Talk Elections

Fifty years ago today, our nation's highest court handed down a decision which to an oppressed people, was a clarion call of equal rights. Suddenly, the weight of injustice which had long strangled them under its imposing mass was beginning to be lifted.

Today, my home state has made another step forward for the equal rights of all of its citizens. For the first time in our nation's history, a state has extended the right to marry to all of its people, and has not confined them to a particular moral vision of a family. For the first time, they are free.

My soul is overjoyed. I have never before seen such an impressive step forward for civil rights. May this be the first step in a journey in which the walls of hatred that divide our country fall, once and for all.

Yes, especially since I read a story yesterday where a few of those who fought so hard for Brown vs BoE now regret their decision. People segregrate themselves naturally. We don't need to state forcing them apart.

Which people are they? What was the article?

I cannot oppose the personal choice to marry more than one person.

Do you have any moral boundries at all?

I do not believe morality should be the controlling point of the law.

I'm pro gay marriage but I'm not sure if I agree that it's a "right."

Alas my poor country, for we have given up morality.

Huzzah my great country, for we have increased freedom :)

Alas, we have cheapened marriage.

???

Totally unfounded.

My dear contry has opened the flood gates to ruin for the sacred union known as marriage.

We have increased freedom at the cost of personal morality. Their is such a thing as to much freedom.

This comes as a great disappointment, but not unexpected. The United States, like most of Europe, is falling into a moral decline. I suspect that soon that marriage between children and adults will be legalized; poligamy; incest; beastiality. Marriage has completely lost it's meaning from the reproductive union between a man and a woman to the sexual union of two individuals who are aroused at eachother's bodies. This sickens me to the core, but again, is not unexpected.

Beastiology?  Sounds more scientific than Beastiality.  Anyway, I don't mind gays getting married - couldn't care less.  Why they should want to baffles me, however.  

I do think this helps Bush in the election.

Woops, I've gotten into the habit of writing "beastiology"... bad Brambila.

Argh!  What the hell is so immoral about to grown, consenting adults getting married?!  Stop believing in "how it was meant to be" and more on what people want to do with their own lives.  All I see when I see gay marriages happen is happy people.  Yet, our president finds it "disturbing"?  You republicans loved shouting about freedom so much when you were justifying the war.  But now, freedom is immoral and wrong!?  Make up your mind!  

Maybe he sees' it as I do a threat to our national interest. On a family and personal level?

What will become of family values now?

Here is where they will go :


()

Here is the prblem with gay marriage.  But declaring that marraige is to be between any two people who love each other, and that the primary purpose of marriage is to give state sanction to love, we break the traditional link between marriage and child-rearing.  By seperating the two, we make out-of-wedlock childbirth more acceptable, we make divorce in marriages taht have children more acceptable, and we will therefore increase the rate of single parents in America.  This is not wild specualtion either, there is empirical evidence from Scandanavia of this very phenomenon.

What people need to realize is that it isn't always just about letting people be "happy" or "free", or about us being "accepting" or "tolerant".  Part of what needs to be considered is the actual societal impact of changing the nation's laws.  The law signifies what is and isn't accepted by society, and by changing the law, we change social norms.  Changing this particular social norm would be very harmful.

Its just a marriage certificate, and your states won't even recognize this! Cool up on the blasphermous gay-bashing. They deserve equal treatment from everyone.

I would respond to that by saying that the change in societal mores has removed a great deal of stigma from the practice of bearing children out of the confines of matrimony. Therefore, the once clear relationship between marriage and reproduction does not exist any longer, and the concept of fertility within certain constraints is no longer a legitimate goal that the state may advance without maligning a broadened concept of equal protection.

Maybe in Cambridge, Mass. but not in Dothan, Alabama or Perry, Florida. I'm sorry but what you think is good for Mass. is not always good for the South. Once again your people are NOT and I repeat NOT by any stretch superior to southerners.

Where in that post did I say we were?

Interestingly enough, NAMBLA is arguing the same things homosexuals are arguing- WE LOVE EACHOTHER. Is it true love, or sexual arousal?

I'd have to study such relationships on a case by case basis to answer correctly, Brambila.

Yes you would.

So you are saying if a 10 year old boy wants to have a sexual relationship with a 30 year old man that would be acceptable? Sick.

Not a 10 year old. But when he attains the common law age of maturity as practiced, 14, I'd say it's his Constitutional right.

And don't let your gag reflex override your jurisprudence.

Migrendal-
You have said in another thread that you oppose cultural practices that encourage women to stay at home to care for children.

But don't you think that most exisiting cultures that sanction polygamy are oppressive to women to an even greater extent (e.g. fundamentalist Mormon and Muslim communities)?  

I would go so far as to say that polygamy, like pedopilia, is inherently oppressive, at least in the forms that it is seen in real life.

I don't think polygamy is comparable to gay marriage, where the same concerns about oppression don't exist.

But the personal choice to marry whom one chooses must be there, even it means legalized polygamy.

So you do agree there should be an age of consent then?

If grounded in a theory of personal liberty and based upon current sociological evidence of maturity or a convincing analysis of legal tradition and interpretation, than yes I can support an age of consent, provided it is not excessively high.

We're stupid and hormonal.  Get used to it :)

That might be, but you still have rights.

Should a first wife have to approve before a husband can marry a second wife?

No, it is the husband's choice. But she is free to find another husband without her current one's consent.

But isn't a marriage a contract between people stating that they will remain faithful only to each other?  Why should one person be allowed to unilaterally break that contract?

That's just sheer stupidity and beyond the realm of reality.

May I ask if you've ever entertained the question of the implications of laws criminalizing polygamy with regard to liberty? And please, your rude comments as to the putative intelligence of my writings are unwarranted. Defend what you believe, don't insult.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not between a man and a man or a woman/woman or 5 men and 5 women. If we are going to do that abolish marriage completely.

Says who?

Tradition, history and the law.

Nothing good can come from Mass.

Migrendel, of course, is going to ask "says who?". And that's a good question- who says? Why do we follow morality? Why do we do good and not bad? What is the purpose of right and worng?

A perfect example of how marriage has been diminished is proven by Migrendel's belief. First marriage is between a man and a woman. Then it's a man and man. Then it's three men and three women... why doesn't the entire world just forget about marriage?

Then have a big sex party!! haha just joking.. I tell you why we need it. Because it keeps order. With out morality, people would go around killing people. They would would be like Iraq was on a bad day. I don't care who is gay or not. Gay people don't need to get marriaged! If they want to get marriaged well then they are SOL.

In Migrendels world this is how it would be..

If you are 15 you can have sex with anyone you want no matter what. If your parents are against it or stop you they can be arrested for violation of a childs "constitutional rights". If a 15 year old gets pregnant as a result of screwing around they can have an abortion w/out consent or knowledge of a parent. Then when she is ready she can marry 2-10 different men depending on her choice. She then can have as many children as she wants and never see them because she is using her right to go out and work and spend absolutely no time with her children because that would mess with their right to think for themselves and be independent. Then when the child acts out and puts her mother in the hospital the mother would have no right to spank her because that would be violation of a childs "rights".

Are you sure this isn't PD?

No i am josh.. from north carolina I don't even know who PD is!

There is a difference between universal moral principles, like acting such that you do not harm others, and moral laws dictated only by specific religions.

Pres. Bush trying to outlaw gay marriage is no more acceptable to a free society than Pres. Kerry trying to outlaw eating meat on Fridays during Lent.

Well I can care less about gay people. They are going to hell because they are gay and that is it. They don't need to be srewing up our nation, just because they want  some stupid  paper saying they are a married.

Yeah, that sounds like our ol' PD.

Dude, get a life.  You realize you sound almost as extreme as Migrendel?  Perhaps more so - and he's talking about lowering the age of consent to 12!

Once again Im not PD. Also I do have a life. I am just very sick to death of them gay people yelling there stupid heads off.

I am having PD flashbacks.

I don't think they like you yelling your head off either :)

Those of us in the center just wonder if we could discuss things rationally and try to leave Hell out of it.

This is what Josh sounds like :

I don't hate them, I hate their actions.

I doubt they're wild about your actions either...

and do I care?

TROLL haha just picking.  StatesRight I am not a troll. I did not take over your party.

I'd like to see that.

Me too.

My position is for the latter.  Leave marriage to the church, we don't need the government deciding what to recognize and what not to.

Why do you have so much hate inside you??

I don't agree with you often migrendel, but I sure do on this issue.  Sexual liberty and puberty should be contemporaneous - its just common sense!

Personally I couldn't care less whether it's called marriage or not. I am a not a christian, therefore it would be wrong of me to tell the church what or what not to do.
However I would say this, I think a couple whether gay or straight has a RIGHT to have their partnership recognised by the STATE for reasons of tax, inheritance etc.
I am in favour of civil unions at least, simply because it's unfair if two people live together in a loving relationship and one dies, their partner is not entitled to anything. They can even be made homeless. Now that is WRONG. However you feel about the religious side, you must admit, that is very unfair. Straight unmarried couples are in the same position. I couldn't care less whether the church recognises it, however the state definately should.
The next of kin laws in these cases are ridiculous. the partner should be the next of kin.

How about all the legal rights/benifits/etc that goes with marriage without using the word?

too wimpy.
FIGHT THE POWER BROTHA!!

I hate wedge issues... they just divide people... :(

While I strongly disagree with the positions taken by the likes of Brambila and StatesRights, they at least make an attempt to argue their position intelligently.

This highly offensive and bigoted ranting should not be tolerated.  Would the good people of this forum tolerate racial slurs, i.e. using the N word to refer to black people?  I don't think so.  The language used by Josh is just as offensive and inappropriate.  Well, okay, I'll grant that he didn't call us f****ts, but he comes close.

I am going to use the little "report to moderator" button on the posts I have quoted above.

Just ignore Josh22, he's a troll.

It's probably PD under a different guise.

How about marriage without all the legal rights/benefits/etc that currently go with it? For everybody, that is.
Down with pointless subsidies!

PS Josh is not PD. PD had no sense of humor and would have felt attacked even by my little "I'd like to see that" post. Really I'm quite glad that child isn't around anymore.

Yes, that's sort of what I meant! Why get rapped up with religious dogma?
I don't have a problem with the church's opposition, however I DO object to the states refusal to grant legal recognition to non-married couples (gay or straight). Total separation of Church and State!

Josh22 obviously existed as a previous entity, look at the number of posts. If PD no longer exists as a member it must be him.

PBrunsel, if you think gay and lesbian couples who have been together for years and years and finally have a right to marriage is ruining the sacred union known as marriage, then you apparentely haven't been looking around the nation the past several years.

Look at the divorce rates, and pay attention to the cases of abuse that have been going on for much longer then the concept of same-sex marriage has been around.  From what I've seen, there's a severe lack of love in this country, and too much ignorance and hate.

I mostly agree with Lunar, same-sex marriage is not a right in and of itself, but government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage anyway. "Civil Unions" should be the term for every single couple, whether hetero or homosexual. "Marriage" should be reserved for what it was meant for -- the churches.

Agree completely!

He previously existed as Josh4Bush. Not for that long though. And I'm not saying he's my favourite poster or anything close, just neither PD nor as bad as PD.

Go Nation ;D

Who defines the "universal moral principles"? Why do we have to stop when it harms others?


I think it would do you some good living in San Francisco for a while. I really dislike the gay movement, but I don't know what it is with some gay people... they're just halerious. My aunt has a friend who's gay, and he's halerious. He's just so gay, it's funny. He came over to our house one time and said "Oh my God your sink is soooo cute!!" and we were cracking up.

Meanwhile, my uncle, who is also gay, is not very nice, a drug addict, and dying from AIDS.


I completely agree... one of my liberatarian beliefs. Because technically in the Catholic Church, if you're not married in the Church, your marriage is invalid. So it really doesn't matter.


I would allow most of the rights, but not all. I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children, for instance. Two dad's can't make a mom, and studies show that children have a high prevelency to turn out with serious problems when missing a parental figure.


Look who's talking!

What d'ya mean?
How could I be considered a troll?

He just changed the screenname, it is still the same user, click his name, it still says Username: Josh4Bush

I thought there was an interesting piece today by Jeff Jacoby of The Boston Globe.  Also, Howard Kurtz "Media Notes" today makes the point that the press coverage of gay/lesbian marriage is fairly one-sided.  I think I have to agree with Jeff and Howard.  Anyone else notice this?  It's possible to be in agreement with the "cultural elites" and support gay marriage, but still notice that, given that at least half of my countryment don't, the press coverage seems unnecessarily biased.  This remains a very divisive issue, and our newspapers are not doing it justice.  They have forgone intellectual justice in favor of journalistic activism.  I think it stinks.  I mean, I think anyone ought to marry whomever they want, and even I can say that I think this biased coverage stinks.  Good thing those who know what's best for us are willing to save us from ourselves!

Here's a sample:

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby chides the media, saying the state's judges "...knew they would have the support of the cultural elites, for whom individual autonomy and the pursuit of happiness often seem to be the highest social values. In the allegedly 'progressive' mindset, which dominates what you read in the paper and see on TV, social traditions exist to be challenged, family structure is highly flexible, and the mainstreaming of homosexuality is something only haters or fanatics could oppose."

"No surprise, then, that the media depiction of the same-sex marriage controversy has been strikingly one-sided. The views of those who favor it are often and prominently featured; their appeals to justice and compassion are repeatedly quoted, echoed, and expanded on. There has been a shower of celebratory coverage centered on the wedding plans of gays and lesbians, and upbeat descriptions of all sorts of related matters, from the marketing of wedding dresses for lesbians to the first Bride's magazine article on same-sex ceremonies."

"But there is rarely an admiring story about those who take a stand against throwing out the ancient definition of marriage. Rarely does the coverage suggest that they might have an argument worth listening to or an insight worth considering."

Here's the media notes column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/kurtzhoward/

As long as that defence is done mostly in the PD or even Brambila vein, I guess the media are actually helping them by not broadcasting them much...

I think you may be right.  In fact, on public radio this morning was a brief interview with a man who said all the images of two men kissing, or two women in love, etc, will ultimately help his case.  

So, not only are the foul bastards emitting the "rest of the story" but also they are unwittingly helping the traditionalists.  Now I have two reasons to impugn the press.

Certainly the media tend to be socially more liberal than the country as a whole.  But how do conservatives suggest the media cover this story in an unbiased way?  Everytime I see a discussion segment on the story, they always have both sides represented.  

For a lot of people, it still does exist.  Maybe not to all, but most kids here are born in a married family.  I admit, the concept is weaker tahn fifty years ago, but that doesn't mean that its okay to weaken it further.

From StatesRights:

If you are 15 you can have sex with anyone you want
 no matter what. If your parents are against it or stop you they can be arrested for violation of a childs "constitutional rights". If a 15 year old gets pregnant as a result of screwing around they can have an abortion w/out consent or knowledge of a parent. Then when she is ready she can marry 2-10 different men depending on her choice. She then can have as many children as she wants and never see them because she is using her right to go out and work and spend absolutely no time with her children because that would mess with their right to think for themselves and be independent. Then when the child acts out and puts her mother in the hospital the mother would have no right to spank her because that would be violation of a childs "rights".

Well, StatesRights, if you change 15 to 14 in the age of consent section that's about it.

And, John Ford, births in wedlock are growing less common and frankly, I don't see the moral difference.

Migrendel, the only reason why births in wedlock are decreasing is becuase teens are having less sex.

Well, no one has to bear a child, but some people decide to. And if they do it outside of wedlock, we have no reason to celebrate that child's birth any less. For at that moment, they have boundless potential.

I'm not a big moralist, so I wouldn't say that I see a moral difference, but two-income households and two parent households tend to do a better job of providing financially for their kids and tend to be able to generally raise a kid better.  The main reason is that all the pressure isn't put on one person.  Obviously, there are rare exceptions where the two parent situation, when maybe one parent is abusive or an alchoholic, but generally speaking, a two parent family has an easier time raising a kid.  If we do something to further weaken the link between marriage and child rearing, we hurt children.

Migrendel. A serious question for you. If we find out that their is a gene that makes people gay and doctors recommended that women get abortions w/babies with such defects would you find that acceptable? If this list were diseases or defects such as downs, spinal bifada <sp> or homosexuality? A serious question.

Too much is made of this issue in my opinion.
There are far more important things to worry about.
Why not just legalise civil unions and have done with it. Let those who want to marry, for marriage sakes let them fight with the church about it.

Even from you, StatesRights, I cannot believe such a question.

The Medical profession does not, in this day and age, reccomend abortion for any defect of the child, real or imagined.

It is not my personal inclination to support that as a reason to have an abortion. However, I feel it is a woman's choice, and if she does not wish to give birth to a homosexual child, so be it.

That is SICK! Homosexual is not something that 'ruins the quality of life' of any individual, why would a mother choose to abort it!!! Besides...they cant test for that yet and by saying that it is a possibility means you now accept that homosexuals are simply born that way. Well done.

I probably agree with you Lunar... I just have really mixed feelings on this, if two people love each other than I believe that they should have the possibility of their stable long term relationship being recognised and them being allowed to marry... but I'm not sure if its "right" or "desirable"... I just don't know its a contentious issue and I haven't got a solid view.  
   

Because a woman has a choice, aflteich. It is not my duty to pry into her reasoning. But in principle, I have to make my position, even if it means that I run the risk of never having been born.

Lets make this clear.

Human A. Cannot Kill Human B.

Now if Human A. is a mother and Human B is the child growing within her, then Human A still can’t Kill Human B "the Child".... Its that simple.

That said during the first trimmest and in extraordinary circumstances there after I see no reason why the woman should not have the option to have an abortion much as I may disagree.

How much that statement resembles the sixth commandment. But much like the sixth commandment, it is an oversimplification not in keeping with the complexity of modern life and changes in the concept of morality.

So are you now saying that murder is permissible? I do not deny that killing another human being can be necessary, but only in extraordinary circumstances… as a rule I think that it is very fair to say that a human being would be in grave error to deprive another human being of life and that includes cases where it is a case of a mother wanting outside of the trimester to kill her child. Sorry funny old notion “that”.. ya know that people shouldn’t kill one another, every human being is endowed with inalienable rights and amougst them is the right to live.

Now if you want a discussion on morality well lets break out the Neitchzer, and then Plato’s theory of the forms and for good measure the bible….I’ll have to sharpen up but if you really want a dissuasion of moral relativism then sure go ahead. That said I doubt it would get us anywhere…          

I don't see the logic in this "choice" argument, at all. Yes, the mother has a choice- good for her. But nobody has unlimited choices. I have a choice to rape a woman or not to- am I going to do it? Clearly not. I have a choice to murder my brother- can I do it? No. I have a choice to kill my dog because I don't want it anymore. Can I do it? No. Clearly, the woman does have a choice, but that doesn't justify anything.

But clearly, you don't have any respect towards humanity in infancy. You believe that premature infants can still be legally killed. Do you think abortions should be allowed if the child is born late, and after 9 months?

What is wrong with States asking this question?

I don't think he does - but I certainly believe that homosexuality occurs naturally... thus there must be something in the genes that causes or encourages it.  So it is possible that 10 or 20 years down the road there could be a sexuality test that could be performed on the fetus.

Since, in Migrendel's world, its all about the "choice" of the mother, it doesn't matter what the doctors think or how stupid the reasoning is.  There will be pre-born babies murdered for being homosexual.  Thanks liberals!

Well if some bigot decides to have an abortion because her kid will be gay, it's better than her having it and then probably abusing the kid.

Of course, they'd be hypocrites for having abortions anyway.

A child should definately not be aborted for being gay, that's disgraceful. Abortion should be outlawed except for serious medical reasons or rape.

Legalizing gay marriage may change social norms in a positive way--it could emphasize the egalitarian aspect of marriage.

Hmm how? Ones we have gay marriages then we have 3 people in one marriage. Then before you know it people would just forget marriage!

I agree that it's possible that someday the sexual orientation of a fetus could be known...

It would certainly be terrible to abort a fetus in this situation. However, there wouldn't be a point of having laws against that (as long as abortion is legal)--a woman could lie and say she wanted an abortion for some other reason.

This concept would also apply to the idea of aborting a fetus not of the desired sex.

I'd wonder what a pro-life homophobic woman would do in that hypothetical situation...

Polygamy does not advance women's rights--most cultures that condone it are pretty misogynistic. Gay couples are certainly more egalitarian than straight couples--studies have shown that wives adapt more than husbands do, even in couples that claim to have egalitarian values.

So are you saying that women sould rule the house? or both man and women should rule the house?

The second one. Sorry if that was unclear.

Yea me too.

Wrong. When my wife was pregnant we had a AFP test run and they said their was a higher risk then average of our baby being born with Downs Syndrome. Abortion was recommended as one option and I almost hit the doctor.  Thank God everything is ok and I have a perfectly healthy daughter.

I never said it was a genetic or from birth. It's one possibility but I don't really buy it.

When you think about it by and large it’s a choice shaped by psychological factors that said you’re probably genetically predisposed to it. But look through history and the evidence that it is nurture is very strong in Sparta Homosexuality amongst men was the norm and the vast majority of men where Homosexual. In the Renaissance sexuality (meaning at the time any sexual activity that was not engaged in for the procreation of children) be it gay or straight neither was seen as much different from the other. The simple fact is that its Mostly a choice be it at a subconscious level but it is probably influenced by your genetic predispositions.    

It is a fact that sexuality is not black and white, not in humans or anyother species. They are various shades of grey. 80% of sexuality is genetic, the rest is due to environment. This is why occassionally people will experiment and indeed in many Arab countries this is common place as a way of getting experience. Islam forbids sex outside of marriage.

How do you seperate the men from boys in Greece?









With a crowbar!! :D :D :D

Not just Greece - the Muslim lands are rife with homosexuality.  Stands to reason - anywhere women are not available sexually, like in prison, there will be situational homosexuality.

I'm not sure homosexuality is anymore common in Arab nations or Greece for that matter, however homosexual sex is. Most men in places like Morocco & Egypt do not get married until their 30's, therefore it is the only way of gaining experience and/or relieving urges. I'm sure most of these men are not entirely straight however.

Precisely!  Life in Muslim countries is precisely comparable to life in a Western prison.

HockeyDude--

Please email me at enyman90@yahoo.com. Thanks.