Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay marriage and the law
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 181 of 206 (450238)
01-21-2008 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by macaroniandcheese
01-21-2008 11:12 AM


Re: The law
brennakimi writes:
no. absolute equality matters, and that includes traditional terminology.
Then the gays are already there. Unless you're looking to invoke an affirmative-action principle on behalf of gays. Then it wouldn't be "absolute equality." We found that out on a racial landscape.
you are aware there are gay people without penises, right? also, sodomy is not required for homosexual male sex. nor is sodomy restricted to gay men.
I'm not against it. If fact, it has my full approval for heterosexuals. And if homosexuals want to engage in it then I say let 'em. But why do gays insist on getting "married" if the law provides for their "civil union"? I'm for that, even if it does nothing to improve my life. And I don't think we need to make special provisions for them just because they want to come of the closet.
To me, it is wrong to argue for "gay marriage" on the principle "absolute equality." If gays want to get married to members of the opposite sex they are absolutely free and equal to do that. Why isn't that enough? Why do we need to enact special laws for them.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-21-2008 11:12 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-21-2008 12:04 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 184 by Rahvin, posted 01-21-2008 12:17 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 192 by Jaderis, posted 01-22-2008 7:58 PM Fosdick has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 182 of 206 (450242)
01-21-2008 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Fosdick
01-21-2008 11:55 AM


Re: The law
Then the gays are already there. Unless you're looking to invoke an affirmative-action principle on behalf of gays. Then it wouldn't be "absolute equality." We found that out on a racial landscape.
no. they aren't. there are states preventing them from aquiring marriage licenses. it's not about "affirmative action". it's about enforcing the law and requiring states to allow what is already legal. just as integration had to be enforced.
But why do gays insist on getting "married" if the law provides for their "civil union"?
no. the constitution allows for marriage. marriage is equality. civil union is a bullshit attempt at "separate but equal" which is unconstitutional.
To me, it is wrong to argue for "gay marriage" on the principle "absolute equality."
why? that's what it is.
If gays want to get married to members of the opposite sex they are absolutely free and equal to do that. Why isn't that enough? Why do we need to enact special laws for them.
it's not special laws. what if we outlawed opposite-sex marriage but legalized same-sex marriage? what if you couldn't marry a woman you were in love with, but were free to marry a man? would that satisfy you as equal? as fair? as just? no, it wouldn't. there's nothing special about being able to have your binding contract with the person you choose regardless of their gender, preference, or anatomy (which can all be distinct) recognized by the state and having your legal affairs in order as such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2008 11:55 AM Fosdick has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 183 of 206 (450246)
01-21-2008 12:17 PM


Quarantine those infected (drivers license)
They want homosexuals want to force the sea scouts to let them take little boys sailing against the parents christian beliefs. Want to teach little boys and girls that same sex is normal and prosecute anyone that disagree's that the colon was not made for sex. Should we not teach our kids the truth that its designed to rid filthy remains from digestion that the woman was made for the man. Its no wonder that to the founding fathers it was a captial offense but today this filthy lifestyle is being taught as if its normal.
It does not matter what the homosexual believes their abominable life style from the bible akjv 32:33-35 brings on Gods treasures sealed for them "sexual diseases" like their foot shall slide their day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that will come upon them make haste to God belongs vengeance. At the very least every person should be tested for std and if they are not clean have unclean written on their drivers license that way when they infect another human being they could be prosecuted for manslaughter, etc...Qurantine those infected its worse than manslaughter to give another person a lifelong disease no matter how much they would love to take our little boys sailing. Congress should require mandatory testing and documentation, clean and unclean, etc...
Thomas Jefferson talked about separation of church to protect the churches from the state. In the early colonies sodomy was a capital offense, Thomas Jefferson solution to this disease was to castrate the homosexual and put a big hole in the nose of a lesbian.
Until 1961 homosexual acts were illegal maybe its time to have congress put them back in the closet. I mean if your going to twists Thomas Jefferson beliefs in separation of the church from the state the least we can do is follow his advice in respect to the homosexual and lesbians problem.
Congress needs to put them back in the closet and over ride the supreme courts decision that was not made on the us constitution but by world law. The supreme court should be reprimanded for their decision in Texas sodomy case, etc...
---------------------------------------------------------------
The bills signed by Schwarzenegger include SB777, which bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.
There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however.
Page not found - WND
Homosexuals, transsexuals, women, the homeless and assorted minority groups have been given the authority to decide what constitutes "hate speech." It's all based on their emotional response to a speech, a conversation, a book or article, a poster, a radio broadcast--whatever. If it makes them feel uncomfortable, it's hate speech.
Page not found – Concerned Women for America
The latest setback came Monday when the high court without comment refused to take a case out of Berkeley, Calif., in which a Scouts sailing group lost free use of a public marina because the Boy Scouts bar atheists and gays.
“The issue of governments seeking to punish organizations for exercising their First Amendment rights is a recurring one. There will be other opportunities for the Supreme Court to affirm First Amendment protections for organizations dealing with government agencies,” George Davidson, the longtime attorney for the Scouts, said in a statement.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/...016-1245-scotus-scouts.html
In the American colonies, homosexual acts were a capital offense. Thomas Jefferson said that homosexuality "should be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one-half inch in diameter as least.2 Until 1961 homosexual acts were illegal throughout America.
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron2.html
OFF TOPIC - Post rendered invisible. Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
If you must read content, use the Peek button but do not respond.

Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Rahvin, posted 01-21-2008 12:38 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 186 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-21-2008 12:44 PM johnfolton has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 184 of 206 (450247)
01-21-2008 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Fosdick
01-21-2008 11:55 AM


Re: The law
brennakimi writes:
quote:
no. absolute equality matters, and that includes traditional terminology.
Then the gays are already there. Unless you're looking to invoke an affirmative-action principle on behalf of gays. Then it wouldn't be "absolute equality." We found that out on a racial landscape.
Bullshit. We also found out on a "racial landscape" that defining marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race was Uncionstitutional. It would still have been Uncionstitutional to name interracial marriage something other than marriage.
The argument is exactly identical for gay marriage. If they are the same rights there is no reason to use a new term except as discrimination, which is illegal under the 14th Amendment.
quote:
you are aware there are gay people without penises, right? also, sodomy is not required for homosexual male sex. nor is sodomy restricted to gay men.
I'm not against it. If fact, it has my full approval for heterosexuals. And if homosexuals want to engage in it then I say let 'em. But why do gays insist on getting "married" if the law provides for their "civil union"? I'm for that, even if it does nothing to improve my life. And I don't think we need to make special provisions for them just because they want to come of the closet.
They insit on being treated equally. Exactly the same. There is zero reason outside of bigotry to call gay marriage anything other than marriage if it is exactly the same institution.
And gay marriage has nothing to do with coming out of the closet.
And there are no "special provisions" here. The law as it currently stands under the 14th Amendment demands that gays be allowed to marry in exactly the same way heterosexual couples marry, with no differences whatsoever. Anything less would be Unconstitutional as seperate treatment with no compelling state interest.
The people asking for special treatment are those who insist that gay marriage be called something other than marriage.
To me, it is wrong to argue for "gay marriage" on the principle "absolute equality." If gays want to get married to members of the opposite sex they are absolutely free and equal to do that. Why isn't that enough? Why do we need to enact special laws for them.
”HM
Absolute equality is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America! Read it sometime.
"If blacks want to get married to members of the same race they are absolutely free and equal to do that. Why isn't that enough? Why do we need to enact special laws for them."
It's the exact same argument, Hoot. If interracial marriage is Constitutionally guaranteed as was decided in Loving v. Virginia, then gay marriage is also Constitutionally guaranteed by the exact same reasoning.
"Seperate but equal" is not equal. Saying that gays can still marry people of the opposite sex does not mean they are receiving equal treatment any more than blacks were receiving equal treatment when they were allowed to marry other blacks but not whites.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2008 11:55 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2008 12:49 PM Rahvin has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 185 of 206 (450260)
01-21-2008 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by johnfolton
01-21-2008 12:17 PM


Re: Quarantine those infected (drivers license)
They want homosexuals want to force the sea scouts to let them take little boys sailing against the parents christian beliefs. Want to teach little boys and girls that same sex is normal and prosecute anyone that disagree's that the colon was not made for sex. Should we not teach our kids the truth that its designed to rid filthy remains from digestion that the woman was made for the man. Its no wonder that to the founding fathers it was a captial offense but today this filthy lifestyle is being taught as if its normal.
Odd how "homosexuality is a capital offense" isn't in the Constitution, isnt it. The Boy Scouts are allowed to be as bogoted as they'd like as a private club - they just won't receive any Federal money or qualify for tax-exempt status if they discriminate based on sexual orientation. And parents aren't forced to enroll their children in the Boy Scouts, either.
It does not matter what the homosexual believes their abominable life style from the bible akjv 32:33-35 brings on Gods treasures sealed for them "sexual diseases" like their foot shall slide their day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that will come upon them make haste to God belongs vengeance. At the very least every person should be tested for std and if they are not clean have unclean written on their drivers license that way when they infect another human being they could be prosecuted for manslaughter, etc...Qurantine those infected its worse than manslaughter to give another person a lifelong disease no matter how much the would love to take our little boys sailing. Congress should require mandatory testing and documentation, clean and unclean, etc...
As someone who knows a person with HIV, I have 2 things to say to you:
1) This has nothing to do with gay marriage or the law, and is completely off-topic. Take your hate speech elsewhere.
2) I can't actually say this one without being suspended, so use your imagination.
Thomas Jefferson talked about separation of church to protect the churches from the state.
And it was a really good idea.
In the early colonies sodomy was a capital offense, Thomas Jefferson solution to this disease was to castrate the homosexual and put a big hole in the nose for a lesbian.
This is why it was a good idea to sperate religion from the state - religious laws like those against homosexuality would have insane laws like this made.
And this still has nothing to do with gay marriage or the law.
Until 1961 homosexual acts were illegal maybe its time to have congress put them back in the closet. I mean if your going to twists Thomas Jefferson beliefs in separation of the church from the state the least we can do is follow his advice in respect to the homosexual and lesbians problem.
You dont like the COnstitution very much, do you, bigot?
Congress needs to put them back in the closet and over ride the supreme courts decision that was not made on the us constitution but by world law. The supreme court should be reprimanded for their decision in Texas sodomy case, etc...
What business is it of yours or anyone else's if consenting adults (of the same gender or otherwise) choose to have anal sex? While you're welcome to your bigoted views, they are Unconstitutional to enforce by law.
The bills signed by Schwarzenegger include SB777, which bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.
Becasue the state has no compelling interest in treating homosexuality as anything different from heterosexuality. This was a law to prevent bigoted gay-bashing. Religious opposition to homosexuality has no place in schools due to the very same separation of Church and State you so ironically mentioned a moment ago.
There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however.
When is the last time a public school bashed Christianity, even its ultra-conservative flavors, as harmful? No such laws are necessary when no such attacks exist.
Homosexuals, transsexuals, women, the homeless and assorted minority groups have been given the authority to decide what constitutes "hate speech." It's all based on their emotional response to a speech, a conversation, a book or article, a poster, a radio broadcast--whatever. If it makes them feel uncomfortable, it's hate speech.
Not quite. It still has to be decided by a judge, who determines if that reaction is reasonable. And hate speech by itself is not illegal, which is why you're allowed to post this verbal vomit.
The latest setback came Monday when the high court without comment refused to take a case out of Berkeley, Calif., in which a Scouts sailing group lost free use of a public marina because the Boy Scouts bar atheists and gays.
Public resources don't go to private clubs that discriminate. Period.
“The issue of governments seeking to punish organizations for exercising their First Amendment rights is a recurring one. There will be other opportunities for the Supreme Court to affirm First Amendment protections for organizations dealing with government agencies,” George Davidson, the longtime attorney for the Scouts, said in a statement.
They aren't being punished. They simply aren't being supported with public money and resources, which is compeltely different.
In the American colonies, homosexual acts were a capital offense. Thomas Jefferson said that homosexuality "should be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one-half inch in diameter as least.2 Until 1961 homosexual acts were illegal throughout America.
And it's quite fortunate that we've moved past that ugly stage in our history. That would be the same point, by the way, where Jefferson would be raping his own slaves. He had some very good ideas, and quite a few very bad ones as well.
OFF TOPIC - Post rendered invisible. Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
If you must read content, use the Peek button but do not respond.

Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2008 12:17 PM johnfolton has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 186 of 206 (450264)
01-21-2008 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by johnfolton
01-21-2008 12:17 PM


Re: Quarantine those infected (drivers license)
the homeless
cause they're such nasty deviants celebrating horrible lifestyles. read your damned bible. jesus was homeless.
OFF TOPIC - Post rendered invisible. Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
If you must read content, use the Peek button but do not respond.

Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2008 12:17 PM johnfolton has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 187 of 206 (450267)
01-21-2008 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Rahvin
01-21-2008 12:17 PM


Re: The law
Rahvin, all of your points are good enough, I think, and should considered by those like me who oppose "gay marriage" under the law. However, I do not oppose "civil unions" under the law for gays.
By doing what you're doing, Rahvin, you leave me no other recourse: Abandon tradition, forsake what many, many heterosexual people hold dear, and get the law and the government out of the of "marriage" business. By doing what you're doing you effectively overthrowing tradition and the long-held meaning of marriage. All I ask is that the word "marriage" no longer has legally binding value. Thus the word "marriage" should be removed from all legal documents and replaced by "civil union." And make sure the gays are not excluded from that.
If equality really is what you want, then that should do it. And if people of either or both sexes want to get "married" they should be absolutely free and equal to do that, by any non-legally binding marriage service they choose.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Rahvin, posted 01-21-2008 12:17 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Rahvin, posted 01-21-2008 1:21 PM Fosdick has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 188 of 206 (450276)
01-21-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Fosdick
01-21-2008 12:49 PM


Re: The law
Rahvin, all of your points are good enough, I think, and should considered by those like me who oppose "gay marriage" under the law.
Thanks.
However, I do not oppose "civil unions" under the law for gays.
By doing what you're doing, Rahvin, you leave me no other recourse: Abandon tradition, forsake what many, many heterosexual people hold dear, and get the law and the government out of the of "marriage" business. By doing what you're doing you effectively overthrowing tradition and the long-held meaning of marriage. All I ask is that the word "marriage" no longer has legally binding value. Thus the word "marriage" should be removed from all legal documents and replaced by "civil union." And make sure the gays are not excluded from that.
If equality really is what you want, then that should do it. And if people of either or both sexes want to get "married" they should be absolutely free and equal to do that, by any non-legally binding marriage service they choose.
And as I stated just a few posts ago in this thread, I would fully accept that compromise. The word "marriage" can be left to religious institutions and the couples themselves - if you want to call yourselves a married couple, feel free to do so, and the legal "civil union" will account for the rights currently assigned by marriage.
It's perfectly fair if you compeltely remove the word "marriage" from the law for everyone.
But that's the thing - for equality, it's all or nothing. Either all consenting adults can be married, whether in same-sex couples or otherwise, or nobody can. It's the only way to follow the Constitution.
There will be a lot of people on both sides who will say either "you can't take away marriage!!!" or "...why can't we just call it marriage like we always have, and just include everybody?" But those are really the only two Constitutional options.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2008 12:49 PM Fosdick has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 189 of 206 (450369)
01-21-2008 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Fosdick
01-21-2008 11:06 AM


Re: The law
quote:
Ah, I don't think so, not specifically, not unless the Constitution also specifically permits sodomy. How else would a gay couple consummate their "marriage"?
So, can a man without a penis never marry?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2008 11:06 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2008 7:01 PM nator has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 190 of 206 (450398)
01-21-2008 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by nator
01-21-2008 5:39 PM


Re: The law
nator writes:
So, can a man without a penis never marry?
I would hope that he could gain a legally binding civil union with his mate. And he he wants to marry his mate or his pet or his stamp collection let him do it non-legally.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by nator, posted 01-21-2008 5:39 PM nator has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 191 of 206 (450434)
01-21-2008 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Fosdick
01-21-2008 11:36 AM


Re: The law
I can't speak for every state, but Minnesota law allows for annulment of marriage where one party is incapable of consummation and the other party was unaware of the inability at the time of the marriage.
Thus, failure to consummate absent inability is irrelevant, as is an inability to consummate that was known when the parties got married.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2008 11:36 AM Fosdick has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 192 of 206 (450614)
01-22-2008 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Fosdick
01-21-2008 11:55 AM


Re: The law
But why do gays insist on getting "married" if the law provides for their "civil union"?
For the same reason straights would want to be "married" if the law only provided for civil unions. Because of tradition. You people act like homosexuals grow up in a cultural vacuum and then pop out of some womblike closet full grown wanting to supplant "heterosexual" tradition with some crazy new gig.
Most homosexuals grow up with the same dreams of marriage and family that most heterosexuals do. With all the trappings. Including the name. It is quite a powerful cultural image and very few of us are immune.
To me, it is wrong to argue for "gay marriage" on the principle "absolute equality." If gays want to get married to members of the opposite sex they are absolutely free and equal to do that. Why isn't that enough?
Do you really not know the answer to that question? Do you really think you would be happy in a marriage with someone you do not love? Wouldn't that make you feel empty and alone to be in such a sham marriage?
Why do we need to enact special laws for them.
We don't. The Constitution provides enough authority, dontcha think? The only people enacting special laws are the ones trying to "protect" marriage. All of those states that recently passed anti gay marriage laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman didn't have those "special laws" on the books before, did they? No. They had to "enact special laws" to make sure that heterosexuals got to keep their special rights, equality be damned.
The upside down thinking on this issue really just boggles my mind.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2008 11:55 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by teen4christ, posted 01-22-2008 8:19 PM Jaderis has replied
 Message 197 by Fosdick, posted 01-23-2008 12:08 PM Jaderis has not replied

teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 193 of 206 (450618)
01-22-2008 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Jaderis
01-22-2008 7:58 PM


Re: The law
Jaderis writes
quote:
For the same reason straights would want to be "married" if the law only provided for civil unions. Because of tradition. You people act like homosexuals grow up in a cultural vacuum and then pop out of some womblike closet full grown wanting to supplant "heterosexual" tradition with some crazy new gig.
Most homosexuals grow up with the same dreams of marriage and family that most heterosexuals do. With all the trappings. Including the name. It is quite a powerful cultural image and very few of us are immune.
This is the point I've been trying to make, but apparently even the liberals on here think it's ok to burn down the whole place rather than let us have it.
Like many people, I grew up conservative and have dreams of starting a family with a marriage contract, and yes that includes the term 'marriage'.
But I guess this is a battle to be fought against both conservatives and liberals. The conservatives don't want to see gay people happy and the liberals want us to settle with something less meaningful like civil union.
Is there noone left out there that thinks gay people deserve better than being bashed by both conservatives and liberals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Jaderis, posted 01-22-2008 7:58 PM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Jaderis, posted 01-22-2008 8:56 PM teen4christ has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 194 of 206 (450621)
01-22-2008 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by teen4christ
01-22-2008 8:19 PM


Re: The law
This is the point I've been trying to make, but apparently even the liberals on here think it's ok to burn down the whole place rather than let us have it.
While I see your point, that is not exactly the point I was trying to make.
I am all for creating a legal contract much like RAZD envisions where any consenting adult parties may enter to receive and share the protections and benefits traditionally bestowed on the nuclear family. I think this would go a long way towards solving the childcare issue, the healthcare issue, the affordable housing issue, etc. It would most definitely have to be called something else, though
I was simply answering HM's question about why "the gays" might possibly want to be "married."
The word marriage is not going to go away. The idea of marriage is not going to go away. People won't stop getting married. Gay or straight. All that would change is that the government steps out of the "marriage business" and into the "creating strong family/community bonds business."
I don't agree that it is at all like the white folk shutting down the schools so the black folk can't go. It is expanding the benefits of "marriage" to more and more people and to different groupings of people while everyone who wants to can still call their relationship a "marriage" if they so please. Many gay couples already call themselves married. I can call myself married all day long, but what really matters is the protections and benefits.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by teen4christ, posted 01-22-2008 8:19 PM teen4christ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2008 2:44 AM Jaderis has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 195 of 206 (450650)
01-23-2008 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by molbiogirl
01-20-2008 4:05 PM


Re: it's family, not sex
molbio girl responds to me:
quote:
Discrimination based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity,national origin is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Not quite. Here is the preamble of Title VII:
To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
You will note that it is engaging in specificities. It is there to prevent discrimination in very specific areas, not in general. There is nothing in here that prevents discrimination in, say, immigration or custody or marriage or divorce.
quote:
Discrimination based on age is prohibited by Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
Same problem. It only handles specificities, not the general case. The preamble to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967:
To prohibit age discrimination in employment.
There is no mention of other areas. It only handles the one concept.
The preamble to the Age Discrimination Act of 1975:
It is the purpose of this chapter to prohibit discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance.
So that's great for Federal programs...no mention of lower levels. Business employment isn't usually on the receiving end of federal monies so this act doesn't help when your boss fires you because you're too old.
quote:
Discrimination based on disability is prohibited by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Again, same problem. They only deal with specificities, not the general case. From the Rehabilitation Act of 1973:
The purposes of this Act are
(1) to empower individuals with disabilities to maximize employment, economic self sufficiency, independence, and inclusion and integration into society, through
(A) statewide workforce investment systems implemented in accordance with title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 that include, as integral components, comprehensive and coordinated state of the art programs of vocational rehabilitation;
(B) independent living centers and services;
(C) research;
(D) training;
(E) demonstration projects; and
(F) the guarantee of equal opportunity; and
(2) to ensure that the Federal Government plays a leadership role in promoting the employment of individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with significant disabilities, and in assisting States and providers of services in fulfilling the aspirations of such individuals with disabilities for meaningful and gainful employment and independent living.
This is mostly about employment and housing.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 actually does try and make a sweeping declaration:
It is the purpose of this chapter
(1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities;
(2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities;
(3) to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the standards established in this chapter on behalf of individuals with disabilities; and
(4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.
But when you look at the regulations spelled out, they are:
Employment
Public Services
Wire or Radio Communications
That's close, but it isn't a general statement. I was reading RAZD's question to be one of looking for a general comment and not laws that prevent it "just for work or finding lodgings."
The laws we have are for specific instances and, quite often, only in those cases where the feds have a hand in the situation.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by molbiogirl, posted 01-20-2008 4:05 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024