For or Against Gay Marriage

Jean Paul,

In the sixties, you worked closely with a great humanist, Bertrand Russell. Didn't you and he ever discuss these compassion/empathy-based aspects of humanism?



The Humanist Manifesto's title itself causes many to assume that humanism is synonymous with communism.

1: From building wheelchair ramps to financial aid to developing nations, all the way to universal healthcare.
2: Humanism predates Marxism by several centuries. Although I'd say Marx was for the most part a humanist.
3: Approximately. (Oil is a long conversation)
4: In large cloth bags? Sorry, I don't understand how you would like me to answer this question.
5: Many, but not all modern humanists, define themselves as socialists. Modern humanism is an "oRABhoot" of humanism. The political system known as socialism came much, much later in world history.

I should note that (to my chagrin) some modern humanists define their philosophy as nothing more than atheism. In fact, there are Randian libertarians who call themselves humanists.

I expect you figured I might be entirely defensive about the suggestion of communism/socialism. I live in Canada (or Kanada, as some republicans prefer), and grew up with less "Commies are evil! Bread lines! Russians wanna nuke us 'cause they're pinkos! Dem dere Ruskies :xcensored and :xcensored our :xcensored -dom of speech! Kill! Kill! Kill!" than other peoples in the Western world. (I'm not saying that you seem ignorant to me JP. You don't)

In closing, I should say that I've NEVER met a humanist (and I've met hundreRAB) who told me they thought heart surgeons and gas station attendants should make the same amount of money.

Hope you're well,
Derek
 
Um, really? Even after the US Supreme Court refused to stop them? Even after 3 pro-amendment folks lost their seats in the legislature? Even after the State House of Representatives elected a pro-gay marriage rep as Speaker of the House? Even after several of the reps and senators who voted for the amendment openly changed their stance on the issue? Even after public opinion in Massachusetts has moved in favor of Gay Marriage?

You still think the jury is still out?
 
I think their point is that homosexual tax payers should not benefit from marriage benefits as the heterosexual community will receive more benefits if they don't include homosexual life partners in the benefits.

The points about disease and stuff...don't have any, my partner doesn't have any so that isn't an issue for us and for a lot of homosexual couples. Besides, there are a lot of heterosexuals out there with diseases and the government doesn't stop them from getting married.

KiRAB...we don't have any, won't have any.

I still don't see how allowing more people to marry will lead to further weakening of the institution of marriage. That is the most insane argument I've ever heard before. It started with that guy Falwell that the Christians like and watch every night. He started all that...just made it up one day in the back of his limmo while inhaling a line of cocaine and feeling up one of his female cult members.
 
This is not some minor inconvenience, however. Pregnancy, on the woman, is physically taxing to the extreme. A woman's own thoughts and emotions about this are important too, especially if she is expected to take care of her health during the pregnancy. The fetus is totally dependent on her.



Who isn't against that? Do you see your family the same as non-sentient fetuses, totally dependent?



Have you ever thought of what it may be like if the situation were reversed, and women wanted to control your body, in a society were women held the balance of power?



In your world, women are thoughtless containers, unable to make their own choices about their bodies. Yet at the same time they are expected to have mandatory pregnancy through an understanding of your personal morality.



It's not only people who have pre-marital sex who have abortions.



You seem to be preaching that you and your family are more righteous. "Illegitimate", seems like a horrible word to describe a kid or a family to me. Why do you judge other families when you insist on mandatory pregnancy?
 
Your right, Wrong topic..........But you did say that 10 percent of all abortions were not neccessary and that would come to a total of 4,000,000 on a total count of 40,000,000 since 1972..........
 
Repeating this falsehood and rolling your eyes does not make it true. I could go to Canada tomorrow, get married and then return to the U.S. and they would not arrest me, even if I waved my marriage certificate in the face of every police officer I could find.

I can get married tomorrow, here in Massachusetts, then move to Utah, and wave that license in their faces and I would not be arrested.

Try doing that with your sister.



And why should we? I have yet to hear a gay person say she wants to marry her sister. We have explained why we need the benefits, and we have explained why there is no justification for denying us those benefits.

However, if you feel you need to marry your sister, please make the case.



Gay relationships are not illegal (thank you Lawrence Vs. Texas). Incest is.



How are the economic reasons the same? How are the constitutional reasons the same? Please explain.
 
No, I don't. And this will be the ONLY time I will politely ask you to refrain from telling me what it is I think or feel on any matter. I am more than capable of thinking and speaking for myself.

And just what is ideal anyway? Whatever is ideal for me - may not be for you - or Hydra - or JP.
 
I am straight as an arrow, just not narrow, and a Roman Catholic to boot. I proudly support the rights for the GLBT Community. In fact, I built a chapter of Dignity within our church.
 
Directed at Joe, but I'll take it anyway. Your arguments are bigoted. Directed at any other group, they would also be considered bigoted. Imagine saying you don't want to give equality to any other group based on ethnicity, race, religion, political affiliation, because members of any one of those groups are deviant and diseased, are only after your money, etc., just as you argue about gays.
 
Not exactly, more so "If it is good, then do it".

The problem is that people interpret the term 'feels good' to mean 'causes pleasure'.

We know that isn't true, because of the basic moral insight that doing the right thing, the good thing, doesn't always feel pleasurable.

When we abandon the infantile hedonist mistake of assuming that 'feels good' means 'causes pleasure' and take it to mean 'felt to be morally good" then you have the Canadian ethos.
I'd say that a mass exodus is unlikely because American gays, like most Americans, are incredibly proud of being American. All of the American gays that I've talked to argue that it would be cowardly, and that they are morally obliged to fight for their rights in the spirit of the American Revolutionaries. Like I said, I hope they see some sense someday (alliteration!), but you know how stubborn and proud Americans are.
 
Opinions change. 50 years ago those same polls said that Americans were strictly against interracial marriage. Besides, not everyone on this forum is American - 55% of Britons support same-sex marriage.
 
Maybe this will make light of it. It is not about what is legal in one state being legal in another because it is legal in the first one.....(wow, that was a mouthful)

It is about judges and how they rule things are or are not recognized. For instance, if one states court ruled on a case based on that states laws, They couldn't go to another state and get a different ruling. SO, If gay marriage is legal in one state and you went to anther state to get a divorce, they would need to grant it based on the clause.



see below for a better explaination that I gave...
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f073.htm

FULL FAITH AND CREDIT - A legal principle requiring judges to recognize and enforce valid decrees and judgments issued by courts in other states. Thus, a Wisconsin judgment for back alimony can be enforced in Idaho, if the recipient takes the steps necessary to convert it to an Idaho judgment.

In the past, states often did not afford full faith and credit to custody decisions of courts in other states, preferring instead to decide the issues on the evidence before them. This often led to contradictory custody orders and sometimes children were kidnapped and thrown back and forth. Now, however, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act require states to give full faith and credit to custody decisions rendered in other states.

FULL FAITH AND CREDIT ACT - 28 U.S.C. s.1738, requires that federal courts 'give a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered.' Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 ('84).



or on a sader note:

In 1996, President William Jefferson Clinton initialed the Defense of Marriage Act. For purposes of federal law, marriage is defined exclusively as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." The act also purports to lift any obligation of states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution to recognize same-sex marriages that might be sanctioned in sister jurisdictions.

At present, 37 states expressly withhold the sanctity of marriage from homosexual couples. The remainder accomplishes the same by implication. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Sun Oil Company vs. Wortman (1988), and Pacific Employers Ins. Co. vs. Industrial Accident Commission (1939), no state would be compelled to recognize same-sex marriages authorized by a sister state. The high court explained that the clause does not compel "a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate." And the court declared in Penoyer vs. Neff (1878): "The state... has an absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved."

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Sec...EMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm
 
Sorry I don't read bias garbage whether is be pro or con...............

The priests that molested the boys admitted they were gay.........That has never even been questioned..........
 
Something similar went on in Canada when Quebec was conquered by the British. In order to avoid sectarian violence between anglo-Protestants and franco-Catholics the British gov't allowed clauses on freedom of religion in constitutional documents. Not that they didn't try every other way to screw the Catholics over, just the way they thought would avoid armed uprisings.
 
Back
Top