USA elections

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

So if a man wants to marry a dog should he be allowed to? I am not denying anyone the right to marriage. I'm stating that I will not recognize a homosexual union as "marriage" and my vote is that the government won't either. Sounds like I'm on the side of the great majority.

Gays have the same rights I do. A gay man is free to marry a woman-just as I am. The line has to be drawn somewhere or the next thing we know people will be marrying animals so they can claim them as dependents and lower their taxes.

Well, first of all, your comparison is very faulty. A marriage requires two consenting people who are fully aware of what they are doing. An animal can neither consent nor be aware of what marriage is. So no, this will not lead to allowing people to marry animals.

Now, let's look at gay marriage, shall we?
Will it harm anyone in any way if two men are allowed to marry eachother? No.
Will the recognition of a homosexual marriage as a marriage harm anyone? No.
Will the recognition of a homosexual marriage as a marriage bring happiness to a lot of people? Yes.
So why, pray tell, would you want to deny people happiness if that happiness will never harm you or anyone else?

At the moment my comparison may be faulty, but as the lines blur they'll push further and further. As it is, marriage requires two consenting adults not of the same gender (as it is in Oregon, where I claim residency and Utah where I live) and that's the way it should be.

To me, and the majority of Americans, marriage is sacred. Gay marriage undermines that. So will it hurt people-yes millions of people (the majority according to the last elections) who think the same way I do. It may not be physical, but it is there none-the-less.

My belief may be based on my spirituality while those who agree with gay marriage will have their belief based on their spirituality (or lack of). So who is right here? We can't both be. That's why we vote on the issues.

 

[Sander]

At the moment my comparison may be faulty, but as the lines blur they'll push further and further.

Why? Really, why? I live in one of the few countries with gay marriage, and there have been no blurring of any lines whatsoever. If you're afraid of those lines blurring, push for laws stating that there ust be two consenting adults, push for a constitional amendment even, but don't limit others because your afraid of the blurring of lines.

As it is, marriage requires two consenting adults not of the same gender (as it is in Oregon, where I claim residency and Utah where I live) and that's the way it should be.

Why? This is a statement, not an argument. Why is this the way it should be?

To me, and the majority of Americans, marriage is sacred. Gay marriage undermines that.

No, it doesn't. gays can be just as faithful as heterosexuals, they can adopt children as well, if you're afraid it will somehow tamper with the family. In fact, if that is a reason, you should forbid infertile people from marrying, or you should make it mandatory for any married couple to have children.

Comparison: the USA has one of the highest divorce rates in the world, and they have higher divorce rates than the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal. So where do you think marriage has a better foundation?

So will it hurt people-yes millions of people (the majority according to the last elections) who think the same way I do. It may not be physical, but it is there none-the-less.

No, it won't hurt them. You're afraid it might hurt society, but don't give any arguments for that statement. But does that mean it actually harms you? No.

My belief may be based on my spirituality while those who agree with gay marriage will have their belief based on their spirituality (or lack of). So who is right here? We can't both be. That's why we vote on the issues.

And argue about it. This is a seriously annoying statement: you're basically claiming to be right on the bases of your spirituality, and don't allow anything to tamper with it, because that's just the way it is.

 

[Bradylama]

As it is, marriage requires two consenting adults not of the same gender (as it is in Oregon, where I claim residency and Utah where I live) and that's the way it should be.

In OREGON, maybe. However, just because Oregon has poo-pooed gay marriage doesn't definitively define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

To me, and the majority of Americans, marriage is sacred. Gay marriage undermines that.

Undermines what? The ability of heterosexual couples to have children and raise a family? To have tax breaks?

Gay marriage isn't going to undermine anything. You're just trying to make marriage an elitist club with a "No Fags Allowed" sign on the door.

So will it hurt people-yes millions of people (the majority according to the last elections) who think the same way I do. It may not be physical, but it is there none-the-less.

It doesn't hurt anybody, it just pisses them off. Look at those damn [strike]niggers[/strike] fags holding hands!

 

[Briosafreak]

To me, and the majority of Americans, marriage is sacred.

So you`re against divorce?

A gay man is free to marry a woman-just as I am. The line has to be drawn somewhere or the next thing we know people will be marrying animals so they can claim them as dependents and lower their taxes.

They don`t want to marry women/men or animals, they want to see legal rights concerning common assets and property, inheritance and other issues be resolved by allowing monogamic gay and lesbian couples to have a matrimonial contract, a legal piece of paper that allows those issues to have legal clarity. If you say your religion shouldn´t allow religious marriages between gay and lesbians that`s ok , it should not be the business of anyone to go against it, if it is protected by your religious freedom. But saying that others, in this case gays and lesbians, shouldn`t have a matrimonial bond because of your religion it`s wrong, it´s the oposite of the separation of state and church your founding fathers had in mind, and it´s against the basis of your political system, wich isn`t the worst one could have, isn`t it?

To me, and the majority of Americans

Wait a second, if tomorrow the majority of americans decide that mormons are evil and should be banned from all public places and schools would you be so happy with that majority? Democracy is the exercise of politics with the common good and the voice of the majority in the center of it`s action, but also with the respect of the minorities in it´s heart.

 

[welsh]

Actually Sander, I am kind of in sympathy with Tone on this one, even if I think gay marriage should be allowed.

You have argued the "no harm, no foul" rule of morality- but that doesn't really sell. Like it or not, we live in a society in which the values of the community need to be represented. Even in the US, where the notion of individualism outstrips the notion of communitarianism that you have in Europe, that social value dominates how we act. Values may be an individual choice, but the norms that we uphold are usually socially constructed.

And in that sense I think Tone raises a good point. When does the line get drawn?

If we don't stop at gay marriage, why not polygamy? If we can blur the aspects of gender in that definition than why not the notion of "a couple" and have one man marry four women like they have in Islam? What about incest? Why shouldn't a brother and sister who love each other romantically and are adults be allowed to marry? Ok, you might say it has to do with the danger to children- but what if they are incapable of having children? SHould that allow an exception, and if you start making exceptions when do you stop?

I know you are going to say that beastiality hurts the animal, but unfortunately, animals don't have the rights as humans. We might have animal protection rules because society feels the need to protect animals from unnecessary community, but animals are property and should be used as the owner of that propety wishes- this is the right of owners to do what they want with property. So a rule against beastiality stops people from using their property and harming something that doesn't really have rights. But we decide as a society that you can't fuck your dog.

That's why the battle over the definition of civil rights is always a moral battle.

ANd I think Tone is right, that for many Americans the gay rights issue was an issue of "when will standards be applied" and for them the institution of marriage was sacred.

Honestly, I think this was manipulative as hell to keep the country divided on what I think is a bullshit issue, but it didn't help that the court that recognized gay marriage was in Massachusetts- thus the danger of northeastern liberals.

But this also goes to some other issues. Do vaules change and should our notion of constitutional rights and inclusion change with time. THere are lots of folks who say no, and that when they do it should be by popular mandate. But the truth is that the enfranchisement of minorities usually starts in the courts, and discrimination has always been more popular than inclusion.

Is the US as a society mature enough to accept a gay right to marriage? I hoped so. I have gay friends who should be entitled to marry. Denying them that right seems a violation of both substantive due process and equal protection under law. But the gays are a discrete minority and people are getting annoyed with the Bravo channel going gay. Discrete minorities have always suffered discrimination.

So, as Tone argues, maybe not. Maybe Americans are not quite ready for gay marriage yet. Clearly the people voted on this one.

Does that mean that gay marriage is a lost cause. No. I would think there is a pretty good chance that the state constitutional amendments that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman will be overturned by the court. The current court has been moving, if slowly, towards equality for gays. Then again, Bush has a chance of putting conservatives in the court- so maybe the gays will have to wait awhile.

As many liberals felt, the move to gay marriage was at best immature and might have cost the election.

 

[Briosafreak]

As many liberals felt, the move to gay marriage was at best immature and might have cost the election.

Kerry is against Gay and Lesbians marriage, so that shouldn`t had an effect on his defeat. But if you`re saying the fact he oposed an amendement to the constitution banning gay marriage with the argument that would put religion guided norms in your fundamental laws, wich would be against the very foundations of that constitution, hurted his election, then it´s time for even more concern on where are you as americans heading, and where do you americans want to lead us.

Mixing religion and politics is the project, the method and the danger of Osama, as i remember.

 

[Bradylama]

Actually, the Preservation of Marriage Act declared that a homosexual marriage made in one state didn't have to be recognized in another, if that state declared homosexual unions illegal.

Which is Unconstitutional, since the Constitution requires all States to recognise each other's laws. Its why we're a Union.

 

[welsh]

As many liberals felt, the move to gay marriage was at best immature and might have cost the election.

Kerry is against Gay and Lesbians marriage, so that shouldn`t had an effect on his defeat. But if you`re saying the fact he oposed an amendement to the constitution banning gay marriage with the argument that would put religion guided norms in your fundamental laws, wich would be against the very foundations of that constitution, hurted his election, then it´s time for even more concern on where are you as americans heading, and where do you americans want to lead us.

Briosa- My personal feelings on this have been very clearly articulated before.
(1) I always thought this was a bullshit issue
(2) this is a form of discrimination that works against both substantive due process and equal protection, and maybe even free speech.
(3) That this was a ploy to divide the country.

And yes, it concerns me too. Yes it's a harbinger of bad things and shows how little america has moved towards progressivism. But this is still not Europe and as you recall in some of the older posts, Americans take their religion very seriously here, and it's a bigger part of our culture than in Europe.

This is a constitutional issue more than a popular one, and one that will probably be dealt with by the courts in the end. I think that's were the issue will finally be decided and that's fine. Is that unusual. ARe you going to tell me you don't have discrimination against minorities in Europe? This crap happens everywhere.

I was just talking with Perfect Dark about the court's move on challenging racial discrimination. Has it worked? Well but for the courts we might still be in the racial divide, but the move towards racial harmony hasn't been without bumps in the road either. Yes, it would have been nice if people would have come out and said, "our culture can handle gay marriage." But apparently they don't think so.

Somewhere in the moral conflict that is civil rights, the line had to be drawn and that was over gay marriage. Once that line crossed racial equality, and gender equality, and even freedom of speech. I think the gays will eventually get their rights, but not by last week's popular vote.

I will stick to my guns and say the US is a pretty good country overall, but it sure as hell ain't perfect and yes, we discriminate even here.

When Kerry came out in the debates thinking that we didn't need a constitutional amendment, and Bush and the republicans came out and said that we needed a constitutional amendment. IN that way the divisions were drawn. You have priests in churches saying that people had to vote against gay marriage because it meant the decline of the moral fabric of the country. SInce most americans saw the democrats favoring gay marriage and the republicans using the "protection of marriage" (which equals discrimination against gays- but remember, people don't like being called bigots), people voted republican.

OK, yes, it's a lot of bullshit. But shit sells.

I am not justifying it, but it is a good explanation. A lot of Americans are afraid of the sliding moral standard.

Mixing religion and politics is the project, the method and the danger of Osama, as i remember.

But at the end of the day, Osama is just a mosquito on the ass of the republican elephant.

Religion and politics have always been mixed. What is the mix of that cocktail depends on tastes. I prefer my religion and politics seperate and kept straight. Tone prefers that the lines get blurred.

But this is a democracy too, and that means people can disagree, voice their disagreement and choose it.

It's not yet Osama where the Taliban are pushing fundamentalist Islam down someone else's throat. That doesn't mean the US couldn't eventually go that way. WIth the Christian Coalition, it looks like we are moving in that direction.

But democracy is an experiment and sometimes it explodes in your face. Ideally the system also has the means to rectify itself. So it will be an interesting four years.

 

[4too]

Talk Radio Debate

Talk Radio Debate

Listened to a talk radio debate on Ohio Issue 1.

A proponent for this Amendment never faltered or apologized for his stand on the 'definition of marriage.'

He was ready to suggest existing legal contracts that would
assist any gender mix of domestic partnership in mutual property ownership and power of attorney situations.


Perhaps this implies wiggle room on some of the equal rights concerns.


My concerns were on other issues. I lumped this in with Darth Cheney's "fear" schtick, ""be afraid America be very afraid"".


4too

 

[Big T]

Again: you're wrong. You're bashing anyone who has viewpoints based on their religion (Just as socialists have viewpoints based on their "religion" of socialism). Try looking at viewpoints themselves to decide whether they're valid or not, and not at where they come from.
The reasons for a decision really don't matter, but the justification the person uses and the decisions themselves do.

I am not talking about decisions based on, or influenced by, religion. I am talking about decisions made for the furthering of, or for the sake of that religion.

 

[Colt]

Actually Sander, I am kind of in sympathy with Tone on this one, even if I think gay marriage should be allowed.

You have argued the "no harm, no foul" rule of morality- but that doesn't really sell. Like it or not, we live in a society in which the values of the community need to be represented. Even in the US, where the notion of individualism outstrips the notion of communitarianism that you have in Europe, that social value dominates how we act. Values may be an individual choice, but the norms that we uphold are usually socially constructed.

*snips for brevity*

Good writing, Welsh. I have to agree with you in that America simply may not be ready, socially, for homosexual marriage at this time. I think it was Sander who remarked that the Netherlands has legal homosexual marriages and a low divorce rate compared to the USA. While I applaud the Netherlands on their forward-thinking ideals and laws, I must point out that the Netherlands is certainly not the United Sates.

The United States is a much, much larger nation with a massive population that is very diverse. The United States is a nation with many nations of people within it whether devided by religion, beliefs, location, history, or perceived race differences. Most of the time these different nations and groups of people can resolve their differences using law and reason while at other times their ideas of what makes a "good" government are at odds with one another. These differences take time to resolve no matter how silly they might seem to some of us. The United States is a slow-changing social machine indeed.

As I asked one of my homosexual friends, would you rather push it too far, too fast, now in the hopes of a sudden victory only to have it be crushed and homosexual marriage banned outright? Or would you rather allow it to slowly seep into the machine and allow it to adapt. Homosexual "civil unions" being a small battle won but wars are won with many small victories. Only nuclear wars are one with one large battle, and, well, we know where that path leads...

Now, let's look at gay marriage, shall we?
Will it harm anyone in any way if two men are allowed to marry eachother? No.
Will the recognition of a homosexual marriage as a marriage harm anyone? No.
Will the recognition of a homosexual marriage as a marriage bring happiness to a lot of people? Yes.
So why, pray tell, would you want to deny people happiness if that happiness will never harm you or anyone else?

Actually, I think one could argue that it's not harm done to the living but to future generations. I've often wondered about this... About why exactly people are afraid of it. Rational people who aren't necessarily religious. They know it can't harm them really so why do they care so much about it? It has to do with their children, their offspring, I believe.

They're afraid that their children might think it socially acceptable to be homsexual and this scares them. They want to be loving parents and yet... Dealing with something that's alien to them, something strange and unknown. They grew up and started a relationship with someone and that's how the child came to be in the first place, It's what they know, know how it works, feel that it's so right.

Still, why might they have a problem with this? Well, almost all parents want to see their children in their own image or want their child to be better than they could be. To grow up and be happy and have a family. I, personally, have a certain leaning toward this and understanding of it... Raising a teenager will be hard enough without them being homosexual. I would like my sons to find nice girls to marry and my daughters to find gentlemen of good repute to have children with.

So, damage? Maybe not immediate but some might see it as a threat to their progeny's futures and to their own.

I think most of you will have to admit, also, that there is a lingering sense of what is "right", biologically. A male 's body was obviously made to be compatible with a female's and vice-versa. Though this isn't very good reason to necessarily do anything about homosexuality, afterall, humans do a multitude of unnatural things each day.

- Coltius Varius Severus

 

[Ashmo]

I'm risking repeating myself here, but there is a difference between legal marriage and religious marriage. The government doesn't give a damn about religious marriages.

If your religion says you can marry a cow (hey, stop thinking of marriages as Christian, other religions and beliefs had and have that system as well), go ahead and find a priest to do it. That doesn't mean the government will accept it though because it is not a legal marriage but a religious one and a religious one only.

As far as I know, the church doesn't believe in divorces anyway. In the Catholic church (religious) marriage is permanent and sacred and therefore divorce just doesn't work (I can't remember the Pope having said that that position has changed, so I'll claim it's the official word until proven wrong).

On the other hand the government should permit two human adults who are both perfectly sane to make their prolonged partnership ultimately official by engaging in legal marriage. Legal marriage isn't any different from any other officially recognized partnership and is only about taxes and other benefits. If homosexual partnerships are treated differently, that is discrimination.

Thinking gay marriages would make all hell break lose and zoophiles becoming legal just shows a lot of neglected fear. Homosexuality is not a disease. I know that many many people in the US and otherwise think of it as a kind of insanity, but that concept has been perceived as uncivilised and oppressive ever since a few decades ago.

Being around gays doesn't make you gay and gay people marrying doesn't make marriages between men and horses more reasonable. You have a very bad phobia there and you should seek a psychiatrist or just ignore it.

Accepting and respecting homosexuality doesn't create a dictatorship of transvestites who force you to be their lovetoy, just as sexual equality didn't replace all leaders by men-hating lesbians and racial equality didn't create an oppressive army of negroid hip-hoppers.

As a pupil I spent a lot of my freetime with our homosexual neighbors. They were a couple and they were perfectly normal people. I used to hang around with them a lot until they moved out and neither did they molest me nor did I develop a chest-hair fetish. Heck, the only thing it did to me is prove that homosexuals are perfectly normal people (even though you tend to see more excentric homosexuals than heteros, but maybe our society is to blame for that).

With that covered, could we PLEASE return to a more sensible topic?

 

[Big T]

Accepting and respecting homosexuality doesn't create a dictatorship of transvestites who force you to be their lovetoy, just as sexual equality didn't replace all leaders by men-hating lesbians and racial equality didn't create an oppressive army of negroid hip-hoppers.

*starts building temple to Ashmo*

 

[welsh]

Ashmo, I agree what you're saying. And you're right, that the government's recognition of homosexual rights doesn't mean you have to accept that.

But you are also talking about a lot of folks who are afraid of what is happening to their society and what might be an attack against one of the fundamental institutions of family life.

As pointed out above, it's about the line were moral values are drawn. One might have no problem with gay couples but might have a big problem with incestual couples or those who practice beastiality. Where do you draw that line?

The way you draw that line is either through popular vote or through legal resolution. Americans have generally said that they are not unsympathetic to "civil unions" which suggests that gays have the same legal rights as if legally married?

SO why not go all the way to "marriage?" Because words have meanings to people. For a lot of folks marriage is inherently tied to a statement of religion and tradition and they are not yet ready to give that up to alteration by government.

If people won't do it by popular vote, then gays might get the right to marry through court ruling.

In some ways the "civil union" might be a better alternative, if as a stepping stone. If the courts recognize that "Civil unions" should have the same legal meaning as marriage than the courts are faced with the old "seperate but equal" problem, and the court will probably rule that there should be no difference.

 

[Sander]

You have argued the "no harm, no foul" rule of morality- but that doesn't really sell. Like it or not, we live in a society in which the values of the community need to be represented. Even in the US, where the notion of individualism outstrips the notion of communitarianism that you have in Europe, that social value dominates how we act. Values may be an individual choice, but the norms that we uphold are usually socially constructed.

Give me a break, welsh. You're starting an argument along the lines of "Society thinks it's (not) okay, so we should abide by that". I didn't even touch that subject, because the entire point of what I'm arguing has nothing to do with what society thinks, but with what is right based on the laws and institues of equality.
In other words: I don't care as to what the majority of Americans think, I'm debating with Tone about whether they are right or not. This wasn't a debate about whether the American society is currently ready for it, this was about the principle of gay marriage.

If we don't stop at gay marriage, why not polygamy? If we can blur the aspects of gender in that definition than why not the notion of "a couple" and have one man marry four women like they have in Islam? What about incest? Why shouldn't a brother and sister who love each other romantically and are adults be allowed to marry? Ok, you might say it has to do with the danger to children- but what if they are incapable of having children? SHould that allow an exception, and if you start making exceptions when do you stop?

I'll give you a couple of questions to answer:
Why do you think polygamy is a bad thing if everyone is a consenting adult?
Why do you think incest is a bad thing if both are consenting adults?

I know you are going to say that beastiality hurts the animal, but unfortunately, animals don't have the rights as humans. We might have animal protection rules because society feels the need to protect animals from unnecessary community, but animals are property and should be used as the owner of that propety wishes- this is the right of owners to do what they want with property. So a rule against beastiality stops people from using their property and harming something that doesn't really have rights. But we decide as a society that you can't fuck your dog.

You know, I've said this before, and I'll say it again: animals do have rights, and they are gaining more and more rights ina lot of countries. Animal molestation is illegal, for instance, so is mistreatment, and so is bestiality.

Actually, I think one could argue that it's not harm done to the living but to future generations. I've often wondered about this... About why exactly people are afraid of it. Rational people who aren't necessarily religious. They know it can't harm them really so why do they care so much about it? It has to do with their children, their offspring, I believe.

They're afraid that their children might think it socially acceptable to be homsexual and this scares them. They want to be loving parents and yet... Dealing with something that's alien to them, something strange and unknown. They grew up and started a relationship with someone and that's how the child came to be in the first place, It's what they know, know how it works, feel that it's so right.

Still, why might they have a problem with this? Well, almost all parents want to see their children in their own image or want their child to be better than they could be. To grow up and be happy and have a family. I, personally, have a certain leaning toward this and understanding of it... Raising a teenager will be hard enough without them being homosexual. I would like my sons to find nice girls to marry and my daughters to find gentlemen of good repute to have children with.

So, damage? Maybe not immediate but some might see it as a threat to their progeny's futures and to their own.

I think most of you will have to admit, also, that there is a lingering sense of what is "right", biologically. A male 's body was obviously made to be compatible with a female's and vice-versa. Though this isn't very good reason to necessarily do anything about homosexuality, afterall, humans do a multitude of unnatural things each day.

You've just answered questions that were already answered by Tone, and then ignored my answer to his answers. I won't answer this again, I advise you to read what I wrote in response to Tone.

 

[SuAside]

i'm not going to voice any opinion here, but i'm going to throw some oil on the fire :p

have fun debating this
(i'm just going to stand back & watch the fireworks)

 

[Sander]

That's old. It's been posted here before just days before.

 

[Big T]

Already been posted (maybe not in this thread though, I'm not sure), also already been debunked somewhat based on the lack of support for IQ as a means for measuring intelligence.

Not to say that there's nothing in it, but I tend to think it's more that the states that went for Bush may have a lower standard of education than the ones that went for Kerry (Or am I talking out of the wrong end again?). But, as anyone who has spent any time amongst uneducated people can tell you, uneducated does not mean stupid.

Also, stop trolling please.

 

[SuAside]

That's old. It's been posted here before just days before.

sowwy

only followed this election-thread a bit

Already been posted (maybe not in this thread though, I'm not sure), also already been debunked somewhat based on the lack of support for IQ as a means for measuring intelligence.
Not to say that there's nothing in it, but I tend to think it's more that the states that went for Bush may have a lower standard of education than the ones that went for Kerry (Or am I talking out of the wrong end again?). But, as anyone who has spent any time amongst uneducated people can tell you, uneducated does not mean stupid.

yeah, figured that myself, but it was too beautiful to pass up

Also, stop trolling please.

ow come on, this is my only post that could be viewed as remotely trollish since i stopped posting on TO...

 

[Bradylama]

Already been posted (maybe not in this thread though, I'm not sure), also already been debunked somewhat based on the lack of support for IQ as a means for measuring intelligence.

Not to say that there's nothing in it, but I tend to think it's more that the states that went for Bush may have a lower standard of education than the ones that went for Kerry (Or am I talking out of the wrong end again?). But, as anyone who has spent any time amongst uneducated people can tell you, uneducated does not mean stupid.

It was debunked because the Hoaxer based his findings on the average salary of citizens in the states. Not, of course, taking into account such things as the cost of living, which in liberal states like New York and California, is VERY high. Considering the increadibly low cost of living in places like Montana, people that earn considerably less than those in "Blue States" actually attain a higher standard of living.