Political Philosophy: An arguement in support of Gay rights

[Jaroslaw]

MT Bender -

Well, unfortunately I don’t have an encyclopedic memory - but in the most general terms, marriage has been many things over the course of many centuries and many cultures, childbearing being only one, even if the most important. I guess I was assuming since this was the great ‘Gay’ debate page, we were moving into the future. Marriage in our society doesn’t require fertility of the couples nor does it require fertile couples to have children. Marriage is for love, financial stability, medical power of attorney, inheritance and a host of other benefits which can easily be demonstrated to apply to Gay couples as well.

I’ve already answered #2 above.

Re: discrimination - relating your examples to the topic at hand, ALL 17 year olds, Gay, Straight, any race, any gender, can enter the military and yet cannot vote. So it isn’t the same kind of discrimination. Affirmative action isn’t precisely discrimination as I understand it, in any event, it seems to be more of an issue to discuss than one having a great effect. There are less African Americans in law school now than before AA!

Re; ‘healthy child’ - homosexuals do have children by various means (former regular marriages, adoption, artificial insemination etc.) I would ask are their children less worthy of the protections and benefits of marriage than children from traditional unions?

And what of the overwhelming percentages of people not in marriage at all, many of whom are having children?

This doesn’t really relate to the topic I admit, but it just not historically accurate (and I’m not saying you necessarily) when people put forth the idea marriage has always been this or that. For centuries, women were property of their husbands with no rigthts at all in marriage, etc.

 

[Angela77]

I agree with you. I think that the state cannot enforce anti-gay laws and policies. I believe that it is up to the individual what moral law s/he wants to follow.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I agree with you. I think that the state cannot enforce anti-gay laws and policies. I believe that it is up to the individual what moral law s/he wants to follow.

Of course you agree with me.

 

[sinnseanair]

MTBender. I came from the school where every writing was an english test. My freshman english teacher, God Bless her, was an elderly lady. In my school, all extra curicular activities students were on a weekly list. If one teacher had a mark beside that student, that student did not participate in activities that week. I played football. I talked back to her one day. She invited me to stay after school. She told me that she was not going to call my parents, another requirement of the day, nor was she going to mark the weekly list. However, in payment for that I was to read ten books, of her choice, and write book reports one each. The first was “The Mayor of Casterbridge” which, at first glance, is quite thick. I found after the first two, I was looking forward to the third. In short she launched me into a career of writing. I have been accused of reading the morning newspaper with a red pencil. I am guilty. My autonomic spellcheck breaks in. My apology. I will not say that it will not happen again, but I will try to be more understanding.

That being said, back to the subject of homosexual marriage. If we partially change the law to satisfy the whim of a few, the then we must logically follow by considering marriage of multiple women to one man and vice versa, and possibly even marriage to one’s pet animal becoming legal. History of women being considered property or “separate but equal” notwithstanding, we cannot partially change a law. Once that law is enacted it falls to legal interpretation. We are now witnessing what the term legal interpretation has become. We have even learned a new definition of “is”. We have cities openly disobeying federal immigration laws without consequences to date. We have a federal Attorney General cherry picking laws to enforce. So, in today’s enviornment partially changing a law could probably happen. But what of the future? What happens years from now to our nation when we now have multiple husbands, multiple wives, or even multiple animals considered now legally to be husbands or wives. In short we cease to be a nation of laws and become a group of stampeding animals turning willy nilly who what feels good today.

 

[Jaroslaw]

#163 I’ve avoided replying to you up to now because I find it difficult to respond to absurdities in a courteous fashion, but I can’t let your last paragraph slide.

EQUAL rights are just that - nothing more, nothing less. Each adult may marry a consenting adult of their choice. Multiple partners of either sex (polygamy, polyandry or whatever) is a completely different question. Our legal system is set up spouse for spouse. Yes indeed, there would be confusion if five wives wanted to “pull the plug” at the hospital, and five did not. You’re correct there. Luckily, that is not the question at hand.

Marrying animals? I hope that is a poor attempt at humor, because if you’re serious - well, I’d have to really be unkind here and I don’t want to do that. But for the sake of argument, a child nor animal can give willing consent so that issue is off the table as well.

Lastly, changing the law on the “whims” of a few - that is an irrelevant point. If something is found to be unfair, unequal, discriminatory, unconstituional etc. then it doesn’t matter how many or few people want the law changed. As I have already said, Gay people have to obey the same laws in every other area, pay the same taxes, and may even have children of their own.

(I noticed you didn’t answer the question 'aren’t all children entitled to equal benefits?"

From a non-religious viewpoint, it makes no sense to bar them/me from marrying the person of my choice.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

As to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both were Masons. Also having the distinct privilege of being a Mason I can assure you that both were devout in the belief of God, the Ten Commandments, and the Holy Bible.

As to the argument of Homosexuals living together having the same rights and privileges as a male and female married, it is unprovable. When you consider the thousands of men and women living together unmarried that do not have the privilege of married men and women, homosexuals fall into the same category.

According to our laws those men and women living together without benefit of marriage, have no rights to the laws governing the medical and financial benefits of married couples. Thus, it should be to all who choose to live together.

As to homosexual marriage, one only has to go to laws established by nation’s governments concerning marriage, from multiple wives to multiple husbands in certain South Pacific Islands. Today, in the name of diversity, these laws in our nation are changing. However, when the wave of diversity falls apart on the beach, and it will, those devious laws will be abolished just as Carrie Nations and her consumption of alcohol laws were when our nation had them repealed.

So, enjoy your fifteen minutes of fame, homosexuals, for it will soon pass into history.

I do not understand why a man would lie down with a man or woman with a woman. Only God knows the answer. I do understand why men and women are attracted to each other, but fail to understand why, in some, that attraction lasts a lifetime, while others less than a year. Again, only God knows that answer also. I do understand that our nation’s laws were taken primarily from the Commandments given to us by God that are stated in the holy books of the world’s religions in form, that we should obey them and not change them to meet the whim of a few.

You may find reconsidering your choice on being a heretic is spiritually beneficial.

It is indeed baffling as to why in some cases it is temporary and in others it is permanent; perhaps the level of permanency has to do with the cause if there is more than one cause.

In finality of this fruitless argument, I would only say this. To all homosexuals, “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder”. The priest that married my beautiful wife and I, a little over 50 years ago, said that at the ending of our marriage ceremony. In my lifetime, I have found only two truths, There is a God, and I am not him, a simple truth taught to me at Notre Dame Universitity and alluded to again in the movie “Rudy”. Therefore, I cannot judge what you are doing, or dictate what our state and nation’s laws shall be, or singlehandedly overturn what has been enacted by humans made in God’s image. God gave us free will. However, when that free will takes us against God’s laws, there are consequences, just ask Adam and Eve.

Personally, I have a nephew that is homosexual. He contributes greatly to the good of all as a doctor researching the causes of, and possible cures for, cancer. So, I say, without judgement, that homosexuals can and do add to our society. It is only for God to judge. It is the “in your face” forcing of secular changes of laws based on the Ten Commandments to which I strongly object and will continue until my Father tells me otherwise.

To MTBender the word is whether, not weather.

Your nephew would be no less an asset to society if he never engaged in sex with another man than if he did.

I am glad I can always count on someone here to spell check for me…

Being a grammar Nazi is a time honored forum profession

 

[sinnseanair]

In our Constitution’s preamble, it states that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The First Amendment to that Constitution states in part that Freedom of Religion shall not be infringed.

Therefore, our founding fathers stated in our founding law that we are nation of a higher being. Then, that the worship of our higher being shall not be infringed.

Yet, today, those basic constitutional laws have been, and are being ursurped daily by federal, state, and local laws. So, to say that any law has unintended consequences or can have a far different interpretation that was originally intended is a farce. It is happening before our very eyes. Therefore, by logical extension, if we pass a new marriage law, you can be assured that it will be stretched to the limit in time.

You say that we are not speaking of multiple marriage or marriaige to animals. Not today, but will it never be? Some judge, someday will find that that law does cover those acts. Some lawyer will successfully argue someday that that law does cover all those.

It is the law of unintended consequences. Fifty years ago, who would have even thought we would be speaking of this subject. Yet, today, we are, openly and without recourse. Any law passed to satisfy the few is, as is said today, a slippery slope. For many will find a way to be covered by that law. One could successfully argue in any State Supreme Court today in any state that has passed a Homosexual marriage law, that that law also may be applied to multiple marriage, or even marriage to animals, by definition of the law. It is that simple. To say that we are not speaking about it is just masking the subject. Again, you cannot partially pass a law and have it only cover a specific part of a subject such as marriage, for someday, that law shall be interpreted far widely.

To answer about God’s Children. We are all God’s Children. Made in his image. However, God gave each of us free will. What we do with that free will is our concern, not his. We will have to answer for all our actions at the end, under the ten basic laws for all of us that he gave to Moses; both you and me.

I can never understand why you on the left always resort to name calling when you encounter another view. I can only assume it is a form of prevarication to cover lack of education or civility. In either case, it accomplishes only that one has a lack of vocabulary.

 

[mo3]

Jaroslaw;8791275e:

From a non-religious viewpoint, it makes no sense to bar them/me from marrying the person of my choice.

This argument is convenient to eliminate opponents with differing viewpoints. This is a “secular religious” viewpoint which you have a right too. However, you can’t legitimately dismiss others just because you think their views are too religious.

Religious people have rights too.

God bless.

 

[mo3]

MT Bender - This doesn’t really relate to the topic I admit, but it just not historically accurate (and I’m not saying you necessarily) when people put forth the idea marriage has always been this or that. For centuries, women were property of their husbands with no rigthts at all in marriage, etc.

In the USA, 99% of the time marriage has been between 1 man and 1 woman.

God bless.

 

[sinnseanair]

Historically, the term marriage has meant many things. In Scotland, there was “handfasting”, a practice to see if the couple were fertile. It consisted of literally tying right hands together of a man and woman for a year, then if a child was produced, a marriage. In our own slavery it was a man and woman “jumping over a broom” holding hands to connote family. There have been, and will probably continue to be marriages of convenience for both the man and woman or a joining of two powerful families. In some countries, marriage is performed by children legally promised to each other by family.

Recalling that, the act of marriage, has thoughout the ages been between a man and a woman.
Today, by statistics, there are more divorces than those who remain married. That is just fact. Because, our secular laws have made it so. As an American I cannot disagree with that, for I have seen many couples fall into “heat” rather than love for each other. Our secular laws also make it possible for one, or both, in the marriage to committ adultery. Our secular laws allow for just living together without the benefit of marriage, only sometimes leading to a “common law” marriage.

All that notwithstanding, our nation’s laws state that a marriage is between one man and one woman, for now, whether whatever reason that marriage occurs. If that law is changed, there will will be far reaching consequences of which we cannot even fathom at this moment. There always is.

Notice that this argument displaces any reference to religion as a basis for marriage, and that marriage has been described in several forms. The only common element is man and woman, even in those nations today that allow men to have several wives.

Now, we have homosexuals that want to change the very basis of the term for their benefit; For that is what is, a benefit of tax, insurance, and medical. For this argument has little to do with love, rather, money.

Just remember this, an atom alone is harmless until it bumps into another atom, then all hell breaks loose, literally.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Now, we have homosexuals that want to change the very basis of the term for their benefit; For that is what is, a benefit of tax, insurance, and medical. For this argument has little to do with love, rather, money.
.

Are you arguing here that people with SSA don’t fall in love?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Notice that this argument displaces any reference to religion as a basis for marriage, and that marriage has been described in several forms. The only common element is man and woman, even in those nations today that allow men to have several wives.

If your argument here is that in history man and wives have been married and that therefore on that basis the law should not be changed, then i have to say that this is a very weak argument against homosexuality since it is hardly relevant what laws have be passed in the past if legality is not intrinsically dogmatic and therefore subject to change and reevaluation if the law becomes impractical.

 

[mo3]

If your argument here is that in history man and wives have been married and that therefore on that basis the law should not be changed, then i have to say that this is a very weak argument against homosexuality since it is hardly relevant what laws have be passed in the past if legality is not intrinsically dogmatic and therefore subject to change and reevaluation if the law becomes impractical.

The argument is about the Natural Law which is intrinsically truthful. The Natural Law is not subject to change based upon 21st century whims on human behavioral interpretations.

God bless.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The argument is about the Natural Law which is intrinsically truthful. The Natural Law is not subject to change based upon 21st century whims on human behavioral interpretations.

God bless.

According to you. But you haven’t show why the legal system should accept your approach.

 

[mo3]

According to you. But you haven’t show why the legal system should accept your approach.

The legal system is governed by the US constitution. Our representative form of government allows the people to express their desires to their representatives who will in turn make legislation.

The legal system will accept an approach when enough people demand their desires be put into law. Regardless of a “secular religious” or traditional religious views, this is how it works. All we need is enough people to demand that marriage be defined as between 1 man and 1 woman and it will become part of the legal system.

God bless.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The legal system is governed by the US constitution. Our representative form of government allows the people to express their desires to their representatives who will in turn make legislation.

The legal system will accept an approach when enough people demand their desires be put into law. Regardless of a “secular religious” or traditional religious views, this is how it works. All we need is enough people to demand that marriage be defined as between 1 man and 1 woman and it will become part of the legal system.

God bless.

No it won’t, not if the desire is perceived as unpractical and unjustifiably prejudice. It is as unlikely as a racist succeeding in banning black people from constitutional marriage. Homosexuality is institutionalised now. It is recognised as a legitimate sexuality. You have provided no rational reason to deny gay marriage other than the fact that marriage is traditionally heterosexual. That’s not good enough.

The game was over as soon as same sex attraction was no-longer viewed as a mental illness.

 

[mo3]

It is as unlikely as a racist succeeding in banning black people from constitutional marriage.

Who exactly are you insinuating is a racist?

Homosexuality is institutionalised now. It is recognised as a legitimate sexuality.

This is false. A large majority of Americans disagree with you. Please provide legitimate documented proof.

You have provided no rational reason to deny gay marriage other than the fact that marriage is traditionally heterosexual. That’s not good enough.

There are soooo many rational reasons. Many of them revolve around this lifestyle being forced upon us against our will. We will be forced to participate in many ways. Our public schools will be forced to teach that it is a morally acceptable life style. Catholic adoption agencies will be forced to place adoptions with gay couples or close their doors. People who speak publically against the gay marriage will be forcibly taken to jail. Preachers will be charged with hate speech if they preach against the gay marriage and some kook who heard the sermon went out and killed a gay person. I could go on and on and on and on and on………………………

God bless.

 

[tonyrey]

The legal system is governed by the US constitution. Our representative form of government allows the people to express their desires to their representatives who will in turn make legislation.

The legal system will accept an approach when enough people demand their desires be put into law. Regardless of a “secular religious” or traditional religious views, this is how it works. All we need is enough people to demand that marriage be defined as between 1 man and 1 woman and it will become part of the legal system.

God bless.

In a democratic state the rights of minorities have to be respected.

 

[mo3]

In a democratic state the rights of minorities have to be respected.

Please show me in the US Constitution where it states everyone has the right to be married?

What about the minority rights of polygamists?

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Conclusion: Therefore if you support the split between church and state, you have to support gay rights despite any moral beliefs to the contrary.

I do not have to support the destruction of the family which is what you are talking about.