And what if they base who they include/employ based on other things, past criminial history for example? Should they also be excluded from recieving public funds?
Nope, because criminal history isn't a protected class. I also don't think criminal history is a great example, because you are talking about a group of people who have been convicted of a crime. If you can't accept that it is ok for society to treat them differently, how can you justify punishing them at all?
And before you pick a non-protected but trivial class (hair color, for example) consider that such a class could (and almost certainly would) become protected should it become anything more than a hypothetical problem.
As difficult as you may find it to believe, some people with whom you disagree may have actually thought out their positions.
And what if they base who they include/employ based on other things, past criminial history for example?
Participation in society is a deal. Each citizen agrees to follow the laws and pay taxes, and in return, he or she gets paved roads, police and fire departments, etc. If a person "opts out" of that deal by committing a felony (I'm not talking speeding tickets here), that's his or her choice, in my opinion.
If a person "opts out" of that deal by committing a felony (I'm not talking speeding tickets here), that's his or her choice, in my opinion.
But if they have "paid their debt to society"?
But if they have "paid their debt to society"?
If there were solid evidence that prison terms actually result in rehabilitation, that would be one thing. But the opposite seems to be the case. It's not a matter of "debt" to me, but of prevention of recurrence. As it is, a felony record more or less prevents gainful employment thereafter (it certainly would have in any of the jobs I've held), so in many cases we force convicted felons to commit crimes after their release in order to make a living -- in essence, the system is set up so that there can't really be any meaningful rehabilitation. That's unfortunate, but not under my control.
|
But if they have "paid their debt to society"?If there were solid evidence that prison terms actually result in rehabilitation, that would be one thing. But the opposite seems to be the case. It's not a matter of "debt" to me, but of prevention of recurrence. As it is, a felony record more or less prevents gainful employment thereafter (it certainly would have in any of the jobs I've held), so in many cases we force convicted felons to commit crimes after their release in order to make a living -- in essence, the system is set up so that there can't really be any meaningful rehabilitation. That's unfortunate, but not under my control.
i've been to prison, i'm gainfully employed, i'm not going back. kirth, hold individuals responsible for their own actions, i know a lot of people who were locked up with me who are THRIVING, because they TOOK RESPONSIBILITY for themselves when they were released. don't blame the system.
of course, i don't believe in "rights", as they do not exist. we have a set of "priveledges", period. a "right", presumably, is something everyone is entitled to, regardless of circumstances. anything that can be denied an individual under certain circumstances, isn't a "right".
the only "rights" anyone has are those they can, ultimately, defend themselves.
the obvious example is voting. i hear the word "right" and "vote" used together often, yet, i cannot vote. i do not have that "right"...
Seriously keep religion out of my government (and away from tax revenues) and I'm satisfied. It all comes down to respecting the rights of others, whether you are an adherent of their religion or not. Is it really that hard to understand?
</rant>
I don't like the idea of religous groups recieving government funds either. But then again i like Corporations recieving them even less. Airlines, defense contractors, drug companies all have huge untold ,untallied amounts of money funneled to them while the public is left to spin in the wind should trouble befall them......i would rather a large religous group get money than a bunch of ass vampires like Halliburton...
I've been to prison, I'm gainfully employed, I'm not going back. Don't blame the system.
Stand tall, Derek. I've met so many people who went the opposite route that it's easy for me to forget that some people actually do make good. Thanks for the post, and for the reminder.
Thanks, encouragement always helps, i appreciate it :)
Late 30's guys in Houston who dig bebop and post on Paizo gotta stick up for each other -- how many of us can there be?
Late 30's guys in Houston who dig bebop and post on Paizo gotta stick up for each other -- how many of us can there be?not many, from what i can tell...
Of course, the answer would probably have been the same if I simply said, "people in Houston who post on Paizo..." ;)
Sorry, back on topic now.|
|
Late 30's guys in Houston who dig bebop and post on Paizo gotta stick up for each other -- how many of us can there be?not many, from what i can tell...Of course, the answer would probably have been the same if I simply said, "people in Houston who post on Paizo..." ;)
Sorry, back on topic now.
yeah, back on topic!
the other side has smelly underwear! boo, other party! where did you learn to legislate? romper room??? hooray my side! we're cooler!!!
While on-topic for politics, but speaking of Houston, is anyone else's town/city "zoned" for particular candidates/parties? For Houston, in Montrose (just inside the inner loop) you're more or less assumed to have an "Obama '08" bumper sticker. Just about anywhere else in the city, and you'd better have a Jesus fish, a yellow ribbon, and a "W" sticker instead ("Bush/Cheney '04" will do in a pinch -- I still see a lot of those), or you might get run off the road. I'm very careful to keep my car emblem-free.
It almost reminds me of Jamaica just before the '02 elections, when you had to be certain not to wear green in certain neighborhoods of Kingston, or orange in other neighborhoods.
|
|
While on-topic for politics, but speaking of Houston, is anyone else's town/city "zoned" for particular candidates/parties? For Houston, in Montrose (just inside the inner loop) you're more or less assumed to have an "Obama '08" bumper sticker. Just about anywhere else in the city, and you'd better have a Jesus fish, a yellow ribbon, and a "W" sticker instead ("Bush/Cheney '04" will do in a pinch -- I still see a lot of those), or you might get run off the road. I'm very careful to keep my car emblem-free.
It almost reminds me of Jamaica just before the '02 elections, when you had to be certain not to wear green in certain neighborhoods of Kingston, or orange in other neighborhoods.
i live in montrose, no "obama 08" sticker on the sled (no stickers at all, actually), but i know what you mean. now, the sticker on a car that bugs me the most is on the car next to mine in the parking lot. it says "yes to rail on richmond". i may have to egg her car, i dunno...
now, the sticker on a car that bugs me the most is on the car next to mine in the parking lot. it says "yes to rail on richmond". i may have to egg her car, i dunno...
If we could get light rail lines from Katy and from Cypress to Westchase, then one from Westchase to Montrose and Downtown, and one from Downtown to Clear Lake and Galveston, Houston traffic could clear up tomorrow. Except that no one would use the rail system, because it's not a pickup truck.
|
|
now, the sticker on a car that bugs me the most is on the car next to mine in the parking lot. it says "yes to rail on richmond". i may have to egg her car, i dunno...If we could get light rail lines from Katy and from Cypress to Westchase, then one from Westchase to Montrose and Downtown, and one from Downtown to Clear Lake and Galveston, Houston traffic could clear up tomorrow. Except that no one would use the rail system, because it's not a pickup truck.
personally, i wish they had gone monorail. above the street and all that. i just dont want to see all the trees on richmond disappear, and i dont want richmond to suffer what happened to downtown. downtown was cool in 2000, not so much now.
personally, i wish they had gone monorail. above the street and all that. i just dont want to see all the trees on richmond disappear, and i dont want richmond to suffer what happened to downtown. downtown was cool in 2000, not so much now.
Yeah; I agree all around. Now, if only politics were that easy...
|
|
I respect your writing from the contest, but at this point, you're becoming the cause, not the cure. Might wanna make a mental ignore list and put yellowdingo, Shiny, myself and anyone else who is pissing you off on it.
Too much cool stuff to be had here to let intemperate comments on an off-topic thread sour you to this site, IMO.
If you are so into ignoring things, then ignore me calling Yellowdingo what he is.
If standing up for yourself is so hateful to certain people, perhaps they are the ones unsuitable to participate in conversations.
|
|
If there were solid evidence that prison terms actually result in rehabilitation, that would be one thing. But the opposite seems to be the case. It's not a matter of "debt" to me, but of prevention of recurrence. As it is, a felony record more or less prevents gainful employment thereafter (it certainly would have in any of the jobs I've held), so in many cases we force convicted felons to commit crimes after their release in order to make a living -- in essence, the system is set up so that there can't really be any meaningful rehabilitation. That's unfortunate, but not under my control.
If there is that much evidence that imprisonment does not lead to rehabilitation, and if rehabilitation is the intent of imprisonment as opposed to punishment, then you make a fine case for imprisonment being unconstitutional as cruel and unusual. The problem is, that ignores the fact that by definition the purpose of punishment is to punish, leaving rehabilitation to the discretion of the person punished.
That also makes a primary case for set prison terms to be foolish, with "until rehabilitated" being the only appropriate sentence. Naturally sending someone to prison for fifty years for stealing a pack of gum because they are a determined recidivist while sending someone to prison for only a week and a half because they find religion and reform is outrageous to all sensibilities. Again though, it comes to a question of being cruel or unusual while dealing with basic requirements of either punsihment or rehabilitation.
If there is that much evidence that imprisonment does not lead to rehabilitation, and if rehabilitation is the intent of imprisonment as opposed to punishment, then you make a fine case for imprisonment being unconstitutional as cruel and unusual. The problem is, that ignores the fact that by definition the purpose of punishment is to punish, leaving rehabilitation to the discretion of the person punished.
I agree that it's cruel and unusual. From what I've heard of it, if I committed a felony and had a choice between a max-security prison sentence or immediate execution upon conviction, I'd probably choose the latter. And I strongly disagree that the purpose should be to "punish." You punish children to make them behave in the future: i.e., to rehabilitate them. If rehabilitation of adult prisoners, on the other hand, is statistically highly unlikely (I don't know that that's the case, but I'm led to believe that recivitism rates are much higher than rehabilitation rates), then punishment is pointless except to try and create some sort of deterrent effect (although approx 1% of the US adult population is incarcerated, and our murder rates are still far higher than in Europe, for example, so I'm not sure how stong a case for deterrence can be made).
Otherwise, the only logical purpose of incarcaration is to prevent a repeat occurrence of the crime, by placing the perperator in a place where he cannot commit it -- and that purpose is better served by a death penalty than by a finite sentence. So, if I were in charge of the world, and someone made it clear to me, beyond any reasonable doubt, that rehabilitation wasn't going to work, I'd make two classes of crimes: one, misdemeanors, punishable by fine (this would include theft -- pay it all back plus penalties; if you can't, we might have to evaluate alternatives like indentured servitude to the state); two, felonies (rape and murder), punishable by death. On the other hand, if rehabilitation worked, you're 100% correct -- all sentences would be "until rehabilitated."
|
|
I agree that it's cruel and unusual. From what I've heard of it, if I committed a felony and had a choice between a max-security prison sentence or immediate execution upon conviction, I'd probably choose the latter. And I strongly disagree that the purpose should be to "punish." You punish children to make them behave in the future: i.e., to rehabilitate them.
No, that does not rehabilitate them.
What it does is create an aversion complex. They associate certain acts as transgressions that merit an unpleasant consequence. As a result, they avoid such acts in the future.To rehabilitate requires that the person was habilitated at some point in the past, and is concerned about being restored to that status. If they are not, then attempting rehabilitation is useless.
If rehabilitation of adult prisoners, on the other hand, is statistically highly unlikely (I don't know that that's the case, but I'm led to believe that recivitism rates are much higher than rehabilitation rates), then punishment is pointless except to try and create some sort of deterrent effect (although approx 1% of the US adult population is incarcerated, and our murder rates are still far higher than in Europe, for example, so I'm not sure how stong a case for deterrence can be made).
Except it does create a deterrent effect. The other 99% of the population chooses not to commit any crimes. The problem there of course is determining how many people actually choose to not commit crimes because of a perceived possibility of going to prison.
That also has a problem of recognizing the source of the massive jump in US prison populations, and how that cause is different than in other countries.Otherwise, the only logical purpose of incarcaration is to prevent a repeat occurrence of the crime, by placing the perperator in a place where he cannot commit it -- and that purpose is better served by a death penalty than by a finite sentence.
No, the only logical purpose of incarceration is to punish. It inflicts an unpleasant circumstance on a person, diminishing their quality of life, as a penalty for violating the laws.
It would be hoped that this has a deterrent effect on the particular individual, but it is not mandated that it have a universal deterrent effect. That should have been managed by childhood training.So, if I were in charge of the world, and someone made it clear to me, beyond any reasonable doubt, that rehabilitation wasn't going to work, I'd make two classes of crimes: one, misdemeanors, punishable by fine (this would include theft -- pay it all back plus penalties; if you can't, we might have to evaluate alternatives like indentured servitude to the state); two, felonies (rape and murder), punishable by death. On the other hand, if rehabilitation worked, you're 100% correct -- all sentences would be "until rehabilitated."
Oddly enough, that is how I would do it as well, although approaching the question from another direction, as noted above.
No, the only logical purpose of incarceration is to punish. It inflicts an unpleasant circumstance on a person, diminishing their quality of life, as a penalty for violating the laws.
There is another logical purpose. To remove them from society preventing them from doing more harm.
Except it does create a deterrent effect. The other 99% of the population chooses not to commit any crimes.
As opposed to the other 99.99% in many places with less severe sentences? I often think the American obsession with punishment stems from Biblical reading, more than from actual pragmatism, but no matter. Things are as they are, regardless of whether I agree with them.
There is another logical purpose. To remove them from society preventing them from doing more harm.
As I noted above. Thanks, Kruel; glad to hear I'm not the only one who thinks that way.
|
|
Greeeeaaat logic, bro.
See, when ANYONE says something like that, I (not just me, either) would automatically assume that he was joking. Which he is.
Oh, that is verrrrrry logical.
Just assume that anyone who threatens you is just joking. That works so well in actually being prepared for when they start actually trying to kil you.
I prefer more rational assumptions when my safety is concerned.
We seem to have rather different definitions of the word threat.
You see, if some punk little f#+$er pulls a knife on me in an alleyway because he needs drug money (true story), I percieve that he may indeed be trying to harm me. I crack my knuckles and throw a brick at him, and he runs away. This is a threat.
When a rather odd (though basically harmless) Australian man who I've (and, I'm taking a wild guess here, you've) never met before out in meatspace decides to call me a plagiarist (not a true story for me) because I linked to the same website he did on the previous page, I don't get all f**&ed-over about it. In fact, I may indeed laugh my f#$*ing ass off over the fact that he's either a.) a closet comedian, or b.) taking himself too seriously. Either way, what the f$$% is he going to do to me? He doesn't even know my NAME, much less have any grounds to f@!! with me.
Sam, it is my civic duty in this instance to tell you to SIT THE F+&! DOWN AND CHILL THE F+$# OUT.
|
|
It was something along the lines of "I don't want gays in Golarion, and if that makes me a homophobe, so be it." There was a thread about it. Look it up, if you can be bothered.I was censored and threatened with a ban for a post similar to this. But since you are attacking Christians and not gays am sure you will be fine.Pray tell, what did you write?
And just for the record, he was being facetious.
Bloody wonderful. I won't.
|
|
Pray tell, what did you write?
And just for the record, he was being facetious.
How do you know?
Is he one of your sockpuppets?
How do any of us know that he's not just a voice in our collective heads? Besides, sock puppets kick ass.
"Banjo giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other. I assume that the hand with the banjo is the taketh-ing one, because if it wasn't, he'd only be able to giveth banjoes."
|
|
<rant>
Good grief, people. Deporting people because they don't agree with you is *madness*; I think most (all?) of you get that.
I have no problem with Christians, Hindus, Jains, Hebrews, Muslims, etc., etc., etc. as long as separation of church and state is vigorously enforced. I have a problem when, for example, organizations that use public funding and/or facilities start to mandate a particular set of beliefs for membership/participation *cough* Boy Scouts *cough.* Or when the teaching of science in public schools is compromised. Or when tax money gets funneled to religous organizations (sorry; faith-based initiatives).
Seriously keep religion out of my government (and away from tax revenues) and I'm satisfied. It all comes down to respecting the rights of others, whether you are an adherent of their religion or not. Is it really that hard to understand?
</rant>
Dude, I totally agree. However, about the Boy Scout thing:
I've been registered in the BSA for jeez... over ten years, as a Scout and as a leader. I'm an Eagle Scout. The thing is, the only people I've met within the Scouts that gave a flying f#%* about religion were the uber-high-muckimucks in Washington. The local Scoutmasters, district execs, even the Scouts themselves didn't really care about. When we came into contact with it at all, which is very infrequently, it's exclusively non-denominational. They don't care if you're a Mormon or a Druid. F%*#, man, you can be a gay atheist with anarcho-communist leanings as long as you don't announce it to the Grand Poo-Bahs.
Sure, I'm a bit bugged about their policies on homosexuality and religion, but hardly anyone comes into contact with it. I've done some campaigning for diversity with my troop / Venture crew, and nobody seemed to mind. Things are looking up in Scouting.
|
|
Samuel Weiss has cause. I remember the thread were he and Dingo got into it and Dingo was way off the reservation IMO.
Greeeeaaat logic, bro.See, when ANYONE says something like that, I (not just me, either) would automatically assume that he was joking. Which he is.
They're both nuts in opposite directions. I'm not intentionally defending anyone. Just pointing out to each other that they are indeed both nuts.
|
|
Really? What reservation was that?Samuel Weiss has cause. I remember the thread were he and Dingo got into it and Dingo was way off the reservation IMO.
Greeeeaaat logic, bro.See, when ANYONE says something like that, I (not just me, either) would automatically assume that he was joking. Which he is.
Sushi. Long Duck Sushi Bar, Montreal, Canada. 7:45 PM tomorrow. HURRY! YOU'LL BOTH MISS YOUR PLANES!
|
|
If one instead means any exclusionary organization, then say that.That's a good point. Part of the problem you perceive, though, might be that few groups are as focused on exclusivity as are some religions. For example, being a member of the National Society of Old Ladies Who Love Crossword Puzzles doesn't prevent you from also being a Scrabble Club Member, say. The (fictitious, as far as I know) NSOOLWLCP doesn't proselytize, claim that you aren't allowed to do puzzles if you participate in Bingo night, etc. But the Baptists (for example) become very, very upset if they catch you sitting on a prayer rug in a mosque.
You know, I should try that. Like, show up to a Kingdom Hall wearing a yarmulke, then go to a mosque the next day, just mixing and matching religions. I could go to church every day. It would be sort of like going to a whole bunch of different support groups- you know, like in Fight Club, except without Meat Loaf and those vaguely frightening fake breasts.
|
You know, I should try that. Like, show up to a Kingdom Hall wearing a yarmulke, then go to a mosque the next day, just mixing and matching religions. I could go to church every day. It would be sort of like going to a whole bunch of different support groups- you know, like in Fight Club, except without Meat Loaf and those vaguely frightening fake breasts.
Oh those breasts werent fake......
|
|
Oh those breasts werent fake......
You know, I should try that. Like, show up to a Kingdom Hall wearing a yarmulke, then go to a mosque the next day, just mixing and matching religions. I could go to church every day. It would be sort of like going to a whole bunch of different support groups- you know, like in Fight Club, except without Meat Loaf and those vaguely frightening fake breasts.
*cue dramatic music*
I vote that only women be allowed to be catholic priests from now on...
And on the Boy Scout thing..theoretically they are supposed to shape young boys into normal responsible citizens. Now although being gay does not preclude the ability to function as such...i would never send my son to any kind of function where he might be under the influence from some guy who was a poofter. Because i object to that lifestyle and would not personally ever want my son or daughter for that matter to think that is acceptable . Society has its standards, i have mine. If someone wants to be gay..thats awesome be gay.But it is just too in your face these days. I don't recall ever proclaiming to the world that i was heterosexual and proud...because quite frankly that is ridiculous. Even though it is the norm, even if it was not NOBODY CARES!Who really cares? Being gay isn't illegal...you don't deserve special priveleges or consideration because of it.
O yeah politics right....i was recently insulted on another forum when someone implied i was a republican.....
|
If there were solid evidence that prison terms actually result in rehabilitation, that would be one thing. But the opposite seems to be the case. It's not a matter of "debt" to me, but of prevention of recurrence. As it is, a felony record more or less prevents gainful employment thereafter (it certainly would have in any of the jobs I've held), so in many cases we force convicted felons to commit crimes after their release in order to make a living -- in essence, the system is set up so that there can't really be any meaningful rehabilitation. That's unfortunate, but not under my control.If there is that much evidence that imprisonment does not lead to rehabilitation, and if rehabilitation is the intent of imprisonment as opposed to punishment, then you make a fine case for imprisonment being unconstitutional as cruel and unusual. The problem is, that ignores the fact that by definition the purpose of punishment is to punish, leaving rehabilitation to the discretion of the person punished.
That also makes a primary case for set prison terms to be foolish, with "until rehabilitated" being the only appropriate sentence. Naturally sending someone to prison for fifty years for stealing a pack of gum because they are a determined recidivist while sending someone to prison for only a week and a half because they find religion and reform is outrageous to all sensibilities. Again though, it comes to a question of being cruel or unusual while dealing with basic requirements of either punsihment or rehabilitation.
All crime is an assault on the obligation of the state to its people (and thus TREASON). It doesnt matter if you masterminded suicide bombings or ran a red light...you should only get one penalty and that is loss of citizenship and deportation.
To descriminate between who you think should be held accountable and who shouldnt is unacceptable. Next thing you know you have Journalist led lynch mobs imprisoning people they fear with out trial...oops too late.
Being gay isn't illegal...you don't deserve special priveleges or consideration because of it.
And they don't deserve "normal" priveleges, either, much less special ones? As a hetero, I was able to get married without moving to another state or country to do it, so there was no need for me to get in anyone's face about it. If a church doesn't want to marry gay couples on religious grounds, that's fine. But refusing to allow a justice of the peace to do so seems silly to me, because if you really want them to "get out of your face," just let them get married, with equal rights... you'll thereby deprive them of all their publicity.
I've been registered in the BSA for jeez... over ten years, as a Scout and as a leader. I'm an Eagle Scout. The thing is, the only people I've met within the Scouts that gave a flying f&*# about religion were the uber-high-muckimucks in Washington. The local Scoutmasters, district execs, even the Scouts themselves didn't really care about. When we came into contact with it at all, which is very infrequently, it's exclusively non-denominational. They don't care if you're a Mormon or a Druid. f&*#, man, you can be a gay atheist with anarcho-communist leanings as long as you don't announce it to the Grand Poo-Bahs.Sure, I'm a bit bugged about their policies on homosexuality and religion, but hardly anyone comes into contact with it. I've done some campaigning for diversity with my troop / Venture crew, and nobody seemed to mind. Things are looking up in Scouting.
That is good to hear; thank you for taking the time to share your viewpoint. And I don't doubt that the vast majority of folks in Scouting aren't bigots at all irrespective of what the written policies of the organization may or may not be.
All crime is an assault on the obligation of the state to its people (and thus TREASON). It doesnt matter if you masterminded suicide bombings or ran a red light...you should only get one penalty and that is loss of citizenship and deportation...
I'm going to assume that you're not being serious and/or I'm just being dense.
Because otherwise, you scare me.
|
|
When a rather odd (though basically harmless) Australian man who I've (and, I'm taking a wild guess here, you've) never met before out in meatspace decides to call me a plagiarist (not a true story for me) because I linked to the same website he did on the previous page, I don't get all f#&*ed-over about it. In fact, I may indeed laugh my f#&*ing ass off over the fact that he's either a.) a closet comedian, or b.) taking himself too seriously. Either way, what the f#&* is he going to do to me? He doesn't even know my NAME, much less have any grounds to f#&* with me.
Sam, it is my civic duty in this instance to tell you to SIT THE f#&* DOWN AND CHILL THE f#&* OUT.
Maybe you should go read that thread and see what the circumstances are before making up a strawman to justify listening to yourself pontificate.
Tharefore it is my civic duty in this instance to tell you to go f&#* yourself sideways, and keep your mouth shut rather than remove all doubt as to how big a fool you are.
Why do you all swear with the same symbol configuration? Did I miss an obscenity memo or something?
Oh, wait... you guys actually typed in the swears and that's what Paizo did to them.
I wonder who's job it is to decide the symbol config for curse words. I wonder how much thought goes into it. When I spell poo with an s, I spell it s#!^, because, in my mind, those symbols almost spell hit. Am I crazy? Am I the only one?
::makes shadow puppets on the cave walls from the bonfire in this room::
Does that look like a bunny to you?
Looks like two bunnies making more bunnies. That's what you were going for, right? I mean... I'm not the only one seeing this, right?
Being gay isn't illegal...you don't deserve special priveleges or consideration because of it.And they don't deserve "normal" priveleges, either, much less special ones? As a hetero, I was able to get married without moving to another state or country to do it, so there was no need for me to get in anyone's face about it. If a church doesn't want to marry gay couples on religious grounds, that's fine. But refusing to allow a justice of the peace to do so seems silly to me, because if you really want them to "get out of your face," just let them get married, with equal rights... you'll thereby deprive them of all their publicity.
I would just point out that you didn't have a right to get married to whomever you wished either. Most states have some basic restrictions on who can get married to whom.
1)Neither you nor your potential spouse can be currently married to anyone else (sorry Mormons).
2)You and your potential spouse both must be of the legitimate age (sorry child-molesters, ... maybe some states have different ages with "parent approval").
3)You and your potential spouse can't be close "enough" in family relation to one another (sorry Arkansas).
4)You and your potential spouse must be of opposite genders (this is where the gay community gets their assless chaps in a ... wait, that wouldn't work).
Now we can as a society change any of those conditions for secular marriage, but nobody has a "human-right" to secular marriage. It is a condition given by the state and defined by the state. If a homosexual found someone that met all of those conditions then they could get married, there is nothing on the marriage license that asks about sexual preference, it is just that the people homosexuals are attracted to are excluded by #4.
But that doesn't mean they are being held to a different standard, so suggesting they don't get the normal privelege is wrong, they do want a special privelege or to at least redefine the normal privelege so they can get to marry who they want. And it is totally understandable that they would want to do that. But this is not a "fundamental right" issue but a definition issue.
4)You and your potential spouse must be of opposite genders
That's a very interesting way of putting it, one that I haven't heard before. Offhand, I note that the inclusion of condition #4 varies by country, though (Cf. Canada), so I'm not sure it needs to be an integral part of the list. While the 1st three might have isolated clusters of people who disagree with them, on the whole, all nations enforce all three of them. In that respect, this fourth criterion is the only one that seems "tacked on." (Then again, I know it's popular to adhere to the view that the U.S. should, in fact, ignore international law and make its own way; I won't debate that one way or the other).
You mention that we, as a society, can change these criteria; that is evidenced well by the former fifth critereon: "5. You and your potential spouse must be of the same skin color." Some people might argue that it should have stayed (sorry, South Carolina), but on the whole, most people today seem to feel we're better off without it.
So, I guess if anyone could give me a non-Biblical reason why gay marriage should be banned, I'd be happy to listen to it. Until then, if the only reason against it is based on a particular religious creed, it would seem like an unseemly mix of church and state. Like I said, churches should be free to refuse to perform said ceremonies, if it goes against their beliefs. But no church should be able to prevent a civil JP from performing such a ceremony, or preventing the state from providing the same legal benefits that a church wedding receives.
Director of Game Development
|
Looks like two bunnies making more bunnies. That's what you were going for, right? I mean... I'm not the only one seeing this, right?::makes shadow puppets on the cave walls from the bonfire in this room::
Does that look like a bunny to you?
Exactly! See how I used the flickering to make them look like they're humping?
That's a very interesting way of putting it, one that I haven't heard before. Offhand, I note that the inclusion of condition #4 varies by country, though (Cf. Canada), so I'm not sure it needs to be an integral part of the list. While the 1st three might have isolated clusters of people who disagree with them, on the whole, all nations enforce all three of them. In that respect, this fourth criterion is the only one that seems "tacked on." (Then again, I know it's popular to adhere to the view that the U.S. should, in fact, ignore international law and make its own way; I won't debate that one way or the other).
Are you speaking of historicly (say as early as 100 years ago) or just what is out there right now?
You mention that we, as a society, can change these criteria; that is evidenced well by the former fifth critereon: "5. You and your potential spouse must be of the same skin color." Some people might argue that it should have stayed (sorry, South Carolina), but on the whole, most people today seem to feel we're better off without it.
Very true. Though of course there is a fundamental difference between "#5" and #4 (at least so far based on our science, as far as I know), that being offspring from the union.
So, I guess if anyone could give me a non-Biblical reason why gay marriage should be banned, I'd be happy to listen to it.
I don't claim that this person is any kind of authority, but here is someone that at least is claiming to have secular reasons for not recognizing same sex marriages.
LinkOf course his arguments should be challenged, and if proven false, ignored, and frankly I am not trying to prove that same-sex marriage is bad, just pointing out that some believe there may be non-religious for its lack of inclusion.