Posted on 05/17/2004 4:20:41 PM PDT by Gelato
I believe you.
What I wonder is why you hang out on FR since you are such a staunch supporter of same sex marriage and homosexuality in general.
Hope there was a big crowd, of course no media coverage here in Illinois. But I expect to see our marriage laws challenged this summer.
I'm not sure if I understand your argument. Are you assuming that there is no contradiction in the current Constitution? It once said that all men are created equal, when slavery existed. The Ninth Amendment exists to say, "Hey, just because the Bill of Rights doesn't positively declare that a right is yours, cannot be an argument for denying that right." It's sort of like, "tie goes to the citizens - not the government." You see, the Constitution is supposed to constrain the government -- not so much its citizens. Laws limit citizens. The Constitution limits laws.
First, what's your response to the following line of reasoning:
Now, let's assume you say no because you don't like gays. The Ninth Amendment amendment says that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits gay marriage, so you cannot use that fact as an argument. Now other states are free to prohibit it, but the federal government is giving gay tax money to hetero people simply because they are straight? Gay people can "have" children, and they can "get" the tax benefits of having these children. They just can't get the marriage benefits, such as who has custody when a "partner" is hospitalized, or dies.
Do you agree with anti-incest and anti-polygamy laws? Why or why not?
Yes I do. Let's assume you think that's a contradiction. First, we have scientific proof that incest is bad. Gay people do not deny that. Every nation in the world has laws against that, Monarchies notwithstanding. Even mice and bugs have incest taboos via pheromones. So let's dispense with incest. Moving on, we have laws against polygamy too. Many nations do not. Many Christians (Mormans, Islam, Davidians) support polygamy. Do I agree with that? In other words, do I like polygamy? Do I think it should exist? Not really, but who cares? That's emotional. A better question is do I believe it's constitutional to prohibit it? The answer is yes I do. It is neither logically possible, nor illegal for a law constraining the number of citizens from performing some act, to be discriminatory against any one citizen, at least according to the Constitution, which prohibits the government from playing favorites concerning race, color, creed, religion, or sex. Notice that age is not in there, but we do see it in some state employment clauses. If tomorrow, Congress passes a law that says polygamy is legal, that would still not be unconstitutional either, and I would accept that. If tomorrow they pass a law that says Congress shall have unlimited terms, then that would be unconstitutional, and I might join a rebelion. Passing a law that states that "marriage shall be defined to be a relationship between two people who are over 16 years of age" is not unconstitutional either. Stating that "marriage is defined to be a relationship between a man and a woman", however warm and fuzzy that makes us feel, is violating what I believe the true spirit of God and America. God is not "up there" looking down on us. God is "inside us" and manifests in how we treat others. My marriage is not threaten by gay people. God, my wife, my friends, and family witnessed this covenant. Only God can take it away. No gay person can touch that. And gay people do not offend me. So how can I vote with a clear conscious, and share mutual respect with God, on the proposition that gay people must be persecuted? I cannot. You seem to be better able to deal with that morality.
Further, if a bisexual wants to marry both a man and a woman, why do you think he should be prevented? If homosexuality must be granted the "benefits" and "privileges" of marriage, why not bisexuality?
Again, it isn't what I believe people should do. It's what I believe the government should do, or better yet, not do. I believe people should follow the law, keep their promises, and never initiate physical force against anyone. The government merely should enforce the law and protect people from outside invasion. Quite idealistic I'm sure, but would make Ayn Rand proud.
If the laws were changed to allow incestuous, polygamist, and bisexual marriages, would you fight this change?
I would fight incest, unless new technology argues otherwise. I would not fight polygamy, but I would vote against it. I would vote in favor of the Constitution all else.
How about yourself? Do answer your own questions.
I love America, I respect the Republic, I believe in the Forefathers, I support the military, I honor marriage and God, and I believe that this thread deserve some FREEPING!
FYI: I am not a staunch supporter of same sex marriage. It doesn't make me feel good, any more than paying my mortgage makes me feel good. But I promised to pay the loan back, so I will. And I promised to fight for this Constitution, freedom of our citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I consider all my antagonists on this thread to have a serious logical blemish with their concepts of freedom, and if I can cast some doubt here, so be it. Gelato is the only one yet, I believe, who has actually quoted something from the Constitution. Bravo! That's the start of an argument.
Your comments about Keyes' speech were specious, false, sloganeering and showed you either didn't read it or didn't have a clue about what he was saying. If you don't support same sex marriage, you sure have spent much verbiage attacking those of us who oppose it.
This is an example of your brilliant arguments, and I again assert that it is unintelligible gibberish:
OK. I assume that this is your definition of "legitimate", unless you are referring to something more institutional. Male and Female are phenotypes -- a requirement for physical reproduction; i.e. hardware. There's more to it these days. There's culture; i.e. software. I claim that the "American" spirit is more software based than "who" is actually practicing it. In this case, it isn't about a male and female parent raising children that is so significant, but rather about a masculine parent and a feminine parent raising a child that determines quality. You talk about "legitimate" as a tag that gets stamped on a child as though the label itself was significant. That is the basis of a caste system -- something that America is supposed to abhor. I'm more concerned with what the child actually becomes when they mature. Does she become a brilliant scientist, a military hero? Or does she become a drug addict, or criminal. Two masculine parents, or two feminine parents (regardless of their actual sex) tend to raise children far differently than by parents who specialize oppositely. I would take a bet that one day, we will find that a gay couple, where one is masculine and one is feminine, will statistically raise more successful children than a straight couple each sharing the same gender. Consider today what happens to children when both parents are working in the masculine corporate world (for the sheer sake of income). What do we know today about how children turn out when raised by a single parent (a highly skewed gender spectrum)?
42 posted on 05/17/2004 6:31:07 PM PDT by Mathlete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Just out of idle curiosity, what exactly do you mean by "a highly skewed gender spectrum"? Why not spell it out for us?
Elaborate. Personally, I think denying them marriage is a violation of American freedom. See my posts above. I have heard many religious arguments here, but little Constitutional ones.
At the same time, there are waiting lists for people wishing to adopt. Methinks the real problem is that state agencies are getting in the way of adoptions (perhaps because more children in foster care means more federal $?)
Keyes is great.
Just saw him speak at a Jackie Winters Dessert in Febuary.
If the hidden goal of our megalithic government is to surreptitiously "increase" the size of its organism, I think theories like that deserve much attention. Good call.
Sorry. I didn't mean to be pedantic. So let me explain it to you. The word skew means not evenly distributed. An interesting theory is that children best develop when raised by two parents: one which is masculine, and one which is feminine -- where the average just about cancels each other out. In this case, there is no skew.
These two attributes (masculine and feminine) are called gender. Male and female are called sex. Don't confuse the two. They are different. Now take a leap of faith and step away from the 17th century Puritanism. Gender does not imply sex. Males tend to be more masculine than females, but it is not uncommon for women to be masculine, and marry males who are feminine. I would certainly call Hillary far more masculine than Bill. It doesn't really matter whose playing the roles, so long as the two parents are different in gender.
If both parents are feminine, they tend to raise what's called a mama's boy. In this case, the parents are skewed toward the feminine gender. If both parents are masculine, they often get aggressive children with little social skills. If this makes sense so far, it should be pretty easy to understand that a single parent is a highly skewed gender spectrum -- a spectrum being like a number line, such as the "political" spectrum.
Still gibberish? How about gibberish in arguments, such as:
I think you're hanging out with the wrong crowd. You're hanging out with people use depend on emotion instead of reason and intelligence. And not just any emotion, but ill-informed bitterness, envy and anger.
I heartily suggest you take up some form of manual trade, learn how to spell, listen more and talk/write less. You only shame yourself with your senseless babble.You just said the people you hang out with think thus and such, and I said those people aren't using their intelligence and reason.
You obviously aren't hanging out with me, because the people I hang out with would rather be dead than liberal or vote Democrat.What I wonder is why you hang out on FR since you are such a staunch supporter of same sex marriage and homosexuality in general.
Your comments about Keyes' speech were specious, false, sloganeering and showed you either didn't read it or didn't have a clue about what he was saying. If you don't support same sex marriage, you sure have spent much verbiage attacking those of us who oppose it.
Is that it LJ? Is that how you find truth? Are all the beliefs cemented in your brain based on this Kumbaya strategy of thought? If so, let me just declare you the winner. Congrats! Peace be with you.
But marriage isn’t about having children, remember? Isn’t that what you said? We’re not supposed to think of marriage in terms of what it might mean to children and procreation. Right? It’s about the love between the people seeking the marriage. Isn’t that what you believe?
Even mice and bugs have incest taboos via pheromones. So let's dispense with incest.
The opposite is true. In nature, incest is quite often acceptable and desirable. In domestic animals, incest is common, even intentionally. Look at the pedigree of any purebred animal. You cannot find one without incest. Incest is used in animal breeding to increase the likelihood of the inheritance of certain traits. In fact, without incest, different breeds of dogs or cats could not exist.
Even among animals that have a natural aversion to incest, it still exists in their population. Birds naturally avoid incest, yet 2% of wild birds practice incest. That number is comparable to, or even larger than, the number of homosexuals living in the United States. The National Health and Social Life Survey found 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women consider themselves homosexual or bisexual. Only 0.9% of men and 0.4% of women had practiced homosexuality strictly.
(By the way, mice have no incest taboos: http://www.horns.freeserve.co.uk/mouse4.htm They will mate with any relatives.)
Using the pattern set by nature as a guide, certainly a little incest wouldn’t hurt, right? Some degree of it is natural, and in some cases in nature it is beneficial. Why should the small minority who wants to practice incest be legally barred from the benefits of marriage, if marriage is not prohibited to gays?
This question is especially valid when children are excluded from the marriage argument.
For the sake of argument, however, let’s add children into the equation, and presume you’re wrong that marriage isn’t about families and procreation. Assuming the legal basis for keeping incest illegal is to prevent “mutated” children, what of those incestuous couples who have no plans procreate, or who are infertile? Carrol and Alice Ferdinandsen, the man/daughter couple who married in Alabama, had no children together, yet they were arrested and charged under the anti-incest laws.
Denying this couple the right to marriage is a violation of American freedom--wouldn’t you say? “All we want is to be left alone,” Carrol Ferdinandsen said in an interview, “so we can finish our lives together.” If homosexuals can marry, what reason do we have, legally, to prohibit marriage for this couple?
Moving on, we have laws against polygamy too. Many nations do not. Many Christians (Mormans, Islam, Davidians) support polygamy. Do I agree with that? In other words, do I like polygamy? Do I think it should exist? Not really, but who cares? That's emotional.
So, you have no argument against polygamy, then. You can think of no legal reason Tom Greene cannot marry several women. You are aware, of course, that Tom Greene is using the Massachusetts decision and Lawrence vs. Texas to argue for plural marriage rights. In the end, you don’t care if he succeeds in getting polygamy legalized. Correct?
A better question is do I believe it's constitutional to prohibit it? The answer is yes I do. It is neither logically possible, nor illegal for a law constraining the number of citizens from performing some act, to be discriminatory against any one citizen, at least according to the Constitution, which prohibits the government from playing favorites concerning race, color, creed, religion, or sex.
However, you have stated that marriage is a right like voting--which means it should be available to all who want it. You cannot use the Constitution to deny a right, according to the 9th Amendment. The idea that we can deny a right to citizens based on numbers is absurd. It wouldn’t matter how many women are in the voting booth at once; all of them have the right to vote.
If marriage is like voting, it is a RIGHT. It therefore belongs to ALL who want it, according to your premise. You have offered no reason why government CAN regulate such a right and why you believe it CAN dictate number restrictions on marriage. What is the legal basis for your position?
If tomorrow, Congress passes a law that says polygamy is legal, that would still not be unconstitutional either, and I would accept that.
Congress won’t have to. The courts will make that law for them. Do you think that would be constitutional or unconstitutional for the courts to act in this way?
Passing a law that states that "marriage shall be defined to be a relationship between two people who are over 16 years of age" is not unconstitutional either. Stating that "marriage is defined to be a relationship between a man and a woman", however warm and fuzzy that makes us feel, is violating what I believe the true spirit of God and America.
The latter is not unconstitutional, though I would change it to "union," not "relationship."
So how can I vote with a clear conscious, and share mutual respect with God, on the proposition that gay people must be persecuted? I cannot.
If the denial of marriage to homosexuals is inherently “persecution,” how do you justify “persecuting” bisexuals who would like to marry both a man and a woman?
I believe people should follow the law, keep their promises, and never initiate physical force against anyone. The government merely should enforce the law and protect people from outside invasion.
The constitution of Massachusetts states that all laws dealing with marriage are to be handled by the governor and the legislature, not the courts. Yet, the high court got involved and legalized gay marriage. Supporting their ruling is antithetical to the idea of enforcing the law, wouldn’t you say? As Dr. Keyes points out, their ruling violated the separation of powers. Do you support this kind of interference by the courts in general, or just when it comes to decisions you like?
I would fight incest, unless new technology argues otherwise.
The Constitution does not say we have rights based upon what “technology” has to say. That’s a dangerous theory for rights. We either have rights or we don’t. There is either an equal right to any kind of marriage, or there is not.
I would not fight polygamy, but I would vote against it.
You will have no such option to vote on this issue. The matter will be decided by the courts, and they will use the precedent that has been set by the arguments for gay marriage you have supported. They will be consistent in their logic, and base their decision on the premise they have already established.
I would vote in favor of the Constitution all else.
The Constitution does not allow the courts to write law, only to apply it. The constitutional principle of separation of powers was violated by the Massachusetts high court. Do you support that?
How about yourself? Do answer your own questions.
The premises I accept allow the logical rejection of marriage between same-sex couples, incestuous couples, bisexual couples, and polygamist couples. The premises you accept necessitate the granting of marriage rights each and every one of these relationships--unless you allow discrimination as another premise, in which case I would like to hear your reasoning.
Suddenly, the Massachusetts court ruling, and all its logical implications, has made marriage terminology rather complicated.
Define freedom. And please keep it brief.
You said, in your effort to enlighten us knuckledraggers and flash us with your pedantry:
"If both parents are feminine, they tend to raise what's called a mama's boy. In this case, the parents are skewed toward the feminine gender. If both parents are masculine, they often get aggressive children with little social skills. If this makes sense so far, it should be pretty easy to understand that a single parent is a highly skewed gender spectrum -- a spectrum being like a number line, such as the "political" spectrum."
The word "parents" means one mother and one father. One is masculine, and one is feminine. You are a perfect example of "mayaya pahrita jnana" - one whose knowledge is stolen by illusion. You use many erudite words and twisted logic, but you have gotten lost in the maze of pride in your intellect in your effort to support deviancy.
...in your effort to support deviancy
Your definition of parents, your definition of marriage, and your definition of deviancy. If all you have as an argument is the agreement of those you hang out with (a popular Liberal strategy), you will not succeed with your effort to hinder the "gay agenda". you will fail to realize your ideal future, and gay couples will be married one day legally. You may not like it, I may not like it, and your church may not like it, but the American law does not, and should not, care about mob feelings.
By the way, the American law says that it is OK for gay people to do what you call deviant behavior -- THEREFORE, it is not "illegal", any more than Christianity is deviant by Islamic opinion. America is not a Theocracy.
Let's try something different this time. Let's see if you can define it. You go first, then I will respond.
BUMP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.