A Fair Comprimise

[Stuco]

i want to hear someone wlse come up with a comprimise that everyone can agree on and be happy. This is the third time Iv typed this. Can someone please give me a comprimise. If not by vote then by what.

 

[Stuco]

What other marriages require a vote?

Other types of marriges that should be outlawed:

Polygamy

Beastyality

Pedaphil Marriage- Also known as robing the cradle- Or maring someone to young for you.

But I mean if they truely love each other..............hmmmm.

But I guees you people might not see anything wrong with Bob marrying Fido.

Wheres it gonna end folks.

 

[bammertheblue]

i want to hear someone wlse come up with a comprimise that everyone can agree on and be happy. This is the third time Iv typed this. Can someone please give me a comprimise. If not by vote then by what.

I think what people are trying to say (at least what I'm trying to say) is that you can't compromise on civil liberties. Don't like gay marriage? Don't go to a gay wedding. Sounds like a good compromise to me.

 

[MewtwoX]

Why only vote on the marriages that the majority want outlawed?

Shouldn't we be voting for some other reason?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

i want to hear someone wlse come up with a comprimise that everyone can agree on and be happy. This is the third time Iv typed this. Can someone please give me a comprimise. If not by vote then by what.

'Compromise' on civil liberties has been tried. 'Separate but equal' is not equal at all.

There can be no compromise. Eventually gay marriage will be established; until then, they are deprived of their civil liberties.

 

[NCStein]

I was wondering If we could come to a comprimise.

Compromise. That's funny. You know, this country has a pretty bad track record of compromises.
Three-Fifths? 1820? 1850? They're all connected, you know.

Im wondering who could be aginst a vote that is a state vote in wich if the majority wins the state would be for homosexual marriage and allow it or the state would be aginst it and not allow it.

Ah, popular vote. Yes, the Kansas-Nebraska Act. That worked out very well, didn't it?

Creating artificial pro- and anti- boundaries between the states hasn't helped before. Why would it this time?

 

[SanctiSpiritus]

It's a sinful, repulsive act that should not be allowed in any State.

 

[wanderingone]

Other types of marriges that should be outlawed:

Polygamy

Beastyality

Pedaphil Marriage- Also known as robing the cradle- Or maring someone to young for you.

But I mean if they truely love each other..............hmmmm.

But I guees you people might not see anything wrong with Bob marrying Fido.

Wheres it gonna end folks.

My question was what marriages require a vote.. not what you think should be outlawed.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

It's a sinful, repulsive act that should not be allowed in any State.

So we should pass laws to prohibit acts that you believe to be sinful? All of them?

 

[Rae]

There is no compromise. Legalize gay marriage everywhere, and you can feel it's sinful all you like. How's that?

 

[Brennin]

Since there is much heated debate on weather or not homosexuels should be awarded marrige I was wondering If we could come to a comprimise. Seeing that democracy is what our country was based on and keeping with that tradition Im wondering who could be aginst a vote that is a state vote in wich if the majority wins the state would be for homosexual marriage and allow it or the state would be aginst it and not allow it. This seems fair to me as it keeps with what the four fathers set fourth in the constitution. This way everyone has a place to live where they can keep there ideals and be happy.

I agree that the issue of homosexual unions should be decided by referenda in each state.

 

[TooCurious]

i want to hear someone wlse come up with a comprimise that everyone can agree on and be happy. This is the third time Iv typed this. Can someone please give me a comprimise. If not by vote then by what.

Here's a compromise for you; you and other anti-gay-marriage folks stop trying to prevent pairs of consenting adults from having access to legal marriage, and the rest of us won't try to dent you the same right. We've taken the first step by not attempting to interfere with your constitutional rights; the ball is in your court.

 

[Ampoliros]

People's rights are denied all the time,

...which doesn't make it okay

and this isn't a right but a desired right.

Its a right as good as any other. Equal protection under the law means 'in regards to the law, we're all equal'. We currently aren't.

My rights are denied all of the time. My CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS, the ones guaranteed to me by the Constitutiton, are denied for fearing of breaking someone else's "right to not be offended", when I'm offended all of the freakin' time. What is a right? How do *you* decide?

There is no such right as a right to not be offended. You have the right of free speech, except in those (rare) cases where you exhort others to violence or criminal acts. Your rights stop where others rights begin. Simple as that.

"No - just because the majority wishes it doesn't mean you get to deny people's rights."

I want to get especially close in on this one: there is a difference between denying people rights and denying people THEIR rights. The first is refusing to give them a right that they desire but do not have, the second is refusing them a right that they have.

Okay. If you'd like to play word games, I suppose, it makes no difference. Homosexuals do not currently have the right to marry. They should, because it goes along with both the wording and the spirit of the constitution and our founding documents. Simple as that.

But tell me, if you hold to: "No - just because the majority wishes it doesn't mean you get to deny people's rights. Especially not for irrational and silly reasons...The constitution is there to guarantee our rights no matter what group we belong to.", then how can you push for homosexual marriage and deny incestual marriage, whether it's homosexual or heterosexual? (I am, of course, just supposing that you do because I haven't met a person yet who was for homosexual marriage and for incestual marriage).

1) If it's a matter of rights and everyone's rights, no matter what group, then you can't deny it to incestual couples.
2) If it's a matter of children, you still can't deny it. First, there is the matter that homosexual couples don't procreate BUT can get sperm donors (and so can incestual couples, both heterosexual and homosexual).

Generally, I'm undecided, and not because either of the reasons you listed. I'm more concerned with the issue of consent; the possibility of abuse of relationships - in the same way that if your boss proposed to you at work, and said you'd be fired if you refused.

The other idea is somewhat odd, perhaps - I argue that homosexual marriage should be legalized because everyone deserves equal rights under the law. It seems to me that incestual marriage is somewhat unnecessary, as I'm guessing most or all of the rights afforded because of marriage are afforded because of the two involved being related.

There also might be reasonable legal abuses and legal issues involved. I'm not an expert on such things.

Generally, though, I don't care - I certainly find incest to be morally wrong, and have a serious problem with it, but marriage ? Sure, whatever. Doesn't affect me.

So... do you still hold to "The constitution is there to guarantee our rights no matter what group we belong to"?

Yes.

And, I'll turn your slippery slope on your head for you - You obviously seem to hold to "The constitution is there to guarantee rights to the groups I deem should have them", so, where does it end? Should we ban marriage between infertile couples, because they can't have kids? Should we say that only certain ages can be married, because its wrong to have a 65 year old to marry a 20 year old? Should we ban interracial marriage? What groups do YOU see as not deserving of rights, and why?

 

[wanderingone]

i want to hear someone wlse come up with a comprimise that everyone can agree on and be happy. This is the third time Iv typed this. Can someone please give me a comprimise. If not by vote then by what.

Here's one.. the state (local and federal government)gets out of the marriage business. All personal agreements regarding who gets what if someone passes, or who gets to make medical, legal, financial decisions for someone incompetent are handled by prior legal arrangement regardless of emotional/sexual involvement of the adults involved. Anyone regardless of claim to marital status who doesn't have an agreement in place then has to take their claim to court (just like when people fail to assign a guardian to their children or designate the recipient of their estates in their will.

Marriage issues are removed from the tax package, insurance and benefits of employment are based on who actually lives in your household or who you are legally a parent of. People can make their marriage commitments based on their personal beliefs and not have others outside of their own belief system deciding if it's valid or not. The implications of their marriage matter to them in their faith community (if applicable) and their own home, and the rest of us can mind our business.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Though many of the Christians here that are against gay marriage don't see it, your behaving exactly like the Conservative Christians that opposed Interracial Marriage behaved 30 years ago. And using almost the same arguments too.


I don't understand why the same group people keep making the same errors in judgement throughout history. When are you all going to learn that you can not dictate the lives of other people? When are you going to learn that somone being different than you does not make them evil or your enemy?

The same people need to learn: to read. When did I say that I want to dictate the lives of others? When did I say that anyone was my enemy? I didn't. I support states rights because it works best. You are STILL ignoring that if the majority of the U.S. was opposed to it (actually the majority is, when it comes to homosexual marriage) the majority, if the Federal government had the real say, could keep homosexuals from marrying.

The only objections I have seen all stem from your Bible. Well guess what, your Bible is NOT the law of the land. To enact Biblical law as national law when such laws have no reason beyond religious, is against the 1st Admendment of the Constituion.

There are more arguments then just that but, fyi, your morals aren't the law of the land either.

Well guees WHAT! I live HERE! I have my say on social affarirs and so do you. So you dont have a right to push your morals or beliefs on me either. You dont seem to want to comprimise. You want to have your way or nothing. I pay taxes I should have a say about our countrys moral policy and if that policy that came from my morals stems from the bible and the majority agrees with it it is fair. If I want my children to grow up in an area where the practice of homosexuality is not supported I should have that right and especially if other people agree with me. You dont seem to want to do things fairly and instead go around the people and get the courts to legeslate from the bench therfore undermining fair democracy. Democracy was meant to get away from the opressivenise of minority rule not majority rule. In fact the moto of the state I live in the state of Arkansas is "The people rule". Does that say some people or does that say only the people in the courts no it does NOT. It means everyone. Everyone has a say everyone has a vote and the majority rules. If you where to win in the vote I would not be sad or upset because I know that democracy had been carried out to its fulliest.

DAMN RIGHT!

You certainly have the right to not approve. And you can certianly vote for legsilation that tries to push your morality on others. However, your little tirade here shows your true colors. its not about your rights, its about other people doing something you don't personally like and that doesn't affect you.

If you don't like Homosexuality, homosexual sex, or homosexual marriage, dont participate. But denying other people the chance for the happiness you and I take for granted is not at all what this country is about.

Despite what some Christians seem to think today, America is not, never was, and never will be a Christian Theocracy enforcing Christian laws.

So, logically, you must be for incestual marriage being legalized too, right?

So I should be limited to living in only specific states of my country because some wouldn't want to legalize "interracial" marriage? Loving didn't put it to a vote, it said my family and others like ours have the right to marry anywhere in these United States. --

As for conservatives thinking states should make the decision why are they then the ones asking for a federal definition of marriage?

No, I don't think that it should be limited only in specific states, but that allowing the states to decide is a greater assurance for you to have someplace that will accept it. See, if everywhere in the nation was opposed to interracial marriage except for California and the decision was left to the states, you'd have someplace to go where you'd be accepted and recognized. If everywhere in the nation was opposed to interracial marriage except for California and the Federal government decided, you would have no place to go where you'd be accepted and recognized.

Can you see why I'm for states rights? It is a greater assurance that you can live the way that you want to.

What other marriages require a vote?

Ones that are not the norm. The norm has always been one man one woman. It was put to a vote to end incestual marriage, was it not? It was put to a vote to end polygamy, was it not?

Civil liberties and equal protection under law issues via majority vote.....the mother of all bad ideas.

It's really a question of whether the Federal gov or States will decide. One or the other will decide. I'm for states because, say, if all but CA are opposed to giving you certain rights and the Fed government decides, you can't get those rights anywhere in America. But if states decide, there will be at least one place where you can.

In any case where states decide and no one will permit it, the Fed gov won't either, but in cases where the Fed gov won't permit it some states would, hence states choice allows more rights and liberties.

So I don't have the right to push my morals on you but you have the right to push yours on me?

You see him not wanting to accept your morals as forcing his on you, but if you force him to accept your morals isn't that really forcing yours on him?

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Civil liberties cannot and should not be put to a vote. To suggest that they should is as absurd as it is unconstitutional.

A Civil Liberty that is not recognized must be put to a vote before it is.

I think what people are trying to say (at least what I'm trying to say) is that you can't compromise on civil liberties. Don't like gay marriage? Don't go to a gay wedding. Sounds like a good compromise to me.

I don't think it's that simple. Marriages happened in the United States for years, but were against the norm and were THEN put to a vote to be banned. This happened with beastiality. This happened with incest. This happened with polygamy. This happened with major age differences (such as a 5 year old being wed to an adult). People don't think that these things are right: they were banned. Any grounds besides that were just better excuses than "we don't think it's right".

Here's a compromise for you; you and other anti-gay-marriage folks stop trying to prevent pairs of consenting adults from having access to legal marriage, and the rest of us won't try to dent you the same right. We've taken the first step by not attempting to interfere with your constitutional rights; the ball is in your court.

So, why is it consenting adults? Why can't children marry adults? Why can't people marry beasts? Why can't there be incestual marriage? Why? Because you don't think it is right.

And the Constitution doesn't permit gay marriage any more than it does any other kind of marriage. but, what I really want to ask is from where do you draw consenting adults, or is that just something that "sounds right" to you?

Its a right as good as any other. Equal protection under the law means 'in regards to the law, we're all equal'. We currently aren't.

Quite simply put, that's an opinion. Different people have different views of marriage. Some say it's between a man and a woman, some between two consenting adults, other differ, but it's all really a matter of opinion, isn't it? What right do I have to say marriage is between an adult male and an adult woman? What right do you have to say that it is between two consenting adults, and not between an adult and a child?

Per you definition, we are all given equal protection if any adult can marry any adult (even under incest). Per my definition, any adult male can marry any adult woman (and of course vice versa). My definition still holds for homosexuals - a homosexual man can marry any woman he likes per my definition. That is equality of law if the law defines marriage as unity between a male adult and a female adult.

I just want to say to be very careful. If the definition I gave is not equality of law, then neither is yours.

 

[OdwinOddball]

States rights is a wonderfull idea, and for many subejcts of the law it should be the standard idea. However when it comes to individual rights, there must be a national standard. We tried state law for slavery, it contributed to starting the civil war. Blacks were free in some states, but could be re-enslaved if they entered others.

Gay marriage is no different. If a marriage is recognized in one state, but not in another, then when the married couple visits a non marriage state, they lose all rights and priveleges granted to them by their marriage.

No, civil rights are not something you can break down by state.

Like I said, people lobbied for exactly the same thing when it came to Interracial Marriage. The arguments as a whole are very similar. The majority of America did not support Interracial marriage, and they didnt support it for Biblical reasons more often than not. But then just like now, the majority cannot dictate the rights of the minority.

It's discrimination, you cannot deny that. I don't care what your reason for it, it IS discrimination, and discrimination is not allowed in this country.


As to Incest, though I do not personally approve, I cannot say definatively that it should be illegal. The high risks to children born of such a union gives some creedence to keeping it illegal. At least here we have a tangible reason to oppose it, and not just one pulled from a 2000 year old book who's meaning is debated even amongst its followers.

 

[maniaco]

no i don't agree...i don't think that my and other gay people's rights to equality should be subject to a vote...they should be a given thing.

 

[maniaco]

i want to hear someone wlse come up with a comprimise that everyone can agree on and be happy. This is the third time Iv typed this. Can someone please give me a comprimise. If not by vote then by what.

ok...to be honest i'm not entirely sure what the situation is in the states at the moment. but in england, gay 'civil partnerships' are now legal, and they give gay couples the same rights as married straight couples except they cant take each others name.
personally, i'm happy with this and i think it's a good compromise, gay couples are being recognised officially as couples and allowed the same freedoms and rights and straight married couples...the name isnt that important...

 

[JGG]

I support states rights because it works best.

If states right really did work best, then blacks could very well be considered slaves, or have 3/5ths of a vote in about 15-20 states. Luckily, civil rights aren't decided by state.

You are STILL ignoring that if the majority of the U.S. was opposed to it (actually the majority is, when it comes to homosexual marriage) the majority, if the Federal government had the real say, could keep homosexuals from marrying.

No. Its just irrelevant. If the majority of the people wanted to execute the other minority, it still wouldn't happen. The majority doesn't always rule.

There are more arguments then just that but, fyi, your morals aren't the law of the land either.

Right, so we're in a bit of bind aren't we. If only we could look to something, something written down, some sort of constitution of the people, to help decide the grid lock...

But feel free to bring forth those other arguments that you so quickly ran past.

See, if everywhere in the nation was opposed to interracial marriage except for California and the decision was left to the states, you'd have someplace to go where you'd be accepted and recognized.

Multiple Choice, how should this statement be ended:

(a) "Because God knows we hate you here!"

or

(b) "Get the hell out of my state!"

or

(c) Fill in your own: __________________

How very Christlike of you.

Can you see why I'm for states rights? It is a greater assurance that you can live the way that you want to.

Wheras in your state, they would have to live the way you want to? Its like you want to say: "You can have the freedom to live your life the way you want to somewhere else. God Bless America!"


I'm so pleased that you're concerned enough that these people are taken care of. I am disappointed that you aren't willing to do it yourself, and instead want to pass the buck to someone else. If you really are concerned about it, why not ensure that your state, or better yet, your nation, is the one to accept them?

And again we look at those states that said, "hey, why should we pay all those black people for all that work?" And luckily, civil rights intervened. Twice.

The norm has always been one man one woman.

Norms change, and should change. Women are equal, blacks are equal, immigrants are equal. Argument by tradition is a poor argument.

A Civil Liberty that is not recognized must be put to a vote before it is.

Are you sure about that?

Marriages happened in the United States for years, but were against the norm and were THEN put to a vote to be banned.

When was that?

This happened with beastiality.

When was that? (actually, I'm pretty sure this falls under a different law)

This happened with incest.

When was that? (again, fairly certain this is a different law)

This happened with polygamy.

When was that?

This happened with major age differences (such as a 5 year old being wed to an adult).

When was that? (again, fairly certain this falls under a different law)

Any grounds besides that were just better excuses than "we don't think it's right".

Looks like you have some research to do.

So, why is it consenting adults? Why can't children marry adults? Why can't people marry beasts?

I'm fairly certain this falls under autonomy, and lack of consent.

What right do you have to say that it is between two consenting adults, and not between an adult and a child?

Well, a child cannot enter a contract, and cannot give consent. This should be obvious. Which is why we say consenting adults, because they can consent to marriage. Why would you argue for anything else?

Per you definition, we are all given equal protection if any adult can marry any adult (even under incest). Per my definition, any adult male can marry any adult woman (and of course vice versa).

(even under incest?)

My definition still holds for homosexuals - a homosexual man can marry any woman he likes per my definition. That is equality of law if the law defines marriage as unity between a male adult and a female adult.

Don't worry, you can marry someone of the same sex as you. Equality would now mean that everyone gets to marry the person they want to.

I just want to say to be very careful. If the definition I gave is not equality of law, then neither is yours.

How do you figure?

 

[Spherical Time]

It's a sinful, repulsive act that should not be allowed in any State.

If you get to decide that, can I decide that Christianity should be outlawed?