| Author | Post |
|---|
conservative85
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:55 am |
|
marshaul wrote: conservative85 wrote:
Sorry about picking your post to reply to but the D word is a good starting point to take on this issue.
" A free society is necessarily going to be a diverse one"
Diversity is one thing but Wrong is another. The D word gets thrown around way to much. Diversity does not come from the way someone dresses, or the way they look (ethnic background) or even someones behavior. It comes from understanding, and thought processes that consist of different ideas, rational debate, & commonsense.
A college campus that has a "diverse" mix of Chinese, or Africans, does technically make it an ethnically diverse campus it does however not make it any better than the next. It's academics! the free expression of speech & ideology.
Same goes for a "Free society" I do agree that simple minded and narrow minded can be good as well as bad, depending on the principals, standards, and morals of not only a "free society", but a civil one! I did not read the article because I do believe it is a coward way of expressing your opinion. Resorting to bashing, & rhetoric is less than civil. On the other hand it is bad/wrong what ever you like to call it. calling it "diverse" doesn't make it acceptable, if it's ok behavior than why do you need my approval, just be gay with a gun, you don't have to push it on me, I don/t run around wanting their approval that I am hetero!
In the last 20 years or so, the Homosexual community has organized and well for that matter, a movement to win public opinion by a campaign of desensitizing the populous by renaming their gay life style choice as gay rights/civil right!.
It's not civil it's not right! Civil rights are for everyone, believe it or not Homosexuals have all the same rights as I. Just because they get picked on because of their behavior does not mean they are not afforded the right to speech, religion, and guns. This desensitizing uses words like tolerant, diversity, open mindedness, consenting adults, and gay instead of queer, basically a kill them with kindness attitude.
The problem with this whole desensitizing is what we have today, and that is intolerance of a person who disagrees with this behavior. Now I understand he was quite crass about his way of doing it but, offended or not that is my problem, but I do have the same right to openly disagree, as they think they have a right to openly exhibit their life style. To be criticized for that by being called intolerant is the Hipocracy of this whole debate of free society. You are criticized by both Gays as "closed minded", and criticized by the appeasers as "intolerant" if you even hint that you disagree with the gay life style... which by the way is a life style same as drug users, and gang bangers...It's wrong in every way. I don't see society accepting of these people snorting coke in the city streets or gangs fighting other gangs, I mean after all their all consenting adults.
While I like to think we live in a free society (diverse) freedom is not free, with it come responsibility, and respect toward others rights, and opinions. In private what you do is your business, but in public, we as a civil society lay down standards, and values...I don't care if your hetero, or homo, if I am in a park with my child I don't particularly want my kid to see two teens groping and sucking face, let alone two homosexuals.
As far as morals go I do have a problem with this behavior, it all boils down to right & wrong. If your definition of a free society boils down to tolerance of everything than this is when civil societies break down, then all behavior can be accepted. For instance if two consenting adult (males) having sex can be acceptable, then you have to accept two consenting adults (father & daughter). as acceptable behavior. I don't think any one will agree that is diversity! but maybe in another twenty years..., the way we are going who knows?
I know we need as many people on our side as possible, but I am not selling my morals down river to gain support for something that I already have!
Remember your rights were granted by God, and guarantee by George
I apologize if I offended anyone  , with my bad English, & writing skills. I admit I am no writer, but I do love to write, that's all that matters right?
While I agree that some in the so-called "gay community" are too aggressive with their views, when what they are essentially (or should be) seeking is a live-and-let-live scenario, I have serious issues with your post. I intend no offense; I do not seek to push any agenda, only to rectify what I see as a failure of understanding.
First of all, you act as though there is no civil rights issue, because gays have the right to "God and guns and speech" (as though rights are limited to just those three things, as opposed to any act which does not infringe upon the right of another to the same), and then a paragraph later you seriously question whether it ought to be "acceptable" (read: legal) for gays to engage in sexual intercourse.
Don't you see the problem here? If someone arbitrarily denied you the right to engage in sexual intercourse, I suspect you'd be concerned with more than just "God guns and speech" yourself. You might think this is irrelevant because of your arbitrary definition of "normal". But your definition is irrelevant. Only substantive harm matters.
Every state in this country outlawed homosexuality, or what some call the "homosexual act", in one form or another, until the latter half of the 20th century. Some still do.
Forget incest. That is a red herring, misleading vividness, a slippery slope fallacy, and entirely irrelevant. The only thing that you rightly ought to address is harm to another. I would require you to show me how two consenting homosexuals doing whatever they please causes any more harm than a heterosexual couple performing (essentially) the same acts. (Very few father-daugher relationships are characterized by anything like informed consent without coercion, and real, substantive harm is a near-certainty.)
I agree by default that any time the "gay agenda" or "community" or any sort of pro-gay activism engages in aggression (using the law, or their behavior) or otherwise causes real harm that it has gone too far. But the same applies to the "anti-gay agenda". You don't get a free pass just because you think you're "normal".
I know you *say* that you don't have a problem with what people do in private, but that is belied by your insistence on bringing up "what people do in a park", as though homosexuals automatically, by default, inherently commit lascivious acts in public more often than heterosexuals do (I hate to admit it, but my own history as a youthful heterosexual would put serious challenge to that claim).
If someone is "obscene in public" (I question whether actual harm occurs, by the way), that has nothing to do with whether that person is a homosexual or a heterosexual, merely that they were "obscene".
This post is rambling and failing to coalesce, but the point I'm trying to suggest is that, as long as you deny there is a civil rights issue while questioning the inherent morality of homosexuality, you will fuel what you perceive to be the "gay agenda".
It's a two-way street, and as long as gay couples are denied hospital visitation rights because "there is no civil rights issue, and besides homosexuality is wrong anyway because kids like to make out in parks", the fire is fueled and will burn.
If personally know gays who feel they need to be aggressive to affect the changes they (rightly) seek. While I don't necessarily support this view, it occurs to me that the easiest way to deflate the "in-your-face" gay activists (like the ones we see here in San Francisco) would be to stop playing games and grant them equality before the law.
Simple things, that don't require government getting involved with religion. Like, stopping the licensure of marriage, and granting civil benefits to couples (like hospital visitation rights), either by law or through contract. Irrelevant as you may see them, there simply are civil issues that extend beyond "god guns and speech".
Please understand, I'm not suggesting that you personally are responsible for any of these problems. I'm merely trying to point out the other side of the issue, that it's not as simple as talk radio would have you believe. That some people take things too far doesn't nullify their core validity. Please keep that in mind.
Please read my post again, I do not insist or insinuate, if you feel or assume that is all on you, I write what I literally mean, there are no hidden messages or intentions.
Civil rights are for all races, ages, & sex (male & female) religion etc. Not for Hair color, piercings, sexual perversions/preferences! those may be civil liberties, or more like social life styles. but not Constitutional rights as enumerated in the bill of rights.
As far as your hospital analogy, first that is a hospital policy, to allow who they wish to visit, as far as I know there are no laws that denies you to visit your gay lover!, second hospital visitations I don't concider a right, most hospitals are private. Remember the constitution limits Govt., not citizens.
I suggest you stop using the typical talking points of the left, it makes you seem as your only repeating what you hear, and not what you feel.
Oh and THEY DO HAVE EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW!, They have a right to every single thing hetero's have! The right to a lawyer, speech, assemble, vote, prayer, the right to remain silent, the right to equal protection under the constitution.
Not to get too far off topic, My point is that My gun rights are written in the second, that makes it more than a civil right it is a constitutional one, there for I need no one particular group to legitimize my agenda, let alone one group that is masquerading as as a wolf in sheep's clothing.
The Ironic thing is that we know gays for the most part support the second because the gay community is highly educated, and they know the law, the ironic part is their supporters or sympathizers (appeasers) want me to recognize the gay agenda which may or may not be a civil right, but will not recognize mine which is a right
|
ne1
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 452 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 08:39 am |
|
| As I see it, the question should not be whether gays can marry (an oxymoron) but, why (in a nation that guarantees freedom to associate) should a license from the government be required to engage in a consensual relationship? Commonlaw marriage is no longer common and most states require some sort of fee to register a relationship.
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:24 pm |
|
Some would have a mere consensual relationship entail legal liabilities, hence the acknowledgment in the license.
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:01 pm |
|
utbagpiper wrote:
So my question remains. Does freedom go both ways? You believe homosexual couples should get marriage licenses if they want them? Do you also believe that I should be free not to rent to, employ, provide benefits to partners of, or provide business services to homosexuals if I don't want to? Do you support my freedom not to associate with homosexuals if I choose not to? I'm not asking whether you think doing so is a good idea, nice, kind, Christian, or proper. I'm asking whether you think I should have the legal freedom to do so if that is what I want to do?
Of course I support your freedom of association.
Attack my arguments, not straw men for them. Disassociate with all the gays you want, for all I care. Ban them from your property. Fire them from your employment.
Here's an example from 2007.
http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2009/05/same-sex-partner-excluded-from-visitation-rights/
Not a California couple, but had they been and travelled to Florida, the same thing would have happened (I don't fee like researching every example. Once should be sufficient to demonstrate harm. It usually is in court.)Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:09 pm by marshaul
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:04 pm |
|
ne1 wrote:
As I see it, the question should not be whether gays can marry (an oxymoron) but, why (in a nation that guarantees freedom to associate) should a license from the government be required to engage in a consensual relationship? Commonlaw marriage is no longer common and most states require some sort of fee to register a relationship.
Exactly. Marriage is a religious concept, and many religions don't accept gay marriage.
This is why, if the anti-gay-marriage types wanted to engage in reasonable debate, rather than merely questioning the morality of their opponents, they would argue as I do, for the abolition of marriage licensure.
It's so easy for both parties to have their cake and eat it too. If there is no state-marriage, then the issue of federal recognition of partnerships will sort itself our in short order. Furthermore, there will be no worry of people being able to sue, saying "marry us gays!".
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:08 pm |
|
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Some would have a mere consensual relationship entail legal liabilities, hence the acknowledgment in the license.
Actually, very good point. This should stop. Individuals are free to assume liabilities for another, and they are free not to. Anything else is an abrogation of right.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 10:01 pm |
|
utbagpiper wrote: Am I acting within the proper bounds of my liberty not to rent to or hire someone because I find his sexual conduct offensive? Am I free not to provide business services to someone if I find him or his conduct offensive?
This discussion is getting pretty far afield from the Cramer and Pierce articles discussing why open carry is or is not a good technique to increase acceptance of gun rights and whether slamming the gay community helps gun rights.
But as for businesses discriminating against gays, I don't know what the state of the law on that issue in every state but my bet is that if such discrimination is not already actionable at common or statutory law against places of public accomodation, inkeepers, and common carriers, and in realty transactions, it very soon will be in many or most states. See http://tinyurl.com/y9q4d3s
(reporting that a cab driver may lose his cab license for refusing service to a hugging gay couple because such discrimination conduct may violate New York's Human Rights Act)
It also seems to me to be undoubtable that attacking the gay community is not helpful to the gun rights community, which at its core is still way too small of a tent - we need a big and welcoming tent, certainly not a tent which discriminates against or alienates gun owners, voters, and politicians merely because somebody objects to another person's choice of lawful conduct - those objections need to stay concealed.
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 10:09 pm by Mike
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 10:29 pm |
|
The GOP has just ignored another object lesson on The Big Tent.
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 05:59 am |
|
marshaul wrote:
Exactly. Marriage is a religious concept, and many religions don't accept gay marriage.
This is why, if the anti-gay-marriage types wanted to engage in reasonable debate, rather than merely questioning the morality of their opponents, they would argue as I do, for the abolition of marriage licensure.
It's so easy for both parties to have their cake and eat it too. If there is no state-marriage, then the issue of federal recognition of partnerships will sort itself our in short order. Furthermore, there will be no worry of people being able to sue, saying "marry us gays!".
Marshaul, you are either being disingenuous or your are ignorant of history.
Marriage is NOT strictly a religious concept. Virtually every society has the concept of marriage, including those where one is hard pressed to identify a religion. Yes, religions do lay claim to marriage. But societies have also long seen the value that marriage brings to them. Again, even among the Classics where homosexual conduct and even pederasty (as well as prostitution) was widely accepted, marriage between man and woman was given special benefit not available to any other relationship.
You are also attacking straw men as I've barely made mention of the morality of my opponents. I KNOW the homosexuals' favorite line is to simply disagree with or reject religious beliefs and scream "separation of church and state" as if a set of values with religious underpinnings is less worthy of consideration that a set of values based on some other foundation. So I avoid making religious arguments.
My arguments are simply this:
1-Real marriage has demonstrable benefits to society so society extends rewards to marriage in order to encourage and perpetuate it. Homosexual coupling has never been shown to have substantially similar benefits to society.
Not only is society under no obligation to extend benefits to homosexual coupling (nor any other relationship or sexual practice), it is also under no obligation to withdraw the benefits it extends to real marriage.
2-Freedom, real freedom, requires that individuals be free to associate or not, as they see fit. And whatever you may be claiming here, perhaps even really believe, the primary effect of extending ANY benefit to homosexual couples--call it marriage or otherwise--is to infringe on the rights of others. In a nation of 300 million people, you found ONE case, from 2 1/2 years ago, where a homosexual partner had to produce a copy of a medical power of attorney before being allowed to visit. It is an unfortunate case; but hardly a pattern, and hardly cause to alter the laws of an entire nation. And if one really wants to support freedom, one might ask about the freedom of a private hospital to set their own policies about visitation.
You claim you'd let me disassociate as I see fit. Do you, therefore, condemn the lesbian couple in Cali who did not let a fertility doctor disassociate, but sued him? Do you condemn the homosexual couple in New Mexico who did not let a wedding photographer disassociate but sued her for declining to provide service? What about the multiple cases of homosexuals suing the Boy Scouts of America for declining to allow openly homosexual men to serve as scoutmasters or openly homosexual boys to be in troops?
Do you really favor freedom of association enough to go on record here in these cases?
3-In a democrat/republic society, somebody's values are going to hold sway. And there are VERY few values that are really "universal." The fact that we hold all men created equal before the law rather than having a caste or royalty system, that theft is wrong, that murder is wrong, that rape is wrong, is simply because a majority of our people hold those values and have enshrined them into law. Public nudity is generally scorned and nudity in movies or TV is far more troubling to us than is violence in entertainment (while our European cousins hold just the opposite view) simply because of majority values. At the end of the day, either the majority gets to say, for example, "No public nudity, no public sex, no public intoxication," OR some minority gets to inflict public nudity, public sex, or public intoxication on everyone. I don't much care what two (or 20) people do in private. But I see no reason to let a petulant, bitchy minority impose their "values" so-called, on all of society by redefining marriage. And frankly, I'm a little peeved that on a pro-RKBA, pro-OC, single issue site, we yet again have a minority acting like there is only one correct view to hold on social legitimization of homosexual coupling.
Look, in 31 States the voters have been given a chance to vote on whether to change the definition of marriage. And in ALL 31--including the looney left coast of Cali, deep in the heart of Democrat safe New England Maine, and pretty much across the rest of the nation--they have declined to change the definition of marriage. In every high profile case I've followed, the homosexual have outspent those defending real marriage by significant margins. Yet in EVERY State where the people have had the chance to vote, they've voiced their desire to retain the real definition of marriage. The people of this nation are speaking loud and clear. But you don't intend to respect their rights. You plan to FORCE them to accept and condone and reward homosexual coupling as though it were real marriage. You speak of freedom, but you are anxious to use force on those who disagree with you.
First you get upset at me because some folks in Utah supported Prop 8 because it was none of our business. Then you tell me that homosexuals in Cali were justified in suing for marriage--despite having full civil unions with EVERY State level benefit--because they deserve to force every other State and the feds to recognize as "marriage" homosexual coupling. Then you turn around and claim you support my right to freely disassociate, even as you've been pushing for laws that would remove that right from me if I happen to run a business, rent apartments, or hire employees. And now you claim the government should just get out of the marriage business and try to claim that marriage is just a religious institution completely ignoring the vast secular and social history and interest in marriage.
Why don't you pick an argument angle and stick with it. Or, better yet, keep your pro-homosexual crap off this site just as we are generally expected to avoid demanding others adopt our views on taxes, welfare, immigration, or even political party affiliation?
Charles
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 06:28 am by utbagpiper
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 06:09 am |
|
Master Doug Huffman wrote: The GOP has just ignored another object lesson on The Big Tent.
Really. Which GOP and which lesson?
It was Democrat Bill Clinton who signed the Federal DOMA into law. EVERY Democrat leader in Washington at the present time, including Pres. Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Reid are on record as saying they believe marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman? Do you think all these Democrats are lying to us about their real position?
And in case you hadn't noticed, Maine is not exactly a GOP stronghold. On the same day they voted to retain the real and honest definition of marriage, they also voted to expand the legal use of medical marijuana AND they rejected a limit on taxes. Maine is not exactly full of right-wing-religious nuts. It was Obama supporting Blacks and Hispanics who put Prop 8 over the top in Cali, NOT mormons or catholics or other religious groups.
Look, in 31 States the voters have been given a chance to vote on whether to change the definition of marriage. And in ALL 31--including the looney left coast of Cali, deep in the heart of Democrat safe New England Maine, and pretty much across the rest of the nation--they have declined to change the definition of marriage. In every high profile case I've followed, the homosexual have outspent those defending real marriage by significant margins. Yet in EVERY State where the people have had the chance to vote, they've voiced their desire to retain the real definition of marriage.
This is not partisan. It is not about big tents. And it sure the crap isn't about guns. It is about basic, American values.
So if a couple of homosexuals want to drag this site down into endless debates on their pet issue, I'll go there. I will no longer sit silent while political correctness or fear of being attacked with epithets from the very people whose siren songs are "diversity and tolerance" prevents too many from standing up and saying "NO! We don't have to condone or reward that. We may have to tolerate what consenting adults do in private. But you do NOT get to change the definition of marriage. You do not get to force me to act as if homosexual coupling is equal to real and honorable and socially beneficial marriage."
I'll work with darn near anyone to advance RKBA/OC. I'm more than happy not to bring up my personal, political, or religious views on homosexual conduct, immigration, taxes, political affiliation, speed limits, or any other topic. All I ask of those with whom I work is that they show forth the same courtesy.
Charles
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 06:27 am |
|
Mike wrote:
This discussion is getting pretty far afield from the Cramer and Pierce articles discussing why open carry is or is not a good technique to increase acceptance of gun rights and whether slamming the gay community helps gun rights.
But as for businesses discriminating against gays, I don't know what the state of the law on that issue in every state but my bet is that if such discrimination is not already actionable at common or statutory law against places of public accomodation, inkeepers, and common carriers, and in realty transactions, it very soon will be in many or most states. See http://tinyurl.com/y9q4d3s
(reporting that a cab driver may lose his cab license for refusing service to a hugging gay couple because such discrimination conduct may violate New York's Human Rights Act)
It also seems to me to be undoubtable that attacking the gay community is not helpful to the gun rights community, which at its core is still way too small of a tent - we need a big and welcoming tent, certainly not a tent which discriminates against or alienates gun owners, voters, and politicians merely because somebody objects to another person's choice of lawful conduct - those objections need to stay concealed.
Mike,
For the record, there is nothing in federal law that prevents a private individual or private business from freely disassociating. There is nothing in the State laws of my State that prevent that.
But I did not ask what the law was, I asked whether people believed I had a RIGHT (and rights are not always respected in statute as RKBA/OC/CC attests) to freely disassociate with someone based on his choice to reveal to me that he engages in sexual conduct I find offensive? I asked whether people supported such a right or whether all this "I may disagree with what you say but will fight for your right to say it" talk was all unidirectional?
Does tolerance go both ways? Are we here, willing to tolerate the religious nut, homophobe, bigot, prude, or just plain traditional fellow who doesn't care to have anything to do with someone is open and public about sexual conduct that the person finds offensive or off putting?
I also think you need to re-examine who is attacking who. Cramer used a political incorrect example to make a point. And a few folks here have taken offense. But guess what. It is an example that the vast majority understand. Even marshaul finds himself in the position of having to agree that some of the tactics of the homosexuals are offensive, but, he is quick to argue, justifiable for one reason or another. Beyond that, it was not heterosexuals who pushed to increase penalties for homosexual conduct. We haven't been demanding the APA put homosexuality back into the list of recognized mental illnesses.
It is the homosexual community that has attacked the definition of marriage. They have gone to court (usually) and swayed a few legislators to fundamentally alter the definition of the basic unit of society. In response to court rulings in Hawaii and Massachusetts, Cali, and a legislative vote in Maine, the voters in 30 States have adopted constitutional amendments protecting marriage. Voters in Maine have now rejected a change in definition of marriage making 31 States, ALL 31 where a popular vote has been allowed, that have rejected altering their definition of marriage.
I happy to work with darn near anyone on RKBA/OC/CC. But why should I have to adopt their views on non-RKBA issues? How is that any more sensible than demanding they adopt my views?
I'm more than happy to keep my objections to calling homosexual coupling "marriage" concealed, just so long as those advocating such hijacking of the english language keep their views on the subject concealed.
Ditto when it comes to positions and objections on medical or recreational marijuana, or positions or objections on undocumented workers/illegal aliens, immigration policy, or border security, welfare (or wealth transfer/socialism depending on your point of view), medical reform (or takeover of 1/6th of economy), abortion, and whether or not the college bowl system should be replaced by a playoff.
I don't expect anyone involved with RKBA to agree with me on any position except RKBA. And even there, I think there is plenty of room for honest disagreement as we get to border cases. But neither do I expect to have to agree with them on any issue but RKBA. And I don't expect to have to sit silent while they express their views on other issues.
I"m here to talk guns. But if others want to talk homosexual this or gay that, I will counter them.
I'm thrilled to have homosexuals defending RKBA. But I won't sell out my property rights, my rights to associate, my freedom of speech, or my freedom of religion, nor my freedom to equal protection under the law just to keep a tent big enough for radical homosexuals to be willing to defend RKBA.
Charles
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 06:35 am |
|
marshaul wrote:
Actually, very good point. This should stop. Individuals are free to assume liabilities for another, and they are free not to. Anything else is an abrogation of right.
And so they are. Legal methods for doing this abound: business partnerships, corporations, powers of attorney, joint ownership of property, and so on.
But marriage, real marriage, is so fundamental to society, that EVERY society in history has extended benefits and recognition to it. Nobody has to get married if they don't want to. But society does get to set the terms upon which it will extend benefits.
We give tax breaks for buying a home, but not for buying a race car or boat. Why? Because society has found home ownership is something worth encouraging and rewarding because of the benefits that home ownership brings to society.
If you believe society should extend some benefit or reward for homosexual coupling, then you should convince society of that. But so far, you're batting 31-0 on popular votes, including in a couple of pretty liberal strong holds and despite outspending your opposition AND having the support of popular entertainment and the mainstream media. You may want to reconsider the efficacy of your tactics.
Even better, you may want to discuss this topic on a board dedicated to marriage, or homosexual issues, or general politics, rather than one whose sole purpose is RKBA/OC.
Charles.
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:38 am |
|
utbagpiper wrote:
But marriage, real marriage, is so fundamental to society, that EVERY society in history has extended benefits and recognition to it. Nobody has to get married if they don't want to. But society does get to set the terms upon which it will extend benefits.
I do not dispute this per se. I acknowledge that marriage has had a civil component for many centuries, evident in our common law.
But I argue this was a failure to complete the separation of church and state. This is evident now that society is no longer in unanimous agreement upon the religious notion that marriage must be between a man and a woman.
And if the conflation cannot be ended, if you support benefits to married couples that you believe should not extend to all contractual "domestic" partners, then I argue that those benefits ought not to exist at all, as you are essentially giving and denying benefits to people based on whether their share an arbitrary religious conviction.
Actually though, I wonder how benefits went around being given to common law couples who never registered their unions with the state.
I suppose it also depends how you define "benefits".
At any rate, iI suggest redefining "marriage" as what occurs in a church and "civil union" as what occurs before a magistrate.
Either way, though, if we are going to give privileges to couples, I buy the 14th Amendment argument that those benefits ought to be equally granted to all couples regardless of gender. The way I see it, avoiding that by defining "couple" as "one man and one woman" is analogous to defining "human" as "white person". Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:47 am by marshaul
|
hopnpop
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 02:17 pm |
|
I, too, have been familiar with Cramer's writings and I, too, have cheered him on... but only until now. I've never seen him write anything like this before, and if I had, he would have lost me as a reader then. This sucks. While I don't much care to see public displays of affection among gays, I really don't care much for public displays among heteros either. Personally, I think a smooch in public is totally acceptable but I don't like seeing people make-out, regardless of who they are or what their sexual orientation is. But ya know what? I recognize that it's everyone's right to do so, so I shrug my shoulders and carry on. If you're that bothered by it, seek therapy. Respect peoples' rights. Simple platform.
Hello, Mr. Cramer, my name is hopnpop, how are you today? I'm calling on behalf of gun owners everywhere to inform you that you're a douchebag and to ask if you'd consent to having the corncob removed from your arse....
|
Gray Peterson
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 05:46 pm |
|
Charles,
I noticed that you completely ignored Marshaul's link in posting replies to him, and I'll bring it up to you.
The case that he speaks of is the horrific case of Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond. This couple, who actually lived in my state, went to Florida (the state where I was raised) for a vacation. Lisa collapsed as they were about to be loaded onto the cruise ship. Knowing that there was a possibility of something like this occurring, Janice and Lisa had went through the effort of having medical proxies, and other forms of legal contracts making each other primary decision maker.
Janice was told "The documents don't matter, you live in an anti-gay state". They allowed Lisa's sister (who happened to live in Florida) to see Lisa, but not her and her children (who both of them had legally adopted). The only way that they were able to see Lisa before she died was behalf was that the on site chaplain basically had to basically sneak her and her kids in while the chaplain was giving her last rites before death.
She sued in court for intentional infliction of emotional distress in the federal court, as the state DOMA law prohibited recognition of anything resembling marriage. Two months ago, the federal district court of south florida basically told her "she didn't have any rights" despite the legal documents, whereas if Janice Langbehn were instead Jonathan Langbehn, a man, and married to Lisa Pond, he would have every right to sue in state court, and most likely win.
As amendment 2 in the state constitution had passed and binds the state courts, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is filled with judges who just thoroughly dislike LGBT people in general, she had to give up her quest for justice for what was done to her. This is despite the fact that she had documents copied from this website, which is from the Florida Senate!
The inhumanity of the situation is brought tears to my eyes when I heard her story personally. You asked for an example, and I (along with Marshaul) gave you just one of many. One is too much. What happened to Janice should never happen, anywhere in this country.
No one ever questions or demands a marriage certificate for a couples of opposite gender, but me and my spiritual husband (who I am legally domestically partnered under Washington State law, which was recently strengthened by R-71's passage), we have to carry an additional ID card just in case some moron desk clerk at a hospital decides to start some BS.
William and I have to live with the constant fear of what happened to Janice might happen to us. Despite having a license from the state of Florida to carry, and despite having my immediate family in Florida, I face the extreme risk that if I'm injured or killed in FL visiting my family, my family will not respect my wishes, and they'll try to bury me here in FL, forcing my husband to have to fight in a Florida court to have my court documents recognized insofar as my wishes (fat chance thanks to amendment 2). Short of my parents dying or attending their funeral, I cannot even risk going to Florida.
I'm limited, for the most part, to visiting the states that have some form of relationship recognition for my domestic partnership (11 of those), plus a few other states who's court systems and hospitals have not shown outright hostility towards same gender couples. That means the entirety of the south is flat out for travel. Same with most of the mountain west.
Charles, you need to understand that you can go anywhere in this country with your wife, without the fear of what happened to Janice happening to you. The Hardy Family never has to worry about what happens when they travel. EVER. That's the great thing about having the privilege of being lucky to be straight. The Peterson Family? 30 states has a literal iron curtain of "If you cross this border, you're on your own". I call it a form of apartheid.
I double dog dare you to justify what happened to Janice and Lisa's family. I can also cite at least a dozen other instances of this sort of thing occurring, but Janice's situation gets right to the point of how ineffective "powers of attorney" are. I double dog dare you justify the amount of avoidance my family has to go through in terms of traveling, without resorting to cop outs like "society decides" and other associated red herrings and fallacies.
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 05:48 pm by Gray Peterson
|
Gray Peterson
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 05:57 pm |
|
Then you turn around and claim you support my right to freely disassociate, even as you've been pushing for laws that would remove that right from me if I happen to run a business, rent apartments, or hire employees.
You're talking about anti-discrimination laws? If we're talking about pure liberty issues here, I have a particular important question: Do you believe that those sort of protections should exist under any class at all?
Let me ask this in a different way, do you feel that if you were renting out an apartment, hiring employees, and so on, that you should be able to solely restrict the hiring on the basis of religion or race? For example, if you wanted to, you'd be able to refuse to rent to persons who are not followers of the Latter Day Saints? Or refuse to rent to certain ethnic groups? Not that you would, but would you want the option?
You see, those kinds of situations are a little different. You at least would be intellectually honest, and say that anti-discrimination laws should not exist at all. We can disagree on that point but not be disparaging. I'd argue that it's about 50 years too late to make that argument, and that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 isn't going anywhere, and has been repeatedly upheld as constitutional.
Given the tone of your postings, however, I somehow don't believe you are that intellectually pure.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 06:46 pm |
|
utbagpiper wrote: For the record, there is nothing in federal law that prevents a private individual or private business from freely disassociating.
You use very odd words to describe discrimination - surely the federal statutory law of common carriers, and the common law of probably every state, even your state precludes any common carrier from "disassociating" (i.e., denying carriage to) people because they are gay - they must generally take all comers - and I bet innkeepers have ther same obligation.
|
ne1
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 452 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 12:27 am |
|
Mike wrote: This discussion is getting pretty far afield from the Cramer and Pierce articles discussing why open carry is or is not a good technique to increase acceptance of gun rights and whether slamming the gay community helps gun rights.
If you look at the similarities between the issues it may not have gone so far astray at all:
1. We have a right to keep and bear arms but it has devolved into a privilege to carry only when one has paid the state for the license to carry concealed. Public display of weapons is discouraged. People know that guns are everywhere but as long as they do not see them it is okay. The state strictly regulates the manner of carry, type of weapons to carry, where carry is not permissible, etc. Whole classes of people have been disenfranchised by statute. Large groups may be accused of forming paramilitary associations.
2. We have a right to assemble and associate as we please but intimate relations are only sanctioned for those whom have obtained a license- and even that is expected to take place in seclusion. People know the facts of life but they just don't want to see it, hence laws against obscenity. Any group of significant size may also be required to obtain a permit before assembling in public regardless of the degree of intimacy. Public displays of affection are discouraged. Marriage licenses are not granted unless the participants meet socially acceptable criteria. At various times in history blacks have been forbidden from marrying whites, most cultures have some rule about incest, marriages of mixed religions, etc. are discouraged.
Both rights have evolved over time but we are a far cry from the ideal of what American freedom should and could be.
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 02:38 am |
|
Gray Peterson wrote: You're talking about anti-discrimination laws? If we're talking about pure liberty issues here, I have a particular important question: Do you believe that those sort of protections should exist under any class at all?
Let me ask this in a different way, do you feel that if you were renting out an apartment, hiring employees, and so on, that you should be able to solely restrict the hiring on the basis of religion or race? For example, if you wanted to, you'd be able to refuse to rent to persons who are not followers of the Latter Day Saints? Or refuse to rent to certain ethnic groups? Not that you would, but would you want the option?
You see, those kinds of situations are a little different. You at least would be intellectually honest, and say that anti-discrimination laws should not exist at all. We can disagree on that point but not be disparaging. I'd argue that it's about 50 years too late to make that argument, and that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 isn't going anywhere, and has been repeatedly upheld as constitutional.
Given the tone of your postings, however, I somehow don't believe you are that intellectually pure.
I'm happy to give you my full, honest view on these things.
But I'll ask the courtesy of you going first.
Do YOU believe you have some right to use government to FORCE me to rent to, hire, extend health benefits to sexual intimates of, or otherwise associate with persons who choose to make known that they engage in sexual conduct I find offensive?
I'm not asking what you believe about race or religion or any other category, nor existing anti-discrimination laws. I'm asking whether you, and Marshaul, and others who are so quick to trot out the "freedom" or "liberty", "diversity or tolerance" rhetoric believe government has some rightful power to force individuals to associate with those whose sexual conduct they make publicly known and that offends them?
Give a straightforward, honest answer that you are willing to apply not only to homosexuals, but to polygamists, to incestuous consenting adults, to those who engage in S&M, B&D, or other fetishes, and who make public their proclivity for such sexual conduct.
Go ahead.
Charles
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 02:43 am |
|
Mike wrote:
You use very odd words to describe discrimination - surely the federal statutory law of common carriers, and the common law of probably every state, even your state precludes any common carrier from "disassociating" (i.e., denying carriage to) people because they are gay - they must generally take all comers - and I bet innkeepers have ther same obligation.
As we often say when someone makes a claim about what gun or OC laws are, or are not, I'll welcome a citation.
I can find NO law that prohibits an employer, landlord, small businessman, or even inn keeper in Utah (that would be both Utah and federal law) from "discriminating" against someone because that someone engages in S&M, B&D, polygamy, or homosexual sexual activity. Citations to the contrary are welcome.
Do you believe that such a law should exist? Do you want government to have power to force you to associate with someone with whom you don't care to associate?
Should the Jewish owner of small business be prohibited from discriminating against a neo-Nazi, if he wants to do so?
Should a devout Christian be forced to associate with a person who makes publicly known that he engages in sexual conduct deemed offensive, even immoral by the Christian?
What say you?
Charles
|
Current time is 01:26 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   |
|
|
|
