Author Topic: Dubya to Jump Shark (Read 5737 times)

Martlet · « **Reply #120 on:** February 25, 2004, 11:08:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
Wait a minute, so if a gay couple live together, have good jobs, pay taxes, are involved in their community, donate to local charities, and are model citizens, they are thrown in with prostitutes, drug pushers and pedophiles?

Nah, that wasn't what I was saying at all. Someone gave examples of things that were illegal and considered morally wrong. Someone else pointed out that those crimes had victims. I tossed out a few crimes that are usually accepted as being victimless, but outlawed primarily because of moral issues.

I'm not lumping anyone in with anybody. Nor do I necessarily disagree with the issue. I just can't see what options are open to the gay marriage opponents at this point other than to pursue a constitutional amendment.

Frogm4n · « **Reply #121 on:** February 25, 2004, 11:10:33 AM »

I do believe that drugs and prostitution should be legalized though. If people want to fry their brains and pay 100 bucks for bad sex more power to them.
Pornography already is so thats a mute point.

kappa · « **Reply #122 on:** February 25, 2004, 11:14:59 AM »

There are three types of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics...

Understanding that the majority of americans are for freedom and the pursuit of happiness, I can not believe that the majority of americans would be against gay marriage. I would believe instead that the majority of americans would consider the marriage of a gay couple to have absolutly zero impact on their own personal lifes. They might not support gay marrage because they are not gay, but I dont feel the majority of americans would prevent said marriage.

I think Jon Stewart said it best. 'This whole thing is the work of Chenney not wanting to have to pay for his gay daughter getting married.'

-dead- · « **Reply #123 on:** February 25, 2004, 11:28:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Man, I just went through this in another thread.

You have your morals, others have theirs. You think it doesn't affect you because it doesn't impact your morals. Others believe it does impact their morals vis-a-vis the society in which they live. So the argument boils down to a pretty black-and-white issue for both sides; anti-gay marriage folks have one picture of preferred society in their minds, pro-gay marriage folks have another for themselves. Both sides have the right to seek satisfaction. One side is going to wind up losing in the end- that's the way it goes. There is no sense getting all insulting and personal about it.

Pretty cut and dried - so tell me, now you've cleared up who I can and can't marry, what should I have for my dinner?

BTW as a gedanken experiment how comfortable do you feel with the statement you made above if we replace the emotive words: take out the word "moral" and insert "favourite meals" and take the word "gay marriage" and insert "potato salad":

"You have your favourite meals, others have theirs. You think it doesn't affect you because it doesn't impact your favourite meals. Others believe it does impact their favourite meals vis-a-vis the society in which they live. So the argument boils down to a pretty black-and-white issue for both sides; anti-potato salad folks have one picture of preferred society in their minds, pro-potato salad folks have another for themselves. Both sides have the right to seek satisfaction. One side is going to wind up losing in the end- that's the way it goes. There is no sense getting all insulting and personal about it."

Here's my point: I'm not pro-potato salad, it's not one of my favourite meals - I just don't think I should be able to tell anyone else that they can't enjoy potato salad just on the strength that it's not one of my favourite meals. It's not like they're even forcing me to have potato salad. In fact I don't think it's any of my damn business: if two people want to have a potato salad, if that's their favourite meal, it's up to them.

Now what is for dinner?

rpm · « **Reply #124 on:** February 25, 2004, 11:29:55 AM »

Martlet the crimes you listed were State Crimes, with the exception of a Drug Pusher and that would have to be on a large scale to fall under Federal jurisdiction. So it appears that it would have to be a state by state issue and the laws against same sex marrage would have to be written to comply with the Constitution.
What has happened is a Federal Court overturned an unconstitutional law. If you are really, really, really bothered that 2 people of the same sex want to get married then you need to call your State Legislature and have them write a law that IS constitutional. I'm sure if you sent some money to Pat Robertson that God will make it happen faster.
The United States is not a religious state. If you want to live in a religious state then you need to move to Iran or the Vatican. Short of that you just going to have to sit there and sulk about it like the rest of the Homophobes.

Martlet · « **Reply #125 on:** February 25, 2004, 11:30:41 AM »

Some people feel the morals, actions, and participation of individuals in some circumstances affect the community. You can't compare same sex marriage to lunch in terms of societal impact.

-dead- · « **Reply #126 on:** February 25, 2004, 11:31:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
Ok, well throw prostitution, drugs, and pornography onto the list, then.

Sounds like a serious party - I'll be round after dinner.

Martlet · « **Reply #127 on:** February 25, 2004, 11:33:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371
Martlet the crimes you listed were State Crimes, with the exception of a Drug Pusher and that would have to be on a large scale to fall under Federal jurisdiction. So it appears that it would have to be a state by state issue and the laws against same sex marrage would have to be written to comply with the Constitution.
What has happened is a Federal Court overturned an unconstitutional law. If you are really, really, really bothered that 2 people of the same sex want to get married then you need to call your State Legislature and have them write a law that IS constitutional. I'm sure if you sent some money to Pat Robertson that God will make it happen faster.
The United States is not a religious state. If you want to live in a religious state then you need to move to Iran or the Vatican. Short of that you just going to have to sit there and sulk about it like the rest of the Homophobes.

That's the point. Until the constitution is changed, no law making same sex marriage illegal will be constitutional. The constitution must be changed. I believe when it was written, the idea of same sex marriage wasn't even thinkable, otherwise, it would already be there.

majic · « **Reply #128 on:** February 25, 2004, 11:37:39 AM »

"I believe when it was written, the idea of same sex marriage wasn't even thinkable, otherwise, it would already be there."

I disagree, the framers of the Constituton wanted people to be free to run their own lives IMO.

Martlet · « **Reply #129 on:** February 25, 2004, 11:39:00 AM »

We'll never know. They didn't let women vote, though, so perhaps they only wanted men to be free to run their own lives?

Frogm4n · « **Reply #130 on:** February 25, 2004, 11:42:20 AM »

Can anyone that is against gay marriage tell give me a reason why they are against it other then a religious one? Sure the majority of americans do not approve of it, but hell 80 percent of americans were pro slavery right up to the civil war.
Because the majority believes something does not make it right.

Is there anyone that can give a real reason why gays shouldnt marry?

Martlet · « **Reply #131 on:** February 25, 2004, 11:45:48 AM »

**crickets**

Frogm4n · « **Reply #132 on:** February 25, 2004, 11:48:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
**crickets**

Because there really isn't a rational reason.

kappa · « **Reply #133 on:** February 25, 2004, 11:50:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Frogm4n
Because there really isn't a rational reason.

And thats the reason why I feel that most americans would be against a Constitutional Amendment even if they didnt 'agree' with same sex marriage..

Sixpence · « **Reply #134 on:** February 25, 2004, 11:50:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Frogm4n
Is there anyone that can give a real reason why gays shouldnt marry?

Because I don't believe brothers and sisters should marry, or men and cats, or any other extreme combination. If a man wants to shack up with a cat, that's his business, but I don't believe they should be allowed to marry. I don't believe it should be so, so I vote against it.(would vote against it)