|
However, once again, the discussion is not about Prop. 8. The question before us is whether or not it is appropriate to call someone "un-American" just because you disagree with them politically? And as Matthew pointed out, there is no actual right to marry defined in any law. In fact we have many laws which do ban certain people, like close relatives, from marriage. If a law which prevents homosexuals from marrying is denying equal rights, does that mean we should also lift bans on marriage by siblings, cousins, and other close relatives? Polygamous marriages are illegal in the United States, shouldn't we give them equal rights as well? As you can see that once we go down the road of demanding "equal rights' in marriage, it's going to affect more than just the people affected by Prop. 8.It depends on the nature of the disagreement. Is it un-American to push policies contrary to the principles upon which the US was founded? I think there's a strong argument that it is. That doesn't mean that the people pushing the policies are not "real" Americans. It just means, I believe, that they have fallen away from the highest ideals embodied in the American experiment in expansive liberty. And it's a damn shame that they have done so.
However is it really against the founding principles or just the current explanation of those principles, that have been broadcast on the evening news for the last 20 years or so? There is a fine line, and it is possible we are crossing or trying to cross that line between civil rights and the removal of the founding ideas of this Nation.
|
Ok, as a proud gay man. I have observed the one downfall of most people. A severe lack of empathy, an outright refusal to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Even though I am an atheist I understand that a religious belief is a very close personal worldview that takes up all the aspects of ones life. It's one of the most important things in a persons life and yes it deserves protection and respect. On the other hand tolerance must be maintained. Your worldview gives you no right (on a human level) to enforce said beliefs through any venue including law on others, and these people also deserve to be protected. People tend to like to place other people in generic categories, "the religious right" "The hippy left", gay, straight, black, white, religious, atheist, etc., etc., etc. Because we all know it's much easier to attack a "group" than a person. But the bottom line is always missed we are all people that have the same feelings who feel pain just as acutely as the person on the opposing faction. I feel the pain of the religiously oppressed over seas who would like nothing more than to worship their god in peace without the threat of violence, persecution, or death over their heads if discovered. But I also feel the pain of a man who is refused access to see his partner of 20 some years who is dying of cancer in the hospital, and all because they aren't considered family. We have both wronged each other, and we both need to learn to co exist. Maybe you should try and fit that into what it means to be an american!
Tom is a great actor and has every right to say something stupid; it's not like he's a philosopher.
|
However is it really against the founding principles or just the current explanation of those principles, that have been broadcast on the evening news for the last 20 years or so? There is a fine line, and it is possible we are crossing or trying to cross that line between civil rights and the removal of the founding ideas of this Nation.
The reason why fools and knaves thrive better in the world than wiser and honester men is because they are nearer to the general temper of mankind, which is nothing but a mixture of cheat and folly.
I do not support a position supported only with lies, but I have the option to support opinions other then yours. Just because you can find a few facts supporting an argument does not gift you with the truth of a situation but only one possible reason of why. The greatest gift we humans have is our capacity to understand that we can be wrong. We also have the capacity to ignore that just as well.
|
|
Considering the definition of apostate, "One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause," it is apropriate. By practicing polygamy, which the LDS Church abandoned in the late 1800s, they fit the definition of an apostate.
By *continuing* to practice the tenets of their faith, which were abandoned because the Republican party of the day wouldn't allow them to become a state othewise, one could argue that the polygamists are the ones who are continuing the faith, while the mainstream church has abandoned them and gone apostate.
Some of the prominent visitors to pioneer Utah, such as Richard Burton and Mark Twain, looked at polygamy with respectful curiosity or irreverent amusement. However, there were reformers in the eastern states who were shocked by its affront to Protestant and Victorian mores, generally overlooking the fact that biblical prophets and some earlier Protestants had practiced polygamy. In 1854 the first Republican party platform inveighed against the “twin relics of barbarism” —slavery and polygamy—and after Congress passed the Merrill anti-Bigamy Act of 1862, Abraham Lincoln signed it into law. Believing that the revelations of God took precedence over laws of man, Mormons ignored it. Yet, the political pressure against polygamy increased throughout the century. Utah was still a territory and desperately seeking statehood so it could legalize polygamy; as it happened, polygamy was one of the central reasons Utah could not obtain statehood.
By 1890, with the churches second in command having served time in prison for 'cohabitation,' church president Wilford Woodruff produced a 'manifesto' that stated Mormons would give up plural marriage (which, combined with a commitment to stay out of politics) was enough that Utah was allowed to become a state in 1896.
It wasn't the polygamists that walked away from the doctrines of their faith, which were mirrored by Biblical figures with multiple wives like Abraham and Jacob. A 'traditional' marriage was indeed between a man and a woman, and often another woman, and sometimes another woman, and maybe a fourth woman, too, as well a recognized mistress that is sanctioned, but you aren't supposed to have male children with, because it messes up lines of inheritance.
Sure, polygamy can lead to all sorts of abuses. So can having a bunch of male priests being forbidden to get married, and taking out their completely natural human urges on altar boys. So can a completely traditional marriage, if the husband (or wife) is a violent, insecure and / or manipulative jerk.
Polygamy is no more likely to turn a good spouse bad than monogamy or celibacy.
It sure as heck wouldn't work for me, 'cause I'm hard enough to live with, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be illegal for *everyone.*
It depends on the nature of the disagreement. Is it un-American to push policies contrary to the principles upon which the US was founded? I think there's a strong argument that it is. That doesn't mean that the people pushing the policies are not "real" Americans. It just means, I believe, that they have fallen away from the highest ideals embodied in the American experiment in expansive liberty. And it's a damn shame that they have done so.
The problem with the label "Un-American" is that it demonizes the opposition. While I don't agree with Prop 8's premise I also don't agree it is "Un-American" to hold an opinion that Prop 8 is good. It is entirely American to debate the issues of the day. If Charlton Heston were still alive and he came out saying that those who were trying to broaden the definition of marraige were "Unamerican" I would decry him as well.
We have enough of the "us-and-them" mentality in American politics these days. Both sides are starting to become hardened ideological camps, with a "with us or against us" mentality. And, once again, why single out Mormons? As has been alluded to upthread, many folks who voted very Democratic also voted in favor of Prop 8. Why talk about the Mormons so? They are a conservative religious group, they will be against gay marraige as a matter of course. Is Harry Reid Un-American? He's Mormon last I checked.
You know what is Un-American? Labeling a specific group as Un-American. It is disingenuous and an abuse of Tom Hank's abiltiy to speak to many people and be heard and respected. If he had said that opposing gay marraige as Un-American, I could live with that, though I would argue that it is not the case. It is unfeeling and callous, but not Un-American. Singling out a minority religious group for censure when many of your allies voted the same way on an issue is wrong.
|
|
Tom Hanks weighed in on the discussion on Prop. 8 in California by calling Mormons "un-American." Now, I don't want to get into it about Prop. 8, but does anyone think that calling a group of people Un-American simply for taking the opposite side of an issue from you is what the founders would have wanted? I can't think of anything less in line with the spirit of America then to call someone un-American for expressing an opinion. Liberals like Hanks didn't like it when they felt it was being done to them over the war in Iraq, so one would think that they would choose their words more carefully. More importantly, why single out Mormons if your issue is really discrimination? Mormons were only one small cog in the machine that passed Prop. 8. Why not call the rest un-American as well?
You would think Tom Hanks capable of learning by example. Ten seconds after Iraq is freed from the oppresive rule of its Tyrant President, All the Minority Groups turned on each other.
Frankly any one who supports Democracy is opposed to a process of government requiring the direct and regular approval of every citizen.
|
|
There is a slight difference between expressing a political opinion (which is entirely fine) and spending millions of dollars to put a legal barrier in place that denies American citizens their civil rights. Denying people their civil rights seems pretty 'Un-American' to me. As does a church getting directly involved in a political matter.
That said, you got over it in the 60's. So I'm sure you'll all get over this soon enough. :)
I would refer you back to my earlier reply to Bill. Most countries put restriction on Marriage, not just between homosexuals but between straight couples as well. There is no legally defined "right to marry" in any country that I am aware of. Otherwise, as I said earlier, we would have to allow all people to marry, even if that marriage was polygamous or incestuois. Therefore arguing that Prop. 8 denies a Civil right is a sophic argument. That being said, I will state once again for the record that my solution to the whole problem is to get government out of the marriage buisness all together. Give everyone, straight and gay the right to civil unions and let marriage go back to being a purely religious practice.
While I don't agree with Prop 8's premise I also don't agree it is "Un-American" to hold an opinion that Prop 8 is good.There's a difference between holding an opinion and voting to limit a segment of the population's freedom.
So you make a habit of not voting for things you have opinions on? Don't vote much do you?
While I don't agree with Prop 8's premise I also don't agree it is "Un-American" to hold an opinion that Prop 8 is good.There's a difference between holding an opinion and voting to limit a segment of the population's freedom.
But neither is "Un-American". It is exercising your American right to vote. I am confident that this issue will eventually be resolved without having to stoop to name-calling and demonization tactics. It does nothing to further the discussion. Attack the side you want to oppose with logic, not by vilifying them.
Would it be OK if someone like Charlton Heston called the Gay&Lesbian community Un-American for pushing for equal rights? If Prop 8 had failed and he said that (And yes ..I know he is dead, I just can't come up with a good Conservative Hollywood actor ATM) would you say that's OK? IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING. Hypocracy is never pretty, and whitewashing someone's stupid statements just because you agree with him (and I personally agree with Mr Hanks that Prop 8 was a horrible thing) is the height of hypocracy.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok, as a proud gay man. I have observed the one downfall of most people. A severe lack of empathy, an outright refusal to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Even though I am an atheist I understand that a religious belief is a very close personal worldview that takes up all the aspects of ones life. It's one of the most important things in a persons life and yes it deserves protection and respect. On the other hand tolerance must be maintained. Your worldview gives you no right (on a human level) to enforce said beliefs through any venue including law on others, and these people also deserve to be protected. People tend to like to place other people in generic categories, "the religious right" "The hippy left", gay, straight, black, white, religious, atheist, etc., etc., etc. Because we all know it's much easier to attack a "group" than a person. But the bottom line is always missed we are all people that have the same feelings who feel pain just as acutely as the person on the opposing faction. I feel the pain of the religiously oppressed over seas who would like nothing more than to worship their god in peace without the threat of violence, persecution, or death over their heads if discovered. But I also feel the pain of a man who is refused access to see his partner of 20 some years who is dying of cancer in the hospital, and all because they aren't considered family. We have both wronged each other, and we both need to learn to co exist. Maybe you should try and fit that into what it means to be an american!
Jeremy,
As a proud straight man, I'm forced to disagree. Laws are a social contract. As such they have an origin in moral grounds. The laws against theft, murder, underage drinking, drug use, incest, youth marriage, speeding, etc. are -not- plucked out of thin air, but are based on moral and religions grounds. The privilege of state recognition of marriage is another legislation. The issue of California (and to a lesser extent, MA) is that there was a law passed defining marriage. The legislature and the courts ignored it. so, through the ammendment process of the state of California, the people ammeded the constitution to affirm the will of the people. This, despite CA having one of the strongest Domestic Partners laws in the union.Now AG moonbeam is being derilict in his duty (again!) by not defending the constitution. Whether you agree with Prop 8 or not, it is wrong of him to do this. It would be like him not enforcing, say, hate crimes legislation (which I abhor) because he felt they were wrong. Look to Maine for the example of how it -should- be addressed. The fact that DOMA is 30-0 says something.
Now saying that same sex couples should have the right to redress their grievences through the legal and legislative process, but then saying that the religious shouldn't is a crock. Or is it because there's not a 'church of homosexuality' they are allowed "to enforce said beliefs through any venue including law on others" but people of faith aren't?
Addressing the 'pain of a man who is refused access to see his partner of 20 some years who is dying of cancer in the hospital' he's not the person's legal POA? not listed in the will? To knowingly live an alternative relationship and not take legal steps to secure the rights available isn't wrong, it's stupid. I know polyamourous groups who have taken all those steps. They also don't claim they should all be married, BTW.
Back to Tommy Boy Hanks. I've no issue with whatever air comes out of his mouth. Tom Hanks, like Bobby 'Sheets' Byrd and Fred Phelps (all loyal Democrats) is allowed to say whatever he wants. My issue with him is he's taking the easy target. If he really felt religion and influence was an issue, why isn't he condemning the Hispanic and black voter who voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8? Or maybe the Muslims, who did likewise?
I'll have to disagree with you here. The Government recognition of marriage contracts is a privledge, not a right.
That makes no difference. Just because it can be defined as a privilege doesn't make it ok for a state to discriminate against a particular portion of its citizenry.
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
For me, the word "UnAmerican" doesn't really have any meaning, and usually amounts to little more than demagoguery. The nation encapsulates so many ideas and actions, good or bad, that I find it pretty inconceivable that a thing or opinion could really exist that wouldn't be found somewhere in the country. (Probably in Indiana, I am betting.) I'm a little surprised at TH throwing it around like that.
That said, calling people "UnAmerican" who don't agree with your opinion of how the place should be run is about as American as it comes. As is trying to make sure people who aren't like you don't have it as good as you. (general you)
Thank god we have Double Quarters and the Superbowl, at least.
Back to Tommy Boy Hanks. I've no issue with whatever air comes out of his mouth. Tom Hanks, like Bobby 'Sheets' Byrd and Fred Phelps (all loyal Democrats) is allowed to say whatever he wants. My issue with him is he's taking the easy target. If he really felt religion and influence was an issue, why isn't he condemning the Hispanic and black voter who voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8? Or maybe the Muslims, who did likewise?
I haven't seen where he did, in question. But my understanding is that opponents of the proposition hold the LDS church particularly responsible for its passage (moreso than the ones who actually voted) because of the time and resources the church devoted to making sure it passed beforehand.
Wiki-link with more detail than I care to get into about it.
That said, there are a lot of culprits out there if one wants to lash out in that regard, so singling out one of the bunch to demonize seems a bit silly.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
True, good thing that nothing prevents a man from marrying a woman or vice versa. Even a gay or lesbian can take advantage of this. Provided of course, that they meet the licensing requirments of the state.
Or are you saying that two sx year olds should be allowed to marry?
everyone has access to that 'priviledge'
Thank you, please try again,
if anything Magdael, the LDS should be angry at the oposition side for 8, running those lovely, inclusive, tolerant ads showing LDS people ransacking the happy cheerful lesbian couple's home.
Oh, they are. Definitely.
|
|
I would refer you back to my earlier reply to Bill. Most countries put restriction on Marriage, not just between homosexuals but between straight couples as well. There is no legally defined "right to marry" in any country that I am aware of. Otherwise, as I said earlier, we would have to allow all people to marry, even if that marriage was polygamous or incestuois. Therefore arguing that Prop. 8 denies a Civil right is a sophic argument. That being said, I will state once again for the record that my solution to the whole problem is to get government out of the marriage buisness all together. Give everyone, straight and gay the right to civil unions and let marriage go back to being a purely religious practice.There is a slight difference between expressing a political opinion (which is entirely fine) and spending millions of dollars to put a legal barrier in place that denies American citizens their civil rights. Denying people their civil rights seems pretty 'Un-American' to me. As does a church getting directly involved in a political matter.
That said, you got over it in the 60's. So I'm sure you'll all get over this soon enough. :)
Let me quote something that your Supreme Court said, regarding a rather famous case.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
It's a basic civil right of man, according to your own Supreme Court, which rather supersedes countries laws, I'd say. That famous case would seem to show this right should be extended to same sex relationships.
Unlike incest, there is no reasonable scientific basis for prevent same sex relationships. After all, with incest you have the rather horrific spectre of inbreeding. As for polygamy, well why not? As long as everyone knows what they are getting into, and the family can financially support itself, I've seen no reason why it should be banned.
Denying citizens their 'basic civil rights' seems very Un-American to me. After all, your country was founded with the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
The Mormon church in this case seem to be wanting to deny gay couples their right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness (going again by Loving v. Virginia, in which Chief Justice Warren said 'The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.'), on the basis of nothing more then bigotry.
That makes no difference. Just because it can be defined as a privilege doesn't make it ok for a state to discriminate against a particular portion of its citizenry.
I'll have to disagree with you here. The Government recognition of marriage contracts is a privledge, not a right.
It is discriminating against certain types of relationships, not people.
True, good thing that nothing prevents a man from marrying a woman or vice versa. Even a gay or lesbian can take advantage of this. Provided of course, that they meet the licensing requirments of the state.
Or are you saying that two sx year olds should be allowed to marry?
everyone has access to that 'priviledge'
Thank you, please try again,
Common law dictates otherwise.
"Minors are the only class of persons whose rights may be disabled without a need to justify the disablement as arising from the need to resolve a conflict with the rights of others, either through statute or due process. The disablement consists of the assignment of a power to supervise the exercise of the rights under the headings of "liberty" and "property" listed above to a guardian, by default the parents, who acts as agent of the State for the purpose of nurturing the minor. The disability is normally removed by statute providing for removal when a certain age, such as 18, or condition, such as marriage, is attained."
It's a basic civil right of man, according to your own Supreme Court, which rather supersedes countries laws, I'd say. That famous case would seem to show this right should be extended to same sex relationships.
Yes, it is wrong to discriminate based on the person. On the particular relationships it may or may not be ok.
Unlike incest, there is no reasonable scientific basis for prevent same sex relationships. After all, with incest you have the rather horrific spectre of inbreeding. As for polygamy, well why not? As long as everyone knows what they are getting into, and the family can financially support itself, I've seen no reason why it should be banned.
What about incestuous relationships between same sex couples? Two brothers or two sisters can't have children so that is not a concern either. What about people with bad heritary diseases? Should they be forced not to get married due to the danger of having children produced with these diseases?
|
|
But again, nothing in Loving V. Virginia overturned laws preventing polygamists or siblings to marry. In fact your own quote undermines your argument because the Supreme Court takes care to narrowly define their decision to interracial marriage, perhaps knowing that if they didn't it would be interputed in a way that you are trying to interput it. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision also recognized that the marriage involved was between a man and a woman.I would refer you back to my earlier reply to Bill. Most countries put restriction on Marriage, not just between homosexuals but between straight couples as well. There is no legally defined "right to marry" in any country that I am aware of. Otherwise, as I said earlier, we would have to allow all people to marry, even if that marriage was polygamous or incestuois. Therefore arguing that Prop. 8 denies a Civil right is a sophic argument. That being said, I will state once again for the record that my solution to the whole problem is to get government out of the marriage buisness all together. Give everyone, straight and gay the right to civil unions and let marriage go back to being a purely religious practice.There is a slight difference between expressing a political opinion (which is entirely fine) and spending millions of dollars to put a legal barrier in place that denies American citizens their civil rights. Denying people their civil rights seems pretty 'Un-American' to me. As does a church getting directly involved in a political matter.
That said, you got over it in the 60's. So I'm sure you'll all get over this soon enough. :)
Let me quote something that your Supreme Court said, regarding a rather famous case.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.It's a basic civil right of man, according to your own Supreme Court, which rather supersedes countries laws, I'd say. That famous case would seem to show this right should be extended to same sex relationships.
In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County.
That being said, I will state once again for the record that my solution to the whole problem is to get government out of the marriage buisness all together. Give everyone, straight and gay the right to civil unions and let marriage go back to being a purely religious practice.Sounds good to me.
Government is such a bummer, man! They need to stop and smell the roses on occasion, open their hearts to love and companionship. Respect the Universe, and happy times will come to you. Everyone needs a chance at love.
Anybody got some shrooms?
|
|
Irony:
In the Simpsons Movie, when they are plotting to blow up Springfield, the government makes a public service spot announcing the "new" Grand Canyon where "nothing ever was".
The spokesman for the spot is Tom Hanks.
He introduces it by noting that the government has no credibility so they are borrowing some of his.
Beat me to it. And now for another pop culture reference:
In one particular episode of South Park, one of the kids (Kyle or Stan, I can't remember which) says that "tolerance doesn't mean you have to love everybody, it just means that you have to put up with them."
That's about what my stand is on the subject. I'm not a fan of Mormonism, but then again, I'm not a fan of any other religion, either. However, I respect everyone's right to practice whatever religion they want to, because that's one of the essential principles that America was built on. As far as Prop. 8 goes, I think that homosexuals should have the same legal rights as everyone else, because, again, equal rights is one of the essential components of freedom. I love my country- it's the government that I have a problem with.
Before anyone gets outraged over anything, remember that this is my opinion (just as everyone else's posts are their own opinions). And before you post anything inflammatory, remember: you don't have to love it, you just have to put up with it.
|
|
Fryer: The key finding of Loving v Virginia is that laws banning types of marriages (in that case, laws banning white men/women marrying black men/women) violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the constitution. The definition of marriage can be changed, and will be, eventually, to include same sex couples. This is a good thing.
Prez Man: Discriminating against a certain type of relationship prevents certain people from fully exercising their right to pursue happiness, which is of itself discriminating against those people.
As for your corner cases, I've no problem with them. To be frank, I've no problem with incestuous relationships, as long as both people involved are adults and consenting. At least there is a scientific objection to those relationships, unlike those objections towards gay relationships.
|
|
Actually, that is not the key to Loving V. Virginia. If it was then the ban on any form of marriage would have been repealed and we would not be having this discussion. The key was that if you are going to ban certain groups of people from marrying, you bloody well better have a good reason for doing so.Fryer: The key finding of Loving v Virginia is that laws banning types of marriages (in that case, laws banning white men/women marrying black men/women) violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the constitution. The definition of marriage can be changed, and will be, eventually, to include same sex couples. This is a good thing.
To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.The Warren Court made it very clear in it's statement that the question before them was about race, not about marriage. It also made it clear that it was the opinion if the court that the purpose of the 14th ammendment was to end racial discrimination.
The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race...At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny", and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate.
Now, as I have stated before, in this thread, I support giving homosexuals all the same rights in their life as straight people do. However, as a Constitutionalist, I do not support the idea of creating rights in the Constitution that are not expressed there.
Ultimately the key to understanding this whole discussion is this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Until the Supreme Court rules on this issue the people have spoken and the Constitution gives the the right as Americans to do so.
I'm all for equal rights in marraige for everybody, up to and including polygamy and incest, as long everyone involved is a consenting adult able to make an informed descision. My problem in this discussion has always been the way that Tom Hanks uses prejudice to combat prejudice.
The focus seemed to have shifted from what Tom Hanks said to a discussion of marital rights. By all means, I hope Prop 8 gets overturned. Everyone should be allowed to persue their own brand of happiness. I just get upset when ignorant celebrities open their mouth and make stupid statements. Attack the opposition with logic, not more ignorance.
Once again, the LDS was only a small element in the larger story of Democratic voters voting "Family Values" like in California. The Democrats should be proud of the numbers of new voters they brought to the voting booth in 2008, but they should also remember that the noobs are not going to automatically vote lockstep with them. Latino voters especially are often going to end up voting conservative on social issues because of their strong tradition of Catholicism. Mr Hanks shouldn't call out the LDS, rather he should work within his party to advance the agenda through discussion and debate. Demonizing the opposition is a cheap and lazy out.
|
|
For me, the word "UnAmerican" doesn't really have any meaning, and usually amounts to little more than demagoguery. The nation encapsulates so many ideas and actions, good or bad, that I find it pretty inconceivable that a thing or opinion could really exist that wouldn't be found somewhere in the country. (Probably in Indiana, I am betting.) I'm a little surprised at TH throwing it around like that.
That said, calling people "UnAmerican" who don't agree with your opinion of how the place should be run is about as American as it comes. As is trying to make sure people who aren't like you don't have it as good as you. (general you)
That is the issue I have with it, as well as noting that "UnAmerican" is in no way the same as "advocating something unconstitutiona;". If we declare everyone and every group that has ever advocated something later declared unconstitutional we will wind up woefully short of "pro-Americans". Extending that to merely expressing opposing views and we are all a bunch of evil commies plotting the overthrow of baseball, apple pie, and mom. By indulging in that sort of political demonization Tom Hanks is expressing one of the few things that I say actually does qualify as un-American - the attempted silencing of dissenting views. And if we consider it in terms of the 1st Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances, it becomes an assertion of the same sort of constitutional transgression he wants to condemn.
As Pogo might say, he has met the enemy and it is him.|
|
True, good thing that nothing prevents a man from marrying a woman or vice versa. Even a gay or lesbian can take advantage of this. Provided of course, that they meet the licensing requirments of the state.
Which makes me wonder what is the objective here.
Assuming that one is anti-gay marriage because one doesn't like the gays, and accepting the no-longer-remotely-controversial fact that 'the gay' is heavily (but not exclusively) determined by a person's genes, which world would the person uncomfortable with gays want to live in;
1) a world in which gays are encouraged to enter monogamous life-long commitments to each other, fail to breed, and spend the next few generations dying out. (Granted, the anti-gay crowd waited too long. We now have assisted reproductive technology that allows gay couples can have their own biological children. Opportunity, missed.)
2) a world where your spouse and the co-parent of your children may be discovered after 15 years to have been gay all the time, and only to have married you out of protective camoflauge, since it's not acceptable to be openly gay and marry a same-sex partner, the end result being all of your children have the gene for homosexuality, and your entire marriage has been a lie. {Also the ego-blow of discovering that she never really found you that attractive, since she's more into Angelina Jolie.)
If I were a homophobe, I would find world 1 mildly uncomfortable. (Although, if I were a *violent* homophobe, I would be heartened by the knowledge that married gay couples, like married straight couples, would be registered, meaning that I could look up where they live to either avoid those areas, or go burn down their houses.)
If I were a homophobe, I'd find world 2 to be insanely scary. The thought that *anybody* could be gay and hiding in plain sight? The thought that my own spouse could be gay, have been lying to me for all these years and have passed on gay genes to my children?
On the other hand, if I were a violent homophobe, I'd prefer world 3, the one where the dude with the funny little moustache won WW2 and finished the job of rounding up all the gays and killing them (along with the half dozen other groups he was killing, but you gotta break some eggs if you want to live in a bigots paradise).
All that limiting gay people to marry opposite sex partners does is guarantee that the genes for homosexuality will remain around for another generation, and increase the likelihood that a straight person will end up married to one and never know that they are living another person's lie.
Anti-gay laws don't stop people from being born gay. By encouraging gay people to 'hide' and marry clueless straight partners, they *encourage* it. If someone is anti-gay, they should absolutely support gay people getting registered with the government and living out in the open where they can be seen (and watched like a hawk), instead of sending them into the arms of straight people to create another generation of cuckoos in the nest.
Apparently, it's a good thing for the homosexual community (if not a fun thing for any one homosexual) that the anti-gay community is so blissfully unaware of how genes are passed on, and so blithely comfortable with the thought of their spouses and children being secretly gay and humoring them by 'playing house.' In denying rights to the gay, they've guaranteed that they'll always be around, and much, much closer than they think. Possibly even in their bedrooms.
One could even say it's a little suspect that the anti-gay crowd is working so darned hard to keep all those secret relationships in the closet, to the point of so strenuously opposing (to the tunes of *millions* of dollars, in the case of the LDS church) any attempt to bring them into the light and reveal all of the forbidden secrets...
Sounds like shenanigans!
|
|
Some interesting stuff
You missed one thing though. There were several groups of homosexuals who also pushed for the passage of Prop. 8. I saw the organizer of one group interviewed on CNN about how he opposes gay marriage because he is an atheist and views marriage as a religious intrusion into the government. Just goes to show that you don't have to be a homophobe to oppose gay marriage.
Laws are a social contract. As such they have an origin in moral grounds. The laws against theft, murder, underage drinking, drug use, incest, youth marriage, speeding, etc. are -not- plucked out of thin air, but are based on moral and religions grounds.
Disagree, along the same logic as follows:
(A) Almost no one eats nails, because it's harmful;(B) Christians do not advocate eating nails;
(C) Therefore, not eating nails is a Christian value.
See the flaw? Pretty much all religions, as well as non-religious groups and people, condemn murder and theft -- because they are manifestly bad for a society. That's sheer pragmatism at work, not religion.
It's a false dichotomy to propose that laws must be either (a) religious in nature, or (b) "plucked out of thin air." There's a third choice: (c) presumed to be conducive to the smooth functioning a of society. And, unfortunately, a fourth: (d) got pushed through based on some group's (possibly skewed) agenda, despite being irrelevant or even bad for society.
And, unfortunately, a fourth: (d) got pushed through based on some group's (possibly skewed) agenda, despite being irrelevant or even bad for society.
You mean like the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution?
But then which is California Prop 8?
...Apparently, it's a good thing for the homosexual community (if not a fun thing for any one homosexual) that the anti-gay community is so blissfully unaware of how genes are passed on, ...
Last I heard, even those that believe homosexuality is mostly biological don't believe that there is an inheritable gene that causes it (or is the singular cause of it). It usually is ascribed to conditions in utero with possible influence from certain genes.
Personally, on some level I am uncomfortable with a biological nature to homosexuality. That opens up an uncomfortable can of worms. Can it be considered a birth defect? Will we be able to treat it with gene therapy? Will parents be able to test for it in the womb and abort the child if it is found to be homosexual? It may be in the end the very people that homosexuals are most at odds with (the religious right), may be the ones most likely to come to their aid when people start aborting and "fixing" them, due to the religious right's tendency to be against abortion and unusually meddling with "God's work".
And, unfortunately, a fourth: (d) got pushed through based on some group's (possibly skewed) agenda, despite being irrelevant or even bad for society.You mean like the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution?
But then which is California Prop 8?
Exactly. People drank as much (if not more) during Prohibition as they did before, and violent crime increased due to bootlegging. It was a net loss, as far as tinkering with a smoothly-functioning civil society went. Prop 8? Can't tell yet, but there are 6 obvious possibilities:
1. Stays, demonstrations and animosity increase -> net loss for everyone.
2. Stays, things calm down -> net gain for supporters.
3. Stays, nothing changes in the larger sense (still fighting to get it repealed, etc.). No net gain nor loss.
4. Overturned, backlash by supporters fuels demonstrations and animosity -> net loss for everyone.
5. Overturned; given the right to marry, gays eventually attain equal rights all around, and are passed up as a "target group" by proposition supporters in favor of a more vocal or more easily-persecuted minority. Net gain for everyone except whatever new group gets singled out.
6. Overturned, nothing changes. No net gain nor loss.
|
|
Personally, on some level I am uncomfortable with a biological nature to homosexuality. That opens up an uncomfortable can of worms. Can it be considered a birth defect? Will we be able to treat it with gene therapy? Will parents be able to test for it in the womb and abort the child if it is found to be homosexual?
All very sticky situations, and ignoring them won't change anything. They've found genes that are a part of the process, which means there will be people who select to have children who do not have those genes.
We've been selecting our young since the dawn of our species, usually by abandoning unwanted girl children in the 'good old days,' but more recently by choosing to abort fetuses that show signs of Down's Syndrome or whatever. If I supported abortion (which I don't, I think it's icky, but I acknowledge that I didn't get elected God, so I can't make that decision for every woman on the planet, although I strongly believe that a consenting male partner should have a right to take custody of an unborn child, so long as the mother's life isn't in danger. Abortion, IMO, shouldn't be a *convenience* or a way to dodge responsibility for one's actions.), I'd pretty much *have to* support a couple aborting a fetus because they are afraid that it could turn out gay. If couple X can abort a fetus because it's going to turn out some way that they don't want (trisomy, missing limb, whatever), then couple Y should have the same right, even if their idea of 'turn out wrong' is something like 'gay,' or 'disobedient,' or 'conservative.'
Or, if abortion is blanket illegal, save in times when the pregnancy is endangering the mother's life, perhaps those couples can give away their 'defective' babies for adoption to couples whose definition of 'human life' is a bit more inclusive.
If one operates from the reductionist stance that the purpose of any living creature is to reproduce more of itself, then homosexuality is very much a 'defect,' since it prompts the organism to attempt reproductive activity with a partner that it can't possibly fertilize. [Note that there is a big difference between a 'defect' and something that is morally wrong. I have a 'defect' in my vision and another one in my heart, but, unlike the Old Testament when those with defects in their vision were prohibited from approaching the altar or Celtic lore where Nuada was barred from rulership due to the loss of an arm, there is generally no longer a *moral* stigma attached to being born with 'defects.' Many people may be uncomfortable around a visibly deformed person, but they won't generally think that the deformed person did something to *deserve* that fate and start telling them that 'we don't want your kind around here, freak.']
But to say that making babies is the sole reason for a person to be allowed to exist is to say that infertile people should be rounded up and killed (or, at least, forbidden to marry). There's an argument floated around that the primary purpose of marriage is to make babies (be fruitful and multiply, some prefer), and again, that logic makes 'non-productive' marriages invalid. (Others concede that property inheritances, etc. have more to do with the *modern* conception of marriage, in which case, allowing a polyamorous triple to marry is just as 'valid' as any other marriage structure, since it's all about pesky financial details and has nothing to do with sacred rules about right and wrong.)
The genetic / biological component does make it squirm-inducing on some levels, but it's no less scary than the older idea that there was something morally wrong with homosexuals, that, for some inexplicable reason, they *chose* to be part of a hated and persecuted minority, because, I guess, they like misery, they like knowing that anybody they pass on the street might flip out and start screaming at them (and at certain points in history, throw rocks at them or drag them into a concentration camp) if they accidentally hold hands with a loved one in public?
Who would choose such a thing? It would be like a bunch of white people in the middle of slavery deciding to give up their rights and become black slaves. It makes no sense, really. If you know that group X has less rights than group Y, and occasionally suffers hate crimes up to and including murder, would you be jumping up and down to join the less-equal minority? What's the motivation? Does
'choosing' to be gay pay really well, to be worth the risk, the alienation, the ostracism of friends and family, the constant fear and uncertainty when meeting new people and wondering if they are going to knee-jerk hate you when they find out that you're not just like them?
Attraction is clearly an unconscious thing for straights (at least, in my experience). I don't *choose* to gravitate towards Angelina Jolie's bosums when she's running in Tomb Raider or think naughty thoughts about those sensual lips of hers when she's making that pout, it's completely natural and unconscious and, IMO, healthy, and, since I'm working on the assumption that gay people's attraction centers aren't magically different than mine, since they're human and all, I have to consider the possibility they find their own gender attractive just as unconsciously as the rest of us find the opposite gender.
Ultimately, it all boils down to;
'Who do you consider to be a human being?' and 'Who do *you* consider to be a US citizen?' That will determine whether or not you feel that a fetus deserves to live or a gay person should have the same rights as any other citizen.
But if one is going to pass a blanket law that 'these pigs are less equal,' then the group that isn't getting the full rights of being a US citizen should perhaps be required to pay less taxes or something. It seems unfair to charge them the same as the rest of us are paying to get less from their government, after all...
|
|
Ok, as a proud gay man. I have observed the one downfall of most people. A severe lack of empathy, an outright refusal to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Even though I am an atheist I understand that a religious belief is a very close personal worldview that takes up all the aspects of ones life. It's one of the most important things in a persons life and yes it deserves protection and respect. On the other hand tolerance must be maintained. Your worldview gives you no right (on a human level) to enforce said beliefs through any venue including law on others, and these people also deserve to be protected. People tend to like to place other people in generic categories, "the religious right" "The hippy left", gay, straight, black, white, religious, atheist, etc., etc., etc. Because we all know it's much easier to attack a "group" than a person. But the bottom line is always missed we are all people that have the same feelings who feel pain just as acutely as the person on the opposing faction. I feel the pain of the religiously oppressed over seas who would like nothing more than to worship their god in peace without the threat of violence, persecution, or death over their heads if discovered. But I also feel the pain of a man who is refused access to see his partner of 20 some years who is dying of cancer in the hospital, and all because they aren't considered family. We have both wronged each other, and we both need to learn to co exist. Maybe you should try and fit that into what it means to be an american!Jeremy,
As a proud straight man, I'm forced to disagree. Laws are a social contract. As such they have an origin in moral grounds. The laws against theft, murder, underage drinking, drug use, incest, youth marriage, speeding, etc. are -not- plucked out of thin air, but are based on moral and religions grounds. The privilege of state recognition of marriage is another legislation. The issue of California (and to a lesser extent, MA) is that there was a law...
I think the main disagreement we have is that you think that being gay is a lifestyle therefore a choice. From a first hand account it is not a choice being religious is more of a choice than being gay ever will be.
|
|
...Apparently, it's a good thing for the homosexual community (if not a fun thing for any one homosexual) that the anti-gay community is so blissfully unaware of how genes are passed on, ...Last I heard, even those that believe homosexuality is mostly biological don't believe that there is an inheritable gene that causes it (or is the singular cause of it). It usually is ascribed to conditions in utero with possible influence from certain genes.
Personally, on some level I am uncomfortable with a biological nature to homosexuality. That opens up an uncomfortable can of worms. Can it be considered a birth defect? Will we be able to treat it with gene therapy? Will parents be able to test for it in the womb and abort the child if it is found to be homosexual? It may be in the end the very people that homosexuals are most at odds with (the religious right), may be the ones most likely to come to their aid when people start aborting and "fixing" them, due to the religious right's tendency to be against abortion and unusually meddling with "God's work".
Here's what they have found is that a homosexual's hypothalamus in 93% of cases is the size of that of a person of the opposite sex. The hypothalamus is the same size when your born as when you die. It seems there's likely some sort of genetic component. Not to mention homosexual behavior has been observed in all mammalian species, and a few bird species.
I think the main disagreement we have is that you think that being gay is a lifestyle therefore a choice. From a first hand account it is not a choice being religious is more of a choice than being gay ever will be.
There is also an arguement that - given the hostility and oppression that being homosexual brings upon someone (Or at least did for that last several hundred years of history), if was a "choice" who would choose it?
Nature vs Nurture this debate has been around for a long time and I doubt that it will be solved on this message board, why don't we all agree to disagree on this one?
Because then activity on the Internet would drop to almost nothing.
|
|
I think the main disagreement we have is that you think that being gay is a lifestyle therefore a choice. From a first hand account it is not a choice being religious is more of a choice than being gay ever will be.
And the 'God gene' calls even that into question. One set of people might want to genetically engineer children without 'gay genes,' another set of people might want to genetically engineer children without 'God genes' and yet others might want to genetically engineer children without the the various genes that have been shown to have a high correlation with voting conservative or liberal.
Designer babies.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think the main disagreement we have is that you think that being gay is a lifestyle therefore a choice. From a first hand account it is not a choice being religious is more of a choice than being gay ever will be.And the 'God gene' calls even that into question. One set of people might want to genetically engineer children without 'gay genes,' another set of people might want to genetically engineer children without 'God genes' and yet others might want to genetically engineer children without the the various genes that have been shown to have a high correlation with voting conservative or liberal.
Designer babies.
Ok, working backwards from replies, because personally the idea of designer babies scares the hell out of me.