Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tinybear · Jan 12, 2005, 11:30 am

You mean it's very important, right? So, you're against gay adoption?

Osborn F Enready · Jan 12, 2005, 12:03 pm

Waychel said:
that they be allowed the right to marry

I say:
You are acting as if RIGHTS were negotiable, and "allowed" to begin with. Rights are inalienable, and whether or not the government chooses to recognize that right, will determine how many people from that particular group of people will respect and obey the "other laws" that are not infringing on their rights.

All people have equal rights in this nation, and to deny gays the same "favoritism" as straight couples receive in the cases you speak of is unconstitutional, at best.

I heard someone on here say you were a lawyer? What form of law if I may ask?

tinybear · Jan 12, 2005, 12:29 pm

Rights are not inborn, nor are they inalienable. They have to be fought for and many have lost their liberty and even their lives fighting for them. Hence they must be teasured and not abused lest some dictator uses that as an excuse to take it away from you. Yes, rights can be lost; so beware.

Osborn F Enready · Jan 12, 2005, 12:40 pm

Tinybear said:
Rights are not inborn, nor are they inalienable.

I say:
Incorrect. In this nation, rights are inborn by your citizenship, and that is because the creators of this nation declared that rights are inalienable in the Constitution, and limited government intrusion into the area listed as RIGHTS. Rights were deemed inalienable because they are essentially our belief and recognition that all men are created equal, and should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. They deduced rights came from God, but that was because they were majority religious folks.
Regardless, even the non-religious saw good sense in the concept liberty for all, equality for all in the eyes of the law. When they signed the Constitution, and the people GRANTED this government the "temporary power" of the people, as long as they maintained the limits of the Constitution. Unfortunately, their successors didn't take their warnings of internal threats to liberty as seriously as they should have, because if they did, we wouldnt be where we are today, with almost no rights left under the eyes of the law.

Tinybear said:
They have to be fought for and many have lost their liberty and even their lives fighting for them.

I say:
Yes, the blacks, and womens suffrage movements were proof of that. But the Constitution already specified all men created equal, same as womens rights, but it took revolts of the people for the government of the time, to be REMINDED of its limitations and clarify afterwards specific amendments to prevent future "forgetfulness". The country was divided in popular concensus, but still the minorities won, because they had the Constitution as their guide and platform of law.

Tinybear said:
Hence they must be teasured and not abused lest some dictator uses that as an excuse to take it away from you. Yes, rights can be lost; so beware.

I say:
That is what the majority of my threads are about, when I start them. Just how many of your, and every citizens rights are being infringed by the current bi-partisan dictators.

tman_ndsu08 · Jan 12, 2005, 01:01 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

You mean it's very important, right? So, you're against gay adoption?

I miss read your post, sorry. I thought you were saying it's important for kids to grow up in a traditional household.

Waychel · Jan 13, 2005, 01:51 am

Quote:

Quote by: Osborn F Enready

Waychel said:
that they be allowed the right to marry

I say:
You are acting as if RIGHTS were negotiable, and "allowed" to begin with. Rights are inalienable, and whether or not the government chooses to recognize that right, will determine how many people from that particular group of people will respect and obey the "other laws" that are not infringing on their rights.

All people have equal rights in this nation, and to deny gays the same "favoritism" as straight couples receive in the cases you speak of is unconstitutional, at best.

I heard someone on here say you were a lawyer? What form of law if I may ask?

Please read my original post again.

The fact of the matter is that nobody is denying homosexuals the right to get married; we are only denying them federal recognition as a married couple.

America is a country of checks and balances; just as we have rights, we also have laws which regulate them. I fail to see why the issue of marriage should be any different, considering that it essentially comes down to issues of property. The only thing homosexuals are being denied throughout all of this is the federal recognition of their marriages, which won't be a right denied to them until it actually becomes a right. For that to happen, the legal definition of marriage must first be modified to include them.

This is not an issue of morality, religion or descrimination; it is an issue of purely legal context. Marriage as recognized by law ultimately comes down to one thing: the protections and interests awarded to both parties in the event of divorce. The moment that we introduce a change of genders or numbers to the legal definition of marriage is the moment that we begin to infringe upon, disown or abuse the protections currently awarded by marital law to heterosexual couples. I'm no legal expert, but one would think that this would mean the entire revision of marriage and divorce law as a whole. Most of these rights relate to the social roles played by couples within heterosexual relationships.

The multiple unions of Mormons and Islamics are not recognized by law. I see very few bleeding hearts crying over the supposed violation of their civil rights. IMO, this is not an issue posed entirely in the interest of civil rights, but in also furthering the pro-homosexual agenda. I also don't believe religion has any place in what should be, by my opinion, a purely legal debate (internationally; not here on these forums), but then again, I'm Atheist -- what do I know?

Also, before you say that marriage as recognized by law should not be regulated by law, consider this: if marriage had no definition and therefore no boundaries regarding it, then bigamy, incest and molestation would not only become legal, but also legally recognized -- and condoned -- by the law in regards to marriage.

BTW, I'm by no means a legal expert and I'm sorrie if I have given this impression, considering that it is an entirely false one. I'm just a little girl majoring in law, so you can take everything that I say with a grain of salt. =PpP As for my focus, I guess it would be estate planning. I currently work as a paralegal for a firm which handles everything from divorces (mainly in regards to issues of community property and transmutation of property) to living trusts and bankruptcies.

Capt Lee · Jan 13, 2005, 02:20 pm

reality is whats hanging between your legs, Anything else is just your imagination..

Capt Lee · Jan 13, 2005, 02:22 pm

reality is whats hanging between your legs, Anything else is just your imagination. We should not legislate on how you "feel" about it..

Starboy · Jan 13, 2005, 06:27 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Waychel

This is not an issue of morality, religion or descrimination; it is an issue of purely legal context. Marriage as recognized by law ultimately comes down to one thing: the protections and interests awarded to both parties in the event of divorce. The moment that we introduce a change of genders or numbers to the legal definition of marriage is the moment that we begin to infringe upon, disown or abuse the protections currently awarded by marital law to heterosexual couples. I'm no legal expert, but one would think that this would mean the entire revision of marriage and divorce law as a whole. Most of these rights relate to the social roles played by couples within heterosexual relationships.

It is about equal treatment under the law. There was a time when marriage between races was illegal. The reason why it was removed was because such laws are unconstitutional. Our constitution demands equal treatment under the law. There should be no special treatment because you are a man or a woman. There should be no special treatment because you married a man or a woman. If the government is going to hand out formal recognition of a family then it has no right in discriminating against one couple verses another based on race or sex. I would think that every woman in the world would understand the concept of equal treatment under the law and be offended when people were not getting equal treatment.

Starboy

mr.perfecto · Jan 15, 2005, 12:57 am

I think I'm starting to understand why leftist are so confused about America. There is no special treatment based on who you marry. There is no special treatment based on race or sex.

To understand why so many Americans are opposed to same-sex marriages, you really have to ask yourself why marriage (as a religious institution or otherwise) even exists. Don't just assume that you know, but actually take the time to research it.

Starboy · Jan 15, 2005, 11:45 am

Quote:

Quote by: mr.perfecto

I think I'm starting to understand why leftist are so confused about America. There is no special treatment based on who you marry. There is no special treatment based on race or sex.

What is this supposed to mean? Why would only "leftists" be concerned about equal treatment under the law?

Quote:

To understand why so many Americans are opposed to same-sex marriages, you really have to ask yourself why marriage (as a religious institution or otherwise) even exists. Don't just assume that you know, but actually take the time to research it.

You act as if Americans invented marriage or something. It is a tradition. It is not as if America is or ever was of a uniform tradition. That is one of the points of America, you know, freedom, liberty and all that. I suppose you are going to tell me that freedom and liberty are only valued by "leftists". Well then I guess I am a leftist. Although I will say that for my entire life I have been a registered republican. I must say that the republicans have so shifted to the right that even those in the center are now "leftists". Go figure. We are becoming a fascist nation.

Starboy

atheist · Jan 15, 2005, 11:53 am

I am choppy.

Nowadays marriage exists because it legally ties one person to another (the past is the past so delving into the origins of marriage and mixing this into Marriages of Today is unproductive). If a couple get a kid then they BOTH must share the burden of raising it unless a legal agreement is made concerning who parents the offspring.

Even if same-sex couples can't produce children together there are other ways for them to get custody of a child (i.e. through adoption).

If traditional people continue to argue for the "preservation" of marriage then they are being stubborn and will lose more than they bargin for in the long run. In the future if I want to tie myself to a girl then I will call her my wife regardless of a lack in a "proper marriage." Older people may not know it but I know that the younger generations are slowly opening up to issues such as gay marriage. It's only a matter of time. DUn dun dunnn....

Starboy · Jan 15, 2005, 12:03 pm

Quote:

Quote by: atheist

If traditional people continue to argue for the "preservation" of marriage then they are being stubborn and will lose more than they bargin for in the long run. In the future if I want to tie myself to a girl then I will call her my wife regardless of a lack in a "proper marriage." Older people may not know it but I know that the younger generations are slowly opening up to issues such as gay marriage. It's only a matter of time. DUn dun dunnn....

That is the point. The lack of equal recognition under the law has not stopped these people from forming families in every sense of the word other than they do not have the "blessings" of the federal government. They even have the "blessings" of churches in the eyes of god but they can't get a "blessing" from the federal government. It is so dang funny. These "traditionalists" are bent out of shape because they do not want the government to hand out such "blessings" yet it either never occurred to them or it just doesn't bother them that these couples have already received gods blessings. The “traditionalists” are a bunch of morons. They have invested the government with the power of god. So all you “traditionalists” out there do not cheat on your taxes, god will not like it and not only send you to hell on earth but to hell for eternity. In your eyes god is the government.

Starboy

Waychel · Jan 16, 2005, 12:58 am

Starboy, I can only respond to your statement of, "you act as if America created marriage" with the reply: "You act as if America is barring homosexuals from being married in the first place, which is not the case." America may not have created marriage, but it DID create the laws surrounding marriage as it is to be recognized and considered by the judicial system.

As I've mentioned many times throughout the course of this topic, marriage as recognized by the court of law ultimately comes down to the issues of law surrounding marriage; mainly in consideration to divorce. Issues of alimony and community property came about NOT out of equality towards women exactly, but out of CONSIDERATION to their former state of co-dependancy and the social roles played by them in the course of a marriage. Should two independent homosexual men have the right to demand alimony from one another in the event of a divorce? This is but one question among hundreds of thousands which would need to be posed in the event that homosexual marriage were to become federally recognized.

The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as absolute equality in the legal system with regards to marriage because income, dependancy and even GENDER are differences between spouses that are scrutinized by a court in a divorce case. Why is it that in the majority of custody cases, our courts side with the mother and not the father? The answer is that the majority of psychological studies conducted on children support the theory that children have a natural predisposition of dependancy and belonging towards their mother. Thus, the issue of gender ALONE tends to facilitate a court's decision on matters of custody (unless the mother can be proven to be unsuitable as a provider for her children, among other things). Our system may strive for equality, but this is just one example of how individuals are not equal in circumstance; the REAL issue at hand in such proceedings.

The only thing being "denied" towards married homosexuals are the following:

1.) The ability to list their spouse as a dependant on tax returns.
2.) The ability to lay claim to the social security benefits of their spouse.
3.) The ability to demand alimony or a share of community property in the event of a divorce with their spouse.

These are NOT institutions of marriage, but institutions of MARRIAGE LAW as it has been constructed BY the US.

"You act as if America created marriage"

Well, that may be because -- with regards to what homosexuals are actually being "denied" -- WE DID.

Starboy · Jan 16, 2005, 01:10 am

I think you miss my point. I understand that the law lays out the rights and responsibilities of family members. What I am saying is that there are already a great many gay couples who are already in every sense a family. However they are not being treated the same as any other family by the federal government and it is only because of the sex of the couple involved. This is unequal treatment under the law because of sex. I would think that every black and female in America could understand this concept and understand how reprehensible the practice is and would look down on all those fine Christians who by their votes are forcing the government to discriminate based on sex because of their religious beliefs. I suppose that these people see themselves as being good examples of Christian traditionalists but they have become complete failures at being American traditionalists. They may be right by their god but are doing wrong by their country.

Starboy

tinybear · Jan 16, 2005, 01:20 am

Hey why don't we have a referendum on this issue? After all that's what democracies do whenever there's a division of views in the community, right? If the majority feels that the traditional concept of marriage and family ought to be changed, then so be it. Conversely, if the majority feels that the institution of marriage as it has always been understood would be threatened by gay marriages, then the status quo should not be altered. The minority abides by the majority's decision. How's that?

Starboy · Jan 16, 2005, 01:25 am

Basic rights can never be put up for a vote. That is the whole point of basic rights. Nobody can take them away from you. Equal treatment under the law is one of those rights. But Christians have become idiots when it comes to American values and they do not understand this. The courts are right but they will not let it be because their god doesn’t like it. Well tough shit. We are ruled by law. The root law is the constitution. The bible is just another religious tradition as far as the government is concerned and has no more say in the running of the government than any other religious book. And that should be zero. If it were any other way there would not be religious freedom.

Starboy

tinybear · Jan 16, 2005, 01:37 am

But this is the kind of issue which boils down to what the people are comfortable with, doesn't it? We cannot simply say it's a question of rights and all our domestic/moral institutions have to rigidly comply with a general statement of basic rights whatever the issue is and under whatever circumstances. Rights serve the people, not adherence to dead letter law and ideology.

Starboy · Jan 16, 2005, 01:48 am

Sorry, but one of the things that the founders were trying to create was a land free of tyranny. The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Nobody is forcing anyone to marry the same sex. And no one is stopping the same sex from forming families. They have been doing it for some time now. What is happening is that people have decided that same sex families are not as good as other families. This is not a new thing in this country. Women were once considered by the law to be inferior to men as well as blacks. They did not get their rights by changing the minds of the majority. They got their rights by going the constitution and showing that they were not being given equal treatment under the law. The majority didn't like it. Tough shit. As time passed it became obvious that they were wrong. What people need to understand is that just because it is a "Christian" tradition doesn't make it special in any way. It is just another tradition as far as the law is concerned and it is either lawful or not. If it were up to "Christian tradition" women would still be chattel and blacks would still be slaves.

Starboy

tinybear · Jan 16, 2005, 01:56 am

The founders were human too. They can't be expected to have foreseen every problem, issue or controversy that could arise in America hundreds of years after they wrote the Consitution. They did so (and only could do so) in general terms. To slavishly adhere to the strict letter of any law wiithout thinking if it should be modified or interpreted in a manner which reflects current mores and values is to do the very thing the founding fathers abhorred. And, incidentally, the founders were flexible men too. In their time women did not have the vote and blacks were slaves. The reason was, I think, the time wasn't ripe for change and the majority still thought it was alright for an exclusive male vote and slavery to exist. Thomas Jefferson even fathered a child with a black slave.

View Poll Results: In my opinion, homosexual marriage is
A civil rights issue. Anyone should be able to marry anyone	304	43.74%
A distraction from the real issues of government	83	11.94%
An unacceptable redefinition of a traditional concept	73	10.50%
Morally wrong since homosexuality is morally wrong	94	13.53%
A private matter between the couple and their minister	58	8.35%
Other-I will explain below	58	8.35%
A celebration of diversity	25	3.60%
Voters: 695. You may not vote

Jan 12, 2005, 12:03 pm	#162 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Waychel said: that they be allowed the right to marry I say: You are acting as if RIGHTS were negotiable, and "allowed" to begin with. Rights are inalienable, and whether or not the government chooses to recognize that right, will determine how many people from that particular group of people will respect and obey the "other laws" that are not infringing on their rights. All people have equal rights in this nation, and to deny gays the same "favoritism" as straight couples receive in the cases you speak of is unconstitutional, at best. I heard someone on here say you were a lawyer? What form of law if I may ask? Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Jan 12, 2005, 12:40 pm	#164 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Tinybear said: Rights are not inborn, nor are they inalienable. I say: Incorrect. In this nation, rights are inborn by your citizenship, and that is because the creators of this nation declared that rights are inalienable in the Constitution, and limited government intrusion into the area listed as RIGHTS. Rights were deemed inalienable because they are essentially our belief and recognition that all men are created equal, and should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. They deduced rights came from God, but that was because they were majority religious folks. Regardless, even the non-religious saw good sense in the concept liberty for all, equality for all in the eyes of the law. When they signed the Constitution, and the people GRANTED this government the "temporary power" of the people, as long as they maintained the limits of the Constitution. Unfortunately, their successors didn't take their warnings of internal threats to liberty as seriously as they should have, because if they did, we wouldnt be where we are today, with almost no rights left under the eyes of the law. Tinybear said: They have to be fought for and many have lost their liberty and even their lives fighting for them. I say: Yes, the blacks, and womens suffrage movements were proof of that. But the Constitution already specified all men created equal, same as womens rights, but it took revolts of the people for the government of the time, to be REMINDED of its limitations and clarify afterwards specific amendments to prevent future "forgetfulness". The country was divided in popular concensus, but still the minorities won, because they had the Constitution as their guide and platform of law. Tinybear said: Hence they must be teasured and not abused lest some dictator uses that as an excuse to take it away from you. Yes, rights can be lost; so beware. I say: That is what the majority of my threads are about, when I start them. Just how many of your, and every citizens rights are being infringed by the current bi-partisan dictators. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Jan 13, 2005, 02:20 pm	#167 (permalink) (top)
Capt Lee Molten Ash Posts: 35	Reality is.... reality is whats hanging between your legs, Anything else is just your imagination..

Jan 13, 2005, 02:22 pm	#168 (permalink) (top)
Capt Lee Molten Ash Posts: 35	Reality is.... reality is whats hanging between your legs, Anything else is just your imagination. We should not legislate on how you "feel" about it..

Jan 12, 2005, 11:30 am	#161 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 6,992	You mean it's very important, right? So, you're against gay adoption?

Jan 12, 2005, 12:29 pm	#163 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 6,992	Rights are not inborn, nor are they inalienable. They have to be fought for and many have lost their liberty and even their lives fighting for them. Hence they must be teasured and not abused lest some dictator uses that as an excuse to take it away from you. Yes, rights can be lost; so beware.

Jan 15, 2005, 12:57 am	#170 (permalink) (top)
mr.perfecto Igneous Magma Posts: 632	I think I'm starting to understand why leftist are so confused about America. There is no special treatment based on who you marry. There is no special treatment based on race or sex. To understand why so many Americans are opposed to same-sex marriages, you really have to ask yourself why marriage (as a religious institution or otherwise) even exists. Don't just assume that you know, but actually take the time to research it.

Jan 15, 2005, 11:53 am	#172 (permalink) (top)
atheist life junkie Location: CA Posts: 142	I am choppy. Nowadays marriage exists because it legally ties one person to another (the past is the past so delving into the origins of marriage and mixing this into Marriages of Today is unproductive). If a couple get a kid then they BOTH must share the burden of raising it unless a legal agreement is made concerning who parents the offspring. Even if same-sex couples can't produce children together there are other ways for them to get custody of a child (i.e. through adoption). If traditional people continue to argue for the "preservation" of marriage then they are being stubborn and will lose more than they bargin for in the long run. In the future if I want to tie myself to a girl then I will call her my wife regardless of a lack in a "proper marriage." Older people may not know it but I know that the younger generations are slowly opening up to issues such as gay marriage. It's only a matter of time. DUn dun dunnn.... Sin is salvation. Without "sin" there wouldn't be a concept for "purity" and without a concept of "purity" one wouldn't be able to enter "heaven."

Jan 16, 2005, 12:58 am	#174 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Starboy, I can only respond to your statement of, "you act as if America created marriage" with the reply: "You act as if America is barring homosexuals from being married in the first place, which is not the case." America may not have created marriage, but it DID create the laws surrounding marriage as it is to be recognized and considered by the judicial system. As I've mentioned many times throughout the course of this topic, marriage as recognized by the court of law ultimately comes down to the issues of law surrounding marriage; mainly in consideration to divorce. Issues of alimony and community property came about NOT out of equality towards women exactly, but out of CONSIDERATION to their former state of co-dependancy and the social roles played by them in the course of a marriage. Should two independent homosexual men have the right to demand alimony from one another in the event of a divorce? This is but one question among hundreds of thousands which would need to be posed in the event that homosexual marriage were to become federally recognized. The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as absolute equality in the legal system with regards to marriage because income, dependancy and even GENDER are differences between spouses that are scrutinized by a court in a divorce case. Why is it that in the majority of custody cases, our courts side with the mother and not the father? The answer is that the majority of psychological studies conducted on children support the theory that children have a natural predisposition of dependancy and belonging towards their mother. Thus, the issue of gender ALONE tends to facilitate a court's decision on matters of custody (unless the mother can be proven to be unsuitable as a provider for her children, among other things). Our system may strive for equality, but this is just one example of how individuals are not equal in circumstance; the REAL issue at hand in such proceedings. The only thing being "denied" towards married homosexuals are the following: 1.) The ability to list their spouse as a dependant on tax returns. 2.) The ability to lay claim to the social security benefits of their spouse. 3.) The ability to demand alimony or a share of community property in the event of a divorce with their spouse. These are NOT institutions of marriage, but institutions of MARRIAGE LAW as it has been constructed BY the US. "You act as if America created marriage" Well, that may be because -- with regards to what homosexuals are actually being "denied" -- WE DID. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Last edited by Waychel; Jan 16, 2005 at 01:05 am.

Jan 16, 2005, 01:10 am	#175 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	I think you miss my point. I understand that the law lays out the rights and responsibilities of family members. What I am saying is that there are already a great many gay couples who are already in every sense a family. However they are not being treated the same as any other family by the federal government and it is only because of the sex of the couple involved. This is unequal treatment under the law because of sex. I would think that every black and female in America could understand this concept and understand how reprehensible the practice is and would look down on all those fine Christians who by their votes are forcing the government to discriminate based on sex because of their religious beliefs. I suppose that these people see themselves as being good examples of Christian traditionalists but they have become complete failures at being American traditionalists. They may be right by their god but are doing wrong by their country. Starboy

Jan 16, 2005, 01:20 am	#176 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 6,992	Hey why don't we have a referendum on this issue? After all that's what democracies do whenever there's a division of views in the community, right? If the majority feels that the traditional concept of marriage and family ought to be changed, then so be it. Conversely, if the majority feels that the institution of marriage as it has always been understood would be threatened by gay marriages, then the status quo should not be altered. The minority abides by the majority's decision. How's that? Last edited by tinybear; Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33 am.

Jan 16, 2005, 01:25 am	#177 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	Basic rights can never be put up for a vote. That is the whole point of basic rights. Nobody can take them away from you. Equal treatment under the law is one of those rights. But Christians have become idiots when it comes to American values and they do not understand this. The courts are right but they will not let it be because their god doesn’t like it. Well tough shit. We are ruled by law. The root law is the constitution. The bible is just another religious tradition as far as the government is concerned and has no more say in the running of the government than any other religious book. And that should be zero. If it were any other way there would not be religious freedom. Starboy

Jan 16, 2005, 01:37 am	#178 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 6,992	But this is the kind of issue which boils down to what the people are comfortable with, doesn't it? We cannot simply say it's a question of rights and all our domestic/moral institutions have to rigidly comply with a general statement of basic rights whatever the issue is and under whatever circumstances. Rights serve the people, not adherence to dead letter law and ideology.

Jan 16, 2005, 01:48 am	#179 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	Sorry, but one of the things that the founders were trying to create was a land free of tyranny. The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Nobody is forcing anyone to marry the same sex. And no one is stopping the same sex from forming families. They have been doing it for some time now. What is happening is that people have decided that same sex families are not as good as other families. This is not a new thing in this country. Women were once considered by the law to be inferior to men as well as blacks. They did not get their rights by changing the minds of the majority. They got their rights by going the constitution and showing that they were not being given equal treatment under the law. The majority didn't like it. Tough shit. As time passed it became obvious that they were wrong. What people need to understand is that just because it is a "Christian" tradition doesn't make it special in any way. It is just another tradition as far as the law is concerned and it is either lawful or not. If it were up to "Christian tradition" women would still be chattel and blacks would still be slaves. Starboy

Jan 16, 2005, 01:56 am	#180 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 6,992	The founders were human too. They can't be expected to have foreseen every problem, issue or controversy that could arise in America hundreds of years after they wrote the Consitution. They did so (and only could do so) in general terms. To slavishly adhere to the strict letter of any law wiithout thinking if it should be modified or interpreted in a manner which reflects current mores and values is to do the very thing the founding fathers abhorred. And, incidentally, the founders were flexible men too. In their time women did not have the vote and blacks were slaves. The reason was, I think, the time wasn't ripe for change and the majority still thought it was alright for an exclusive male vote and slavery to exist. Thomas Jefferson even fathered a child with a black slave.