flyingferret 0 #126 November 3, 2004 Congratulations, the office of the motherland says you have done well and picked wisely according to all social monkey norms. Seriously, congrats.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #127 November 3, 2004 Quote"Gay Marriage" defeated in all 11 states Good. That is terrific news. Gay marraige has no place here in the US. They should not be allowed to marry and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to raise children. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #128 November 3, 2004 QuoteMarriage is not a RIGHT!!!!! By no means is it a RIGHT! Don't be so sure. An excerpt from an assignment I wrote: Quote The 9th Amendment to our Constitution states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This amendment was added to clarify that Congress cannot list every right enjoyed by Americans, but that the non-listing of a right does not negate the right. Justice Goldberg of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote a majority opinion in 1965 that the right to marital privacy is one right protected by the 9th Amendment (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). Logic dictates that for us to have a right to marital privacy, we must first have a right to marriage. Furthermore, 14th Amendment forbids the government from depriving an individual of their life, liberty, or property without due process. What is meant by the word “liberty”? In the case of Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the majority opinion of the Supreme Court as written by Justice McReynolds attempted to clarify it: Without doubt, it (liberty) denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #129 November 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteAh, so it's ok for the majoriy to supress a minority. Yep...that is exactly what democracy does every day. Majority rule.... That aint democracy. This is: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression. " Thomas Jefferson. Too bad great minds like his no longer exist in this World. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #130 November 3, 2004 QuoteYes when it goes against the principals of the nation and is deemed "for the greater good". I thought freedom of religion was one of the principles of this nation. One of the big slippery slope fallacies employed by opponents of gay marriage is polygamy... a practice encouraged by several religions. If a gay person, mormon, or muslim belongs to a church that encourages them to marry in a manner other than the christian version widely accepted in this country, are those people being denied their freedom of religion? My personal take on this is that the government should simply get out of the business of marriage. There shouldn't be separate columns in the tax tables for married people and there shouldn't be over “1,138 federal statutory provisions classified in the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.” Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #131 November 3, 2004 QuoteQuote"Gay Marriage" defeated in all 11 states Good. That is terrific news. Gay marraige has no place here in the US. They should not be allowed to marry and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to raise children. So who should raise kids? I know lots of hetero couples who shouldn't raise kids, yet they do. Ever been to a Childrens hospital and seen crack babys, or a kids born with FAS. I guess the notion of having two or one loving parents regardless of sexual orientation is too progressive of an idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #132 November 3, 2004 It's a great idea. That's why these states are banning gay marraige. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #133 November 3, 2004 Sorry, but that would be an opinion, not a definition. Which is almost laughably ironic considering the point I have been trying to make. Opinions+Emotions /= defintions. You must use Process fueled by Opinions + Emotions to change definitions. The definition of democracy is: Quote[n] the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/democracy Or Quote 4. Majority rule. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/democracy Or Quote1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=democracy Additionally, you bastardaize Jefferson's inaugural address with no context. Perhaps, you would like to view these quotes: Quote"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127 "The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236 "The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397 "I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:332 MORE http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0500.htm If you are going to quote a founding father, at least research his viewpoint, rather than a single statement. The inability to analyze things in a broad scope baffles me. [/url]-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mailin 0 #134 November 3, 2004 QuoteAdditionally...marriage is not a constiutional right, neither is common provider benefits based on that union. The word right is used much too loosely. OK let's get a few things straight. First of all, there is no such thing as a "constitutional right". That term is a misnomer. The "Bill of Rights" does not give us, as Citizens of the United States, anything. It says what Congress may not do. For example, the second ammendment does not say that we can keep and bear arms. It says to congress, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Same thing with the first amendment. It starts off with "Congress shall make no law regarding..." Now that that's established, let's move on to marriage and what establishes the difference between a "right" and a "privilege". A right is something I can do without asking, something "given by the creator". Rights are not given to you by a government nor can a government take them away. A privilege, on the other hand, is something that a higher authority, like the government, allows me to do. Driving comes to mind. Marriage falls under a person's inalienable right to associate with who they chose in any manner they choose. Marriage is not an issue for the government. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, and I agree, that the only legitimate function of a government is "to protect the right of its Citizens." Therefore, in my view, unless the government is somehow protecting the right of free association, then it has no business getting involved in marriage in the first place, be it between a man and a woman or a woman and a donkey. This means that local governments have no business requiring a license to get married. That's "govermentizing" marriage. I'm surprised nobody has ever questioned the constitutionality of such things. It sounds to me like you're assuming that marriage is somehow a privilege. I disagree. Marriage falls under your inalienable right to freedom of association and therefore, unless the government is protecting that right, then they have no business telling anyone, for any reason, who they may or may not be "married" to. Class dismissed, JenArianna Frances Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #135 November 3, 2004 Still semantics. No one is fighting over the ability to 'associate' In practically, most people will admit the fight is for the legal and financial privileges that come along with marriage, namely employer benefits. You can associate with a life partner all you want. The state just says they will not term it marriage with a certificate. Additionaly, if Jefferson is the topic of the day, consider states rights. It has been attempted to keep this a states rights issue. This has arguably failed to due to 'legislation from the bench' However, had it not, it would be up to the states, and the states citizens. In any case, the majority once again disagrees with you. If I take your points literally, while I am sure they could be argued academically, you just picked a bigger battle even than everyone else in the thread. Not only do you want to include same sex in marriage, you want to get the government out of marriage altogether? I don't see any way that would practically happen. What about divorce? child support? alimony? etc. Whether it is laidout in the constitution, bill of rights, or in my bathroom copy of Parachutist, the majority of America views this as a favored institution. The decision to attempt redefinition is a long shot, no technical grounds you have. This reminds me of my German mother hollering about Van Gogh was pronounced Von Cough, not Van Go. Technically, correct, once it has been assimiliated into America culture, practicalty rules. You are arguing over a definition inferred in the constitution, rather than the definition currently held in justice of the peace offices throughout each state. That is the definition in use. You can try to change it. But my whole point was, there are more productive fights and the results show the majority does not want it changed.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mailin 0 #136 November 3, 2004 QuoteNot only do you want to include same sex in marriage, you want to get the government out of marriage altogether? Yep! Novel concept huh? There are many aspects of our lives that government has no business being in - yet people let their emotions get the better of them and pass referrenda (such as this one) without all the knowledge needed. I'm glad, in a way, that I live in New England... our news media covers much of this stuff alot and typically have lots of different political parties. Hell, in MA the libertarian candidate (Carla Howell) beat out the republican in numbers of votes against Ted Kennedy for senate 4 years ago. It pays to be open minded. Yet, I see some people aren't, and thats fine - its the peoples right to vote, but the governements job to know when the people are shooting themselves in the foot. JenArianna Frances Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #137 November 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteJust checking to see where your values are. You would really call bi-sexual bigamist hedonism a marriage? And you think this would instill proper values into children? Is this correct? I missed this earlier, but since my opinion is obviously important, here it is. If bisexual bigamists supported each other, made a stable household, showed love for each other, and taught children about values like kindness, love, toughness, and fairness, then yes. If they're all about sex in the open with whatever doesn't fight back, then no. Of course, I know "traditional" couples who are pretty inappropriate too, but I guess that's OK in some worlds, as long as it's one man and one woman. To me, a strong family is people who support each other, teach each other the meaning of unconditional love and striving, and who teach children what it means to be a good person. Even in the Bible it says that of faith, hope, and love, love is the greatest of them. I didn't see war listed in that grouping, so I'm assuming it was not as important. Wendy W. How could you possibly legislate something like this? I thought you were for the Govt keeping its' nose out of the bedroom and what people want to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is their own business. By your standard, I can marry 4 women and 3 men and as long as we promise to love each other its OK. And you see no detrimental effects on children? This is what you think is OK for children to be exposed to? WOW!!! I'm floored. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #138 November 4, 2004 Quoteits the peoples right to vote, but the governements job to know when the people are shooting themselves in the foot I would highly disagree with that, unless perhaps I misunderstand the wording, given the quotes above about majority and people rights. Perhaps I misunderstand. While I agree that government is overstretched, we are not a pure anything, democracy or otherwise. And in practicality outside the petri dish, the more people there are the more laws, caveats, and provisions there will be. It would be interesting to me to see if people with the views you state apply them to welfare, medicaid, and government subsidies. In a purist sense, I happen to agree with at least your concept. However, in our American experiment, I think it is impossible to go back to that point. The masses are too loud and unwieldy, they cannot self govern in an absolute sense, we see this repeatedly. While we valiantly quote Franklin and Jefferson, in reality we all make compromises to life, and reality cannot be avoid. Sometimes it is wiser to bart for the half loaf, then stone wall and leave with no bread. I still maintain this battle is over: 1. financial benefits inferred by legal status 2. the majority is not willing to be redefined 3. the far reaching implications of this are huge; the repurcussions regarding polygamy, incest, etc have been raised by educated scholars For those reasons, your intentions are noble, but I cannot find a practical method of application.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #139 November 4, 2004 I didnt try to change the defenition, just trying to show the idea of democracy, majority rule with minority rights being protected. What truely scares me is the inability to comphrehend this simple notion. Maybe you too should brush up on Jefferson. Don't just randomly quote, try to understand the idea behind it. Yes it was from his inagural address, read it and try to comprehend where he's coming from. It's not that long nor that hard to understand. Dont just throw another random quote out there to counter mine. One of your quotes is as follows: The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397 Yes they should. It seems you miss the most import concept behind that thought: fair majority. The rights of the majority should be respected, but not if they trample the rights of the minority. Hard and abstract concept for some to understand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mailin 0 #140 November 4, 2004 QuoteIt would be interesting to me to see if people with the views you state apply them to welfare, medicaid, and government subsidies. I'm glad to see you'd want to learn more. You can find more info on: www.lp.org, the libertarian party website. They advocate giving things back to the states and its individual citizens, as fought to create by the founding fathers. Many of the questions you have have been addressed there. JenArianna Frances Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #141 November 4, 2004 Great post Mailin. The bottom line for me is that it's none of my business, and frankly, I just don't care. I could care less if two dudes want to be married, it does not affect me one way or the other. I say they can have at it if they want, just don't be hittin' on me cause I think it's kinda gross. It's hard for me to see how it would fuck up the "family unit" any worse than it already is. What I would really like to do is harness all the negative energy used on this topic nationwide and zap the shit out of something that is actually hurting folks._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #142 November 4, 2004 I will not bother at this juncture to discuss my background academically when dealing with Thomas Jefferson. I will simply state that there are a lot of more statements out there then the one you expressed. In any case it is moot, because Jefferson is not a politician, nor do we consult him directly in legislation. The fact remains: 1. We have laws on the books that cover this topic 2. Some people are trying to change them 3. As of yet, they have not been deemed correct by majority or by judicial branch The point is not to debate Jefferson, because then we can wander off into slavery, his practices vs. writings, etc. Then getting past the we could argue indefinitely about the words 'fair' and 'trampled' or 'infringed' That will not practically happen. On the other hand, we do have legal definitions of marriage in state offices, we are debating those, and so far they are not changing. At least you make the point of an abstract concept, although I think you were perhaps being sarcastic. In reality, I think that is the most striking sentence of your post. Consensual rights and infringements are in fact abstract and very hard to understand/define. In my opinion, the founding documents of this country were written in subjective language specifically to allow debate by the majority to instute future changes. Much like a palm tree weathers the storm, the founders realized the foundation must be able to be changed beyond their views to survive.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jessica 0 #143 November 4, 2004 Quotebut now reading all these posts by macho homophobic fundamentalist alpha male types is really turning me on... Ooh, me too. Let's do it. In a lesbian-effing-gay-man sort of way.Skydiving is for cool people only Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RozeAY 0 #144 November 4, 2004 There are a lot of posts here and I haven't read through them all so I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but: A number of people have mentioned how disgusted they are that people voted to ban civil unions and take away those rights, etc in addition to banning gay marriage. Well, not everyone realized that is what they were doing. Take Georgia for example. On our ballot, they "summarized" the amendment. So the ballot said something to the extent of "Should there be a constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as the union between a man and a woman?" That's it. The ballot conveniently left out the part about also banning civil unions and taking away those rights. While I still think the amendment would have passed, I don't think the margin would have been as high if people knew about the portion of the amendment missing from the ballot. This issue went to the courts before the election but was denied because the courts wanted to address it after the election, not before. Why? One theory is that they chose to do that because if they said the state can't use the summarized version before the election, then the state would have time to revise the ballot. If they say it isn't right after the election, it gets thrown out completely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #145 November 4, 2004 It's been mentioned, but I definitely think it's worth repeating. And it really pisses me off the way they snuck that in there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakyrat 1 #146 November 6, 2004 Americans don't favor gay marriage but in exit polls of voters that said that moral issues were important 60 % of the voters supported some form of legal protection for same-sex couples with 25% favoring legal marriage and 35% civil unions with 37% against all protection. fully one half of the voters who favored civil unions for same sex-couples voted for President Bush. In otherwords of the Bush voters carrying about "moral issues" did not mean opposition to gay equality. In every state except Oregon, these measures were on the ballot simply because the right wing sought a polical advantage. Same-sex marriage was already illegal in those states and in those 10 states there was no challenges or attempts by anyone in the gay community to legalize same-sex marriage. In Oregon the voters were more evenly divided than in the other states. The one state where the public actually saw same-sex couples married was the state with the highest number against the ballot measure but the measure passed anyway. In conclusion this issue played a role in the election, but not a decisive one. Also explain this, Bush got 23% of the gay and lesbian vote. That's 23% of the electorate(GLBT) that favors some kind of legal status for their relationships and 37% of the hetero's that favor some kind of legal status for same-sex couples. Personally, I'm all in favor of protecting marriage, but I don't favor a putting discrimination in our Constitution. I still think we can come to a compromise and provide some kind of legal protections etc. for same-sex couples, things that married couples take for granted. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #147 November 6, 2004 Quote Added: Neither is incest. Neither is having multiple sexual partners. Animals sometimes eat their own feces. Just because an animal does it doesn't make it justifiable or healthy for humans. It definitely doesn't make it "normal." unless of course its sanctioned by God.... as all of those activities are at one point or another in your Bible.. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 0 #148 November 7, 2004 QuoteI thought freedom of religion was one of the principles of this nation. One of the big slippery slope fallacies employed by opponents of gay marriage is polygamy... a practice encouraged by several religions. If a gay person, mormon, or muslim belongs to a church that encourages them to marry in a manner other than the christian version widely accepted in this country, are those people being denied their freedom of religion? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or LDS(Mormons) does not and has not condoned nor practiced Polygamy in a very long time. It is against the law of the land and our Prophets have declared it for intents and purposes... For "my" lack of actual terminology we'll call it "Dead Doctrine", and any members of the church practicing, attempting to practice will be held accountable and excommunicated. There are however certain splinter groups who call themselves LDS, Mormon, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ------ or ect... Who are not following the laws of the land, much less church teachings/doctrine and who are "NOT" of our church. ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 0 #149 November 7, 2004 QuoteWell, not everyone realized that is what they were doing. Take Georgia for example. On our ballot, they "summarized" the amendment. So the ballot said something to the extent of "Should there be a constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as the union between a man and a woman?" That's it. The ballot conveniently left out the part about also banning civil unions and taking away those rights. While I still think the amendment would have passed, I don't think the margin would have been as high if people knew about the portion of the amendment missing from the ballot. The voter should be making informed choices, they should have already educated themselves on the issues which were on the ballot in their state, county and ect... The amendments are usually available in their entirety (maybe they weren't in your state, but I doubt it) for all interested to study, they should not be going to the polls ill-informed and simply reading a summary and then voting. To many voters cast their vote based on campaign commercials, hearsay, biased commentary or even who's sign they saw the most. Now thats disgusting. ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #150 November 7, 2004 No one wants to see gay marraige. It's wrong and not in the best interest of my country...as the voters decided. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
