma:
Quote:
See my above reply. Society by and far does not hold that inter-racial marriage goes against any value or moral. It does hold that gay marriage violates same.
Actually, according to Gallup polls, almost the same percentage of people accept homosexual relationships as inter-racial relationships -- approximately 65%.
I'm sure we could find other statistics that prove that the same percentage of people also accept and approve of X and Y.
I really don't know why you made this post, as it is not up to your usual quality. It is completley irrelevant.
I'm sorry, I don't see how it's an irrelevant reply to your statement that society finds gay marriage immoral but doesn't find inter-racial relationships the same. If that was the case, there would be a significant difference between the number of people that accept inter-racial relationships and the number of people that accept homosexual relationships.
It's irrelevant because you can easily pick any 2 unrelated issues and say the same % of people feel one way or the other about them. You could pick slavery and something else, and they would still be completely irrelvant though they might both be thought of as rights.
Inter-racial relationships and gay relationships are not related in any way that I can see. Just because they happen to both meet similar approval ratings does not relate the issues.
Quote:
Quote:
He said marriage, not relationship. Could you please post a link to the poll that states 65% of America accepts gay MARRIAGE? I have not seen such numbers...
He said marriage, yes. I never disputed that. But if an activity is immoral it is immoral whether it's a relationship or marriage. I doubt there's a group of people out there that find inter-racial marriage acceptable but not inter-racial relationships.
The percentage of people that accept gay marriage is about 35%. The percentage of people that accept gay civil unions is about 65%.
The difference is that based on values and morals, we are attempting to draw the line somewhere. This far and no more. Society is willing to tolerate the relationship. Society is not willing to call it a marriage, because it does not and cannot fit the long traditional definition of a marriage.
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Quote:
Unless, of course, the vast majority hold values contrary to the supposed "right".
Why does this continue to be brought up?
Virtually every single piece of civil rights progression has been made in this country in spite of the majority not holding the same values. We'd be a hundred years behind where we are today if we waited until the majority's values changed in pace with the various civil rights movements of women and minorities.
I'm not so sure I believe that either. I don't believe there was an overwhelming majority that wanted to continue slavery or sufferage when they were abolished. I'm talking the US as a whole during the Civil War, not just southern plantation owners.
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
On the contrary, I believe the Bill of Rights, and every other Amendment and Right under the Constitution is there specifically to protect the individual and group from government, not from the majority opinion. It is possible to repeal the entire Bill of Rights and every other right granted under the Constitution, so long as a majority deems this necessarry and it is done peaceably. This is the true beauty of the Constitution, in that it allows the people to govern themselves, rather than to dictate to them what is right and wrong. The decision of socially, morally acceptable behavior is left to the people to craft into law, and cannot be dictated to them. If that were possible, who would do the dictating?
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 772
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 772 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Quote:
He said marriage, not relationship. Could you please post a link to the poll that states 65% of America accepts gay MARRIAGE? I have not seen such numbers...
He said marriage, yes. I never disputed that. But if an activity is immoral it is immoral whether it's a relationship or marriage. I doubt there's a group of people out there that find inter-racial marriage acceptable but not inter-racial relationships.
The percentage of people that accept gay marriage is about 35%. The percentage of people that accept gay civil unions is about 65%.
So we can infer that 65% of people OPPOSE gay marriage? That matches the numbers I have seen...
Anyway, just to argue a point...
People can believe homosexuality to be immoral, but be WILLING to approve of "civil unions". It doesn't mean they think it's right. I would bet that more than a majority of that 65% beleive you should be married by a minister and would frown upon being married by a judge. Marraige holds some religious significance for them, and they are not willing to budge on that term.
former owner, 95 SE MTX
02 Ford Explorer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by Sandman333:
It's irrelevant because you can easily pick any 2 unrelated issues and say the same % of people feel one way or the other about them. You could pick slavery and something else, and they would still be completely irrelvant though they might both be thought of as rights.
I don't speak for the author, of course, but I see the relevance as this:
1) Both examples pertain to the question of who we can marry
2) Both examples begin with a definition of marriage that was contrary to the values of the majority.
3) Both examples pertain to a minority group desiring protection of their rights from the majority.
4)The concept of universal application of laws and rights was the determining factor that saw the resolution enacted by constitutional amendment; which, IMO, is the basis for today's argument by those who believe that people should be protected against discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.
|
|
|
|
|
