Homosexual Marriage

[Starboy]

Weychel, getting touchy aren't we. I was referring to tinybear.

Starboy

[Waychel]

Then maybe you should specify who you are responding to? =PpP

I'm not touchy; only trying to clarify. Although, I fail to see how tinybear's religion is of any relevance to this debate or holds any bearing on her personal views. I'm sure that you wouldn't like it if she came to equally premature and snide assumptions about you.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Tinybear said: Incidentally, which of my views do you think I show a disrespect for people's rights? I say: It is not so much your views, as much as your perception of those rights. You talk casually of removing rights, curbing rights, legislating away rights, ignoring rights, regulating rights, that I think you may not understand the concept of "rights vs privilidge". As I said, I was not attempting to be mean, or derogatory in any way. Your perception of things just leaves me questioning where these ideas come from.

Well, I should hardly think that calling for a vote on a matter of great concern and controversy is advocating removal, ignoring...etc rights. On the contrary it is exercising a right. Actually, if I haven't already said so, I personally think gay marriages should be recognized. I think I said much earlier that personally gay marriage is definitely not my cup of tea, but since it isn't any of my business and doesn't adversely affect me, gays can do what they like and have it recognized by law. Having said that, however, I can see that they may be substantial numbers of people in America who hold a different view. Why not find out? Why not have a referendum?

[Starboy]

Waychel, not at all. It wouldn't be the first time nor would I expect it to be the last. I am a big starboy.

Starboy

[tinybear]

Actually, Starboy, I have no religion. All too often, religious places are where hypocrites congregate.

[Starboy]

Quote by: tinybear Why not find out? Why not have a referendum?

tinybear you don't get it. Having a referendum on any person or group of person’s rights is not what it means to have a right. Why don't we have a referendum on tinybear's right to live? Let's put it to a vote. See if people find your saccharine avatar so offensive that you should be put to death. I say this as a joke but you should know, even as the young person that you are that there would be people that would say yes, put tinybear to death. Anybody with such an avatar deserves to die. I would think that at that point you would see that it is not a good idea to put a right to a vote.

Starboy

[tinybear]

I'm pretty sure nobody would vote to kill a harmless little bear like me.

[Starboy]

Do you want to chance it?

Starboy

[tinybear]

Ooooh, you mean you would? Oh oh, let's not digress. Against etiquette.

[Starboy]

That wasn't my question. Do you want to put your right to live up to the whim of other people?

Starboy

[tinybear]

That's an entirely different question. This thread is about whether the law (which is supposed to reflect the social values of our community) should formally recognize a change in the current definition of a social institution.

[Starboy]

Follow the thread tinybear. My argument is that rights should not be put to a vote. That such rights are not up to the whims of others. That one of these rights is to live and another of these rights is equal treatment under the law. This is a fundamental American value. A value that somehow you have managed to miss as you have grown up in the US. The equal rights of gays under the law are not open to a referendum or a vote or the whim of anyone else. It is their right. That is all there is to it. People have no more right to say that gays should not get equal treatment under the law than they have a right to say that tinybear must die because of her avatar. That is my argument.

Starboy

[tinybear]

But the phrase "equal rights" has been given a different meaning at different times in American history depending on the prevailing values of society. The founding fathers apparently found it acceptable at the time to preserve slavery and unequal treatment of not only blacks but people of other skin colors, like the Chinese for example. These values changed with time and "equal rights" assumed a different meaning and hence the law changed and evolved with it.

[Starboy]

So? Does that mean that the founding fathers were living by their own values? Of course not. And we are not now. You apparently don't like hypocrisy. Well people who think their rights are not up for a vote but then think that others rights are up for a vote are hypocrites. Are you a hypocrite?

Starboy

[tinybear]

Of course they were living by their own values and the Constitution which they authored took on a wholly different meaning than what we understand it to be today. Look at it this way: Sometime in the past, America accepted this definition of "marriage": a monogamous union of one man and one woman. Was the Constitution there at the time this was accepted? Yes. Back then gay and polygamous unions were not accpted as valid marriages. But times and social mores change, so they say. Now it is claimed that the time has come for gay unions to be included into the definition of "marriage". Fine. Let's fine out whether the time has indeed come. Let's ask the people. I don't understand why this idea is abhorrent to you. It isn't about taking away or not respecting rights. It's about finding out the scope of such rights at this time, recognizing the fact that the scope and boundaries of rights are constantly evolving.

[Starboy]

Nahh, they knew that they were not consistent with their own values. Jefferson was conflicted over slavery. So were many of the other founding fathers. For what ever reason, and there were many, they just didn't do anything about it. But like I said before, there is never a good time. It boils down to this. If the majority wanted to do it, all of this would be a moot point.

Jefferson said this in his first inaugural address,

Quote by: Thomas Jefferson All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

He recognized that many things are done just because the majority wants it that way. But that didn't make it right. That unless what was done by the majority recognized the equal rights of the minority then what they did was not right and was just plain oppression.

Those that think that the majority is correct in not wanting to allow gays to have equal treatment under the law and do nothing to stop the majority are oppressors. And not just in my eyes but in the eyes of Jefferson and in the eye of the values this country was built on.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: tinybear Now it is claimed that the time has come for gay unions to be included into the definition of "marriage". Fine. Let's fine out whether the time has indeed come. Let's ask the people. I don't understand why this idea is abhorrent to you. It isn't about taking away or not respecting rights. It's about finding out the scope of such rights at this time, recognizing the fact that the scope and boundaries of rights are constantly evolving.

tinybear, you are very thick. If you want to contend that gay’s rights are up for a vote then your rights are up for a vote. And that means your right to live. If you don't think that your right to live with equal treatment under the law is something that people should vote on then to say that we should all do it for gays is just utter hypocrisy.

We go round and round on this. It is obvious that you are a hypocrite. It bothers you but still you think that allowing people who desire to stop other people from enjoying their rights by way of a vote is just a peachy keen way of dealing with the problem. All I can say is that your education has failed you.

Starboy

[Waychel]

What Starboy can't seem to grasp is that if we award the federal recognition of marriage to homosexuals on the grounds of "equal representation" within the very definition of marriage (what this debate is about), then we must award the same "right" to all other forms of marriage on the same grounds. This means that polygamist marriage among others will need to be recognized on a federal level. Marriage law would need to change and the priveledges of federally recognized marriage (joint tax returns, social security benefits) that homosexuals want would dissapear.

That is what I find fallacious about the whole thing. If we represent homosexuals within the definition of marriage under the grounds of "equal representation", then ALL forms of marriage or lifestyle MUST be entitled to "equal representation" as well. Saying that, "Homosexual marriages would be recognized and that is all. No impact would be made upon the country's institution and treatment of marriage." is not only wrong, but a total lie.

[Lou Minotti]

Get government out of marriage. That pretty much puts an end to this distractionary issue....

[Starboy]

Quote by: Waychel What Starboy can't seem to grasp is that if we award the federal recognition of marriage to homosexuals on the grounds of "equal representation" within the very definition of marriage (what this debate is about), then we must award the same "right" to all other forms of marriage on the same grounds. This means that polygamist marriage among others will need to be recognized on a federal level. Marriage law would need to change and the priveledges of federally recognized marriage (joint tax returns, social security benefits) that homosexuals want would dissapear. That is what I find fallacious about the whole thing. If we represent homosexuals within the definition of marriage under the grounds of "equal representation", then ALL forms of marriage or lifestyle MUST be entitled to "equal representation" as well. Saying that, "Homosexual marriages would be recognized and that is all. No impact would be made upon the country's institution and treatment of marriage." is not only wrong, but a total lie.

And what Waychel doesn't seem to grasp is that denying any group their rights because it would be legislatively inconvenient and oh my gosh, it just might give some other groups their rights as well is no better an argument than saying that the Jim Crow laws should stay on the books because there would not be enough bathrooms if blacks were now allowed to use them. It is specious and has nothing to do with the basic issues.

Starboy