Forum puts Democrats in hot seat over gay issues

[AsburySkinsFan]

I contend that that is the best option for everyone involved. If there is one marraige that essentially boils down to tax breaks and another that marries you before god, then it would be up to the churches themselves (which could not be regulated in the same way as other institutions) to allow or forbid gay marraige. They SHOULD NOT have anything to do with one another: the church marraige should be a spiritual and symbolic act, not an excuse to pay less taxes, wouldn't you agree?

That is indeed my contention, and indeed this is the way that it used to be done, the problem is that the State would soon force the churches to turn over the information on the people we join in union in the same way that they did once the state took over the church during the Roman empire.

[Larry]

So would you support a state rights if they passed a law that allowed a man to marry is daughter even if both were consenting and of age?

I'd be really opposed to the law. (My point about FLKs.) But I don't see any Federal authority to intervene. (Although the whole "promote the general welfare" thing has been stretched a lot. Maybe it would stretch that far.)

[AsburySkinsFan]

I maintain that that state was reached long ago.

I disagree, for the simple reason that when I perform a marriage I still have to file state paperwork.

[twa]

Please point out to me the reasons other than equality that mandated suffrage and abolition. The reasons that were more compelling than "I am an American citizen".

Are you serious?

I actually admire your effort to correct a injustice as you see it,but to invite a similar comparison to slavery or women not even being able to vote is a terrible reach imo.

Are men and women treated equally under the law?

No, so there are obviously other factors in play in addressing issues of equality.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'd be really opposed to the law. (My point about FLKs.) But I don't see any Federal authority to intervene. (Although the whole "promote the general welfare" thing has been stretched a lot. Maybe it would stretch that far.)

Really though by your argument people should be allowed to marry whoever they want and all religious morality issues should be ignored in favor of the citizen's choice, so for you to be opposed to one law that would allow two consenting adults to marry and be in favor of another based on your understanding of what is best for the general welfare seems a bit arbitrary; wouldn't you say?

[Winslowalrob]

That is indeed my contention, and indeed this is the way that it used to be done, the problem is that the State would soon force the churches to turn over the information on the people we join in union in the same way that they did once the state took over the church during the Roman empire.

So then you, Larry, and I are all in agreement, except for turning the information over stuff. If the civil marraiges were completely independent of church marraiges, though, to the point that gays could get married by the state and churches could deny them if they so chose, then why should we just not all try to get that passed instead of bickering over whether the lifestyle is good or not, or making "if gays are allowed to marry, then fathers will marry their daughters" arguments?

[Larry]

Are you serious?

Your claim was that equality wasn't a good enough reason for suffrage and abolition, that there had to be better reasons.

I wasn't around for either, but to me, "equality" was a good enough reason all on it's own, but your claim was that there had to be better reasons.

I'm asking you what those better reasons were.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So then you, Larry, and I are all in agreement, except for turning the information over stuff.

No because I still believe that its wrong no matter what laws are passed, and as such I am not in favor of any laws that are passed that perpetuate something that I view as wrong for both individuals and the common good. So as a citizen who is concerned with the common good I would be opposed to such legislation.

or making "if gays are allowed to marry, then fathers will marry their daughters" arguments?

My point by making that argument is clear enough, and it points to the fact that everyone accuses those in the church of forcing their morality on others yet they themselves are blind to the fact that they are quite willing to do the same thing given certain circumstances. The point is that we are really debating which morality should be legislated.

[Larry]

Really though by your argument people should be allowed to marry whoever they want and all religious morality issues should be ignored in favor of the citizen's choice, so for you to be opposed to one law that would allow two consenting adults to marry and be in favor of another based on your understanding of what is best for the general welfare seems a bit arbitrary; wouldn't you say?

Society has a compelling reason for preventing incest. (Birth defects.)

Just as they have a compelling interest in preventing armed robbery. (People's right not to be robbed.)

All laws restrict freedom. But sometimes a law restricting freedom is necessary.

Unfortunately for the "man and woman" crowd, there is no such compelling reason why gays have to be denied equal treatment.

Gays getting married will not lead to gays giving birth to defective children.

It won't even lead to more gays. (Nobody in Mass is going to get up tomorrow and say "well, I used to be straight, but now that it's legal for me to have a gay marriage, I'm going to 'change sides'.")

The only reason for denying equal treatment to gays is "I don't like gays."

[AsburySkinsFan]

Society has a compelling reason for preventing incest. (Birth defects.)

What about if the father or daughter has a procedure keeping them from having children? If birth defects are the lone reason for objecting then I cannot see how you could be opposed to such a marriage.

[Enter Apotheosis]

However, in answer to the question "Why is this such a big deal to you?":

...

Well said :applause:

On a side note: I'm still amazed that there are people out there who think that you can't support a cause without involuntarily being right in the middle of it.

The fact is they don't want equal rights under the law. If they did, than if we allowed them civil unions and equal right but not marriage, see if the gay community accepts that. dollars to donuts they fight that and still want marriage.

Thats a load of bull. Of course they want equal rights under the law... but, as I've said before, its not all they want. A lot of people will quiet down if you give them equal rights and everyone will be happier but there will always be those who won't rest until they get recognition as truly equal citizens.

Simple solution

Get government out of marriage. Stop giving tax benifits to married people, spousal stuff etc etc

Keep it as a thing with people who are religious

Let insurance companies, finance companies etc etc sort it out on a case by case basis

That seems to me to be among the most viable solutions, simply because it removes the complications associated with the government (not just individual politicians) having a stake in the matter. Nevertheless, its probably not going to be happening anytime soon... its been a long time since we've really had the government voluntarily retract any of the control its gained.

Which would prove my point that they are equal under the law,except in cases where the law does not apply to them.

Can I as a man use laws benefiting women?

Can a white use laws benefiting minorities?

To answer both questions... yes, you can use those laws. It's true that they were often created to protect a specific group but said laws often have language that can be extended across the board.

A white man can be deemed a victim of a hate crime, a man can benefit from spousal abuse laws, etc. The only hold-up is often public perception and the perceptions of individual judges.

[SparkleMotion]

What about bisexual people? If it's true that people can be sexually confused and eventually lean more towards one direction than another, wouldn't completely normalizing homosexuality by allowing gay marriage create more widespread sexual confusion?

[twa]

Your claim was that equality wasn't a good enough reason for suffrage and abolition, that there had to be better reasons.

I wasn't around for either, but to me, "equality" was a good enough reason all on it's own, but your claim was that there had to be better reasons.

I'm asking you what those better reasons were.

I think you are misstating my post.

Quote twa

""A well reasoned debate putting forth the need for change is a requirement for change...rather than demands and name calling.

Suffrage was not granted and slavery did not end until a need to do so was evident.""

There were injustices/harm being done that were clearly evident to a majority .

Can you say the same for this issue?.

Obviously not since I have asked repeatedly for compelling reasons without much success...(though Predicto made a decent effort in the other thread)

__________________

[Larry]

No because I still believe that its wrong no matter what laws are passed, and as such I am not in favor of any laws that are passed that perpetuate something that I view as wrong for both individuals and the common good.

OK. We got it. You don't like gays, and to you, that's a good reason why the law should compel them to live as second-class citizens. That's exactly what I've been saying (about your position) for years.

My point by making that argument is clear enough, and it points to the fact that everyone accuses those in the church of forcing their morality on others yet they themselves are blind to the fact that they are quite willing to do the same thing given certain circumstances. The point is that we are really debting which morality should be legislated.

No, we aren't.

Unless you consider "The government should treat all citizens equally, and should only use it's power to restrict freedom when there is a compelling reason why such restriction is necessary to protect the rights and/or freedoms of someone else" (or it's simpler cousin, "Bigotry is wrong.) to be a statement of morality. If that's your point, then yeah, this is a discussion of differing moralities.

(Although, I'll point out: Even if you want to claim that "equality" and "discrimination" are simply two different moralities, "equal protection under the law" is a "morality" that's protected in the Constitution, whereas "the power to keep down a group of people that a bigger group of people don't like" isn't.)

[Winslowalrob]

No because I still believe that its wrong no matter what laws are passed, and as such I am not in favor of any laws that are passed that perpetuate something that I view as wrong for both individuals and the common good. So as a citizen who is concerned with the common good I would be opposed to such legislation.

My point by making that argument is clear enough, and it points to the fact that everyone accuses those in the church of forcing their morality on others yet they themselves are blind to the fact that they are quite willing to do the same thing given certain circumstances. The point is that we are really debating which morality should be legislated.

Fair enough, but then how about we seperate church marraiges from church marraiges at least? Because it seems that you are really in favor of that...

[Winslowalrob]

I think you are misstating my post.

Quote twa

""

Suffrage was not granted and slavery did not end until a need to do so was evident.""

There were injustices/harm being done that were clearly evident to a majority .

__________________

If I can interject here, are you saying that everything up to Suffrage and Slavery was NOT an evident injustice to the majority of people, and that a majority of people pushed for change? That I guess the "market corrected itself" as it were because many people saw the need for change?

[Winslowalrob]

Double post because I am a moron

[AsburySkinsFan]

OK. We got it. You don't like gays, and to you, that's a good reason why the law should compel them to live as second-class citizens.

And its comments like this that will ensure that people will ignore your comments for years to come. My wife's cousin in Lexington is a lesbian living with her partner, and I like them both very much; she is a kind person, she's good with our kids and active in her church, but my like for them does not mean that I also approve of their chosen life-style or legislation that would endorse their chosen lifestyle. So if you're going to continue down this road of "you don't like gays" then we're finished here.

[Winslowalrob]

OK. We got it. You don't like gays, and to you, that's a good reason why the law should compel them to live as second-class citizens. That's exactly what I've been saying (about your position) for years.

No, we aren't.

Unless you consider "The government should treat all citizens equally, and should only use it's power to restrict freedom when there is a compelling reason why such restriction is necessary to protect the rights and/or freedoms of someone else" (or it's simpler cousin, "Bigotry is wrong.) to be a statement of morality. If that's your point, then yeah, this is a discussion of differing moralities.

(Although, I'll point out: Even if you want to claim that "equality" and "discrimination" are simply two different moralities, "equal protection under the law" is a "morality" that's protected in the Constitution, whereas "the power to keep down a group of people that a bigger group of people don't like" isn't.)

Larry, playboi, you is a genius but do not play the "you don't like gays" card with Asbury because it will not get you far.

[Larry]

I think you are misstating my post.

Quote twa

""A well reasoned debate putting forth the need for change is a requirement for change...rather than demands and name calling.

Suffrage was not granted and slavery did not end until a need to do so was evident.""

There were injustices/harm being done that were clearly evident to a majority .

Can you say the same for this issue?.

Obviously not since I have asked repeatedly for compelling reasons without much success...

So your point is "sufferage and abolition didn't happen simply because they were right, they happened because the majority decided they were right"?

And I've given you, about 100 times, a compelling reason:

Equality

On the other side of the "scale of justice", you've put?

(Your repeated declaration that, in your opinion, equality isn't a good enough reason to grant equality. That the "default condition" of government is that the government must discriminate, unless there's a good enough reason not to. That discrimination doesn't have to be justified, only ending it does.)

(Which kind-of reminds me of all the Right-wing talking machine declaring that we can't possibly discuss leaving Iraq without a detailed, step=by-step plan which guarantees a happy ending, while ignoring the fact that they had no trouble invading without such a plan. That starting a war doesn't need a plan, but ending one does.)

[Enter Apotheosis]

What about bisexual people? If it's true that people can be sexually confused and eventually lean more towards one direction than another, wouldn't completely normalizing homosexuality by allowing gay marriage create more widespread sexual confusion?

Most likely it wouldn't create more widespread anything. I'd be willing to bet that you might notice more people who are bisexual or sexually confused due to the relative acceptance of homosexuality but the actual numbers of said people would be about the same.

It does beg the question, though... is sexual 'confusion' necessarily detrimental to society? I strongly lean towards 'no' as the simple answer (but I would undoubtedly imagine that it would be a pretty big 'yes' coming from anyone with strong religious leanings).

[twa]

If I can interject here, are you saying that everything up to Suffrage and Slavery was NOT an evident injustice to the majority of people, and that a majority of people pushed for change? That I guess the "market corrected itself" as it were because many people saw the need for change?

Yes, to change a existing dynamic you must either change public perceptions(which will allow the law to change) or have the courts change the laws(which would result in another mess like Roe vs Wade imo).

Rights not granted under the constitution need public approval.

Added

Since Larry is breaking out the big print let me clarify that the benefits of marriage are a ADDITIONAL benefit that was generally accepted between a man and a woman by society from before RIGHTS existed..

NOT a right granted,but rather the value recognized.

[Larry]

And its comments like this that will ensure that people will ignore your comments for years to come. My wife's cousin in Lexington is a lesbian living with her partner, and I like them both very much; she is a kind person, she's good with our kids and active in her church, but my like for them does not mean that I also approve of their chosen life-style or legislation that would endorse their chosen lifestyle. So if you're going to continue down this road of "you don't like gays" then we're finished here.

And yet you continue to demand that the government must discriminate against them. That they must be denied access to the benefits of society which you have access to.

And your justification for why the government must discriminate against them is? Your personal opinion that they are wrong, and that therefore society must punish them.

And once again. Not one person (in this thread) is advocating "legislation that would endorse their chosen lifestyle".

Several people (including you) are advocating legislation that would punish their lifestyle.

Which they (and you) justify simply by declaring their dislike for it.

I'm sure George Wallace knew several black people, when he stood in the schoolhouse door to prevent blacks from entering a white school. He'd have told you over and over that he didn't hate blacks. He just didn't want them to have equal rights. Because, . . . , well, because they just weren't as good as white folks, or because if blacks were allowed in the white school, they'd contaminate the institution, and after all, who'd object to defending the institution of teaching our children?

[Larry]

What about if the father or daughter has a procedure keeping them from having children? If birth defects are the lone reason for objecting then I cannot see how you could be opposed to such a marriage.

You must have missed my earlier statement that, IMO, if two brothers wanted to get married, I'd say they've got a case. (Just like I'd be in favor of waiving the blood-test requirement if the couple applying for marriage are over 65.)

[AsburySkinsFan]

And yet you continue to demand that the government must discriminate against them. That they must be denied access to the benefits of society which you have access to.

Civil Union as opposed to marriage is discrimination and denies them access to the benefits of society? Oh, and this whole separate but equal, George Wallace stuff really does fall far short of two people with a chosen lifestyle wanting the State and Feds to not only acknowledge their choice, but also legislate their choice.

This is not a racial thing, because race is not a choice and this is.