Two-edged sword

[The_Horses_Boy]

I, as a Democrat, certainly acknowledge that the States have important rights, and that many aspects of government fall within their purview. I just don't happen to believe that among the rights of the States is the right to deny any civil liberties to individuals or minority groups.

Thank you for actually discussing what this thread is supposed to be about.

I would agree, almost wholeheartedly. I think that certain contracts are alright, but not slavery. I do think that the states have right to deny "civil liberties", as that is far too vague.

The biggest thing, I think, is that they have the right to secede. It even says so in our Constitution.

 

[Belk]

Thank you for actually discussing what this thread is supposed to be about.

I would agree, almost wholeheartedly. I think that certain contracts are alright, but not slavery. I do think that the states have right to deny "civil liberties", as that is far too vague.

The biggest thing, I think, is that they have the right to secede. It even says so in our Constitution.

I must have missed that one in civics class. Where in the constitution is the right to secede?

 

[fanatiquefou]

Vermithrax, I think that you take it too far. I don't like the current government. No one does. Bush isn't a true conservative. As far as the "fight against science," that is pushing it. I am not against science: I am against unethical science and I am against science beigh taught improperly (teaching scientific theory as fact=schools suck). Women's rights aren't under attack, unless you are talking about the right to murder their unborn babies. There is no anti-homosexual legislation.

Wow. My first inclination to all the misinformation you're spreading here is to say, "Have you been living under a rock for the past few years?" What would you term "unethical science?" And I seriously hope that you aren't referring to evolution when you say, "teaching scientific theory as fact = schools suck," because that would betray your complete ignorance of exactly what science is and how scientific theories work. And "There is no anti-homosexual legislation?" Now I think you really MUST have been under a rock for a long while.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

I must have missed that one in civics class. Where in the constitution is the right to secede?

"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."

Is the the power to seceed not a power? I may be wrong. Please correct me if I am.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Wow. My first inclination to all the misinformation you're spreading here is to say, "Have you been living under a rock for the past few years?" What would you term "unethical science?" And I seriously hope that you aren't referring to evolution when you say, "teaching scientific theory as fact = schools suck," because that would betray your complete ignorance of exactly what science is and how scientific theories work. And "There is no anti-homosexual legislation?" Now I think you really MUST have been under a rock for a long while.

misinformation: I think you have it
Unethical science: cloning
scientific theory: there are teachers in both public and private schools who teach evolution as fact, not theory. Where have you been?
Anti-homosexual: marriage is unity of man+woman. Denying a man the right to have "unity of a man and a woman" with another man isn't anti-homosexual. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.

 

[Belk]

"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."

Is the the power to seceed not a power? I may be wrong. Please correct me if I am.

The supreme court ruled on this after the civil war in a case with Texas. I'd post a link but I don't have the power yet.

There is no right of secession. Had to look it up myself but I would have been surprised if there was.

 

[fanatiquefou]

misinformation: I think you have it
Unethical science: cloning
scientific theory: there are teachers in both public and private schools who teach evolution as fact, not theory. Where have you been?
Anti-homosexual: marriage is unity of man+woman. Denying a man the right to have "unity of a man and a woman" with another man isn't anti-homosexual. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.

Evolution IS a fact - it happened and is happening. The explanation of how evolution works is the scientific theory of evolution. Do a little more research - it's quite obvious you don't fully understand what scientific theory is and how it works.

I see absolutely no SECULAR reason why marriage must be defined as one man and one woman. Even if we did agree to define marriage that way, however, that doesn't change the fact that many people are crusading to prevent homosexuals from having many of the civil rights heteros enjoy - if we're not going to allow them marriage, why can't we allow them civil protection through secular unions that grant them similar rights? And what about all the people trying to deny homosexuals the right to inclusion in anti-discriminatory laws? There is a LOT of hatred for gays in this country, and people are trying harder than ever to get some of that hatred institutionalized.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

The supreme court ruled on this after the civil war in a case with Texas. I'd post a link but I don't have the power yet.

There is no right of secession. Had to look it up myself but I would have been surprised if there was.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." -Lord Acton

"I saw in States Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the soverign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destructioin but as the redemption of Democracy....I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo." -Lord Acton in a letter to Robert E. Lee dated November 4, 1866



And you may want to recall these words: "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Evolution IS a fact - it happened and is happening. The explanation of how evolution works is the scientific theory of evolution. Do a little more research - it's quite obvious you don't fully understand what scientific theory is and how it works.

I see absolutely no SECULAR reason why marriage must be defined as one man and one woman. Even if we did agree to define marriage that way, however, that doesn't change the fact that many people are crusading to prevent homosexuals from having many of the civil rights heteros enjoy - if we're not going to allow them marriage, why can't we allow them civil protection through secular unions that grant them similar rights? And what about all the people trying to deny homosexuals the right to inclusion in anti-discriminatory laws? There is a LOT of hatred for gays in this country, and people are trying harder than ever to get some of that hatred institutionalized.

Evolution: no, it isn't. The theory of evolution is the theory to man's origins, not the "theory" that things evolve.

Secular reason? Besides the fact that that's how over half of the country defines the word, let alone the dictionary, let alone the church, let alone the courts, let alone the states?

And the Civil Rights that you are talking about are lame. The basic idea of many of those things are for the family (in case you didn't know, it takes a man and a woman to procreate). Now I would agree that there is a flaw when the law comes into play, but we simply disagree on how to deal with it. For example let's say I work my butt off and I'm successful and die with an estate in England, industry in Mass. and $100,000,000. You know what happens when I leave it to my kids? Government takes more than any of my kids do, who've worked with me and helped create the family fortune. On the other hand, if I fancied another man I'd marry him and he'd get all of that money tax-free when I die... hmmm...

Let gays have civil unions, what is wrong with that? Does that not serve the same purpose?

 

[fanatiquefou]

Evolution: no, it isn't. The theory of evolution is the theory to man's origins, not the "theory" that things evolve.

I would seriously suggest you take a look at some of the debate happening on the Creation and Evolution forums here - listen in for a while, study things more in-depth, don't just rely on sources that agree with your point of view, and you might get a better grasp of what evolution really is and how science works. Because, frankly, I'm not sure what you're talking about here, and I'm not sure that you know what you're talking about either.

Secular reason? Besides the fact that that's how over half of the country defines the word, let alone the dictionary, let alone the church, let alone the courts, let alone the states?

Majority opinion shouldn't be worth squat in this country if majority opinion is in favor of withholding civil rights from a portion of our population without any legitimate reasons.

And the Civil Rights that you are talking about are lame. The basic idea of many of those things are for the family (in case you didn't know, it takes a man and a woman to procreate).

Civil rights are lame?? And you're completely ignoring the fact that there are many, many gay families out there, and their numbers are growing every day. It may take a man and a woman to procreate naturally, but thousands of gays and lesbians have found other means to have families, whether through biological children from previous relationships, through artificial insemination, or through adoption. Biological ability to reproduce shouldn't be the criteria for which families and marriages are eligible for civil rights.

And there are many other rights that gays and lesbians are being denied, as well. What about the right to not be discriminated against at work, or worry about losing a job if one comes out? What about the right not to be discriminated against in housing opportunities? What about the simple right to be able to walk down the street without fear, to be able to live their lives in peace without confronting hatred every day? What about the ability to live free from harassment and from the lies being spread by ultra-conservative, hate-filled "family" and "values" organizations? There are so many things out there that gays face every day that can't be legislated against, but why can't we do our best to make sure our government doesn't join in on the discrimination and hatred?

On the other hand, if I fancied another man I'd marry him and he'd get all of that money tax-free when I die... hmmm...

So you're okay with that happening with regular marriages - it's just when it's a gay couple that it turns you off?

Let gays have civil unions, what is wrong with that? Does that not serve the same purpose?

Many gays would be thrilled to have civil unions, although some are worried that there might be a taint of "separate but equal" about it. The point here is that many people and legislators are doing everything in their power to prevent gays from even having access to civil unions. Many states have already put laws into effect that limit gays from any kind of option to have their partnerships recognized or to obtain even a fraction of the civil rights available to married couples. Are you really not aware of all the anti-gay hatred that is running through public discourse in today's world? It's absolutely disgusting.

 

[TooCurious]

Thank you for actually discussing what this thread is supposed to be about.

I try.

I would agree, almost wholeheartedly. I think that certain contracts are alright, but not slavery. I do think that the states have right to deny "civil liberties", as that is far too vague.

I would put the rights of the individual, a living human being, ahead of the rights of the State, an artificial construct. Government exists to protect individual rights and liberties, not to deny them. The only legitimate use of governmental power to restrict individual rights is to protect the rights of others (i.e. you do not have the "right" to steal from me, because that violates my right to property).

The biggest thing, I think, is that they have the right to secede. It even says so in our Constitution.

Others have addressed this better than I could have.

I hope you don't mind if I comment on some of your other remarks?

Evolution: no, it isn't. The theory of evolution is the theory to man's origins, not the "theory" that things evolve.

A scientific theory is a model formulated to describe an observed process. Evolution is the observed process; the Theory of Evolution describes that process. By the same token, we have a "Theory of Gravity" to explain the obesrved fact of gravity.

Secular reason? Besides the fact that that's how over half of the country defines the word, let alone the dictionary, let alone the church, let alone the courts, let alone the states?

You can't derive an "ought" from an "is." Just because a thing is a certain way, that doesn't mean that is how it should be.

And the Civil Rights that you are talking about are lame.

The right to visit one's spouse in the hospital when they've had an accident is "lame"? Often, when a person is taken into the hospital after a serious accident, the hospital staff will only let the patient's immediate family members in to see him. Spouses are considered "immediate family;" significant others aren't. Similarly, there are the spousal rights to make medical decisions for one another, and literally hundreds of other rights that heterosexual married couples enjoy that gay people can't access because some people want to get snippy over a definition.

The basic idea of many of those things are for the family (in case you didn't know, it takes a man and a woman to procreate).

Except when it comes to infertile couples, or the elderly. If marriage is defined based on who can procreate, then these groups should be unable to marry.

Further, many gay couples create families as well, whether through adoption, artificial insemination, or surrogate mothers. So shouldn't they have access to the benefits intended for "families"?

Now I would agree that there is a flaw when the law comes into play, but we simply disagree on how to deal with it.

How do you propose to deal with it?

For example let's say I work my butt off and I'm successful and die with an estate in England, industry in Mass. and $100,000,000. You know what happens when I leave it to my kids? Government takes more than any of my kids do, who've worked with me and helped create the family fortune. On the other hand, if I fancied another man I'd marry him and he'd get all of that money tax-free when I die... hmmm...

And if you fancied a woman, you'd marry her and she'd get all of that money tax-free when you die. What's the difference?

Let gays have civil unions, what is wrong with that? Does that not serve the same purpose?

To me, that smacks of "separate but equal," which never is. However, many conservatives don't even want to go so far as to give gay people civil unions.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

I would seriously suggest you take a look at some of the debate happening on the Creation and Evolution forums here - listen in for a while, study things more in-depth, don't just rely on sources that agree with your point of view, and you might get a better grasp of what evolution really is and how science works. Because, frankly, I'm not sure what you're talking about here, and I'm not sure that you know what you're talking about either.

If you can't get through the difference of evolution and the theory of evolution then I'll drop this, there's no point. Things evolve: plain and simple. That doesn't mean that my ancestor was a bit chimpy-chappy.

Majority opinion shouldn't be worth squat in this country if majority opinion is in favor of withholding civil rights from a portion of our population without any legitimate reasons.

Withholding civil rights? This isn't withholding civil rights unless you would consider forbidding beastiality and sexual interaction with the (very) underage (yet willing) to be denying civil rights. Marriage is the unity of a man and a woman, homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. What is their rights being violated? Recognition of an oxymoron?

Civil rights are lame?? And you're completely ignoring the fact that there are many, many gay families out there, and their numbers are growing every day. It may take a man and a woman to procreate naturally, but thousands of gays and lesbians have found other means to have families, whether through biological children from previous relationships, through artificial insemination, or through adoption. Biological ability to reproduce shouldn't be the criteria for which families and marriages are eligible for civil rights.

What are these civil rights that you keep on talking about? Name them rather than throwing around that phrase you so love to use.

And there are many other rights that gays and lesbians are being denied, as well. What about the right to not be discriminated against at work, or worry about losing a job if one comes out? What about the right not to be discriminated against in housing opportunities? What about the simple right to be able to walk down the street without fear, to be able to live their lives in peace without confronting hatred every day? What about the ability to live free from harassment and from the lies being spread by ultra-conservative, hate-filled "family" and "values" organizations? There are so many things out there that gays face every day that can't be legislated against, but why can't we do our best to make sure our government doesn't join in on the discrimination and hatred?

Wow. Those "rights" are things that you are making up. Discrimination? I'm a white protestant (non-denominational) anglo-saxon (partially), and I'm still discriminated. Rights to not be discriminated? What about the right of the businessman to discriminate? It's his money: if he doesn't want to hire me he shouldn't have to. Right to walk down the street without fear? Where are these rights written, are they in the Constitution? Because I can pull out some other silly rights too. These aren't rights, they're things that will always exist.

So you're okay with that happening with regular marriages - it's just when it's a gay couple that it turns you off?

No, I'm not. The difference is that all marriage benefits are for the purpose of the family, and heterosexual relationships still turn out FAR more children than homosexual relationships.

Many gays would be thrilled to have civil unions, although some are worried that there might be a taint of "separate but equal" about it. The point here is that many people and legislators are doing everything in their power to prevent gays from even having access to civil unions. Many states have already put laws into effect that limit gays from any kind of option to have their partnerships recognized or to obtain even a fraction of the civil rights available to married couples. Are you really not aware of all the anti-gay hatred that is running through public discourse in today's world? It's absolutely disgusting.

Marriage is the unity of a man and a woman. Seperate but equal? When I, who have a completely northern European ancestry (with the exception of some Blackfoot four generations back) can be called an African American homosexual relationships can be called marriages. I am not an African American, plain and simple. To deny me that recognition is common sense. Marriage is the unity of a man and a woman, plain and simple.

Also I might want to run a check on your idea of civil rights... I would consider the right of person A to do as he will with his money, whereas you consider the right of person B to person A's money. Think about it and you might get how terribly weak your argument is.

 

[fillerbunny]

What are these civil rights that you keep on talking about? Name them rather than throwing around that phrase you so love to use.

These are (some of) the civil rights we're talking about.

Wow. Those "rights" are things that you are making up.

I wish. According to the General Attorney's Office, there are 1,049 federal rights and protections guaranteed for the price of a marriage license.. and hundreds more at the state level.

No, I'm not. The difference is that all marriage benefits are for the purpose of the family, and heterosexual relationships still turn out FAR more children than homosexual relationships.

Homosexuals have families too, y'know.

Despite the efforts of certain individuals and organizations wishing to redefine the meaning of the word 'family' in accordance with their own personal mores / agendas, the fact of the matter is, even childless homosexual unions clearly meet the definition of "family".

If we're basing the availability of civil rights and protections on the number of children produced, I suppose we ought to strip said protections from all childless unions, no? If the sole purpose of marriage is cranking out children, why make provisions for the infertile, the elderly, or those who simply wish not to procreate?

Obviously legal marriage benefits children. It is highly unfortunate that currently, the children of homosexuals are ineligible for these benefits throughout most of the US. (Especially when those pressing for discriminatory legislation so often operate under the guise of the "pro-family" misnomer.) However, if you take the time to read even a page or two of some of the rights and protections afforded by marriage listed in my first link (which is admittedly lengthy- this is due to the sheer number of rights and protections involved), you will see that many of them have little if anything to do with procreation or offspring.

Marriage is the unity of a man and a woman. Seperate but equal? When I, who have a completely northern European ancestry (with the exception of some Blackfoot four generations back) can be called an African American homosexual relationships can be called marriages. I am not an African American, plain and simple. To deny me that recognition is common sense.

Say what?

Marriage is the unity of a man and a woman, plain and simple.

In your opinion. For others, it's not so 'plain and simple'.. hence the increasing recognition of homosexual marriages throughout the world.

 

[fanatiquefou]

Also I might want to run a check on your idea of civil rights... I would consider the right of person A to do as he will with his money, whereas you consider the right of person B to person A's money. Think about it and you might get how terribly weak your argument is.

What in the WORLD?? I'll respond to the rest of your post later when I have more time, but I'd like to know, please, where on earth you got the idea that my idea of civil rights is "the right of person B to person A's money." I've not said anything of the sort ANYWHERE in this thread! Stop making up things wholesale and attributing them to me.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

What in the WORLD?? I'll respond to the rest of your post later when I have more time, but I'd like to know, please, where on earth you got the idea that my idea of civil rights is "the right of person B to person A's money." I've not said anything of the sort ANYWHERE in this thread! Stop making up things wholesale and attributing them to me.

I would recognize the right of Person A to hire whoever he wants to for whatever reasons (it's his money). You would recognize the right of Person B to that job (job discrimination), hence the right of Person B to Person A's money. Is that not your idea of civil rights?

 

[fanatiquefou]

I would recognize the right of Person A to hire whoever he wants to for whatever reasons (it's his money). You would recognize the right of Person B to that job (job discrimination), hence the right of Person B to Person A's money. Is that not your idea of civil rights?

You have COMPLETELY twisted what I said to the point that it's beyond recognition. Let me ask you a question: does not our government ALREADY have laws that state that employers cannot discriminate against people because of their race, age, sex, disability, etc.? How on earth do you read that as "Person B taking Person A's money?" People should have the right to hire whomever they want for a position - AS LONG as they're not obviously hiring in discriminatory ways. Our government has already said this. It has nothing to do with one person wanting another person's money. It's about the individual having the right to a reasonable chance at employment without discrimination.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Say what?

Fillerbunny, I did not say that I define homosexuality with marriage, I simply said that the marital benefits are in place for the assistance of families and their creation (the latter is done by heterosexuals).

To "say what", the basic idea is marriage is unity between man and a woman. That's just what it is. You want me to "accept" homosexuals, I'm not running around in a white ghost costume with burning crosses but marriage is man+woman. Plain and simple. If I were to ask you to redefine African American so that I can be, you'd laugh in my face, wouldn't you?

Marriage is the unity of a man and a woman: in my opinion. African Americans are Americans with African heritage (typically black): in your opinion. If we can redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships, why can't we redefine African American to include whites like me, who have no known African blood?

And Fillerbunny, "those rights" were in response to what someone else said, like the right to not be afraid. And I am sincerely interested in the 1049 rights, but I can't download that document. Perhaps you could post the most important? Because there are things that I think homosexual couples deserve, such as hospital visitation rights.

I think the problem, really, is too much government intervention, which only causes more of it.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

You have COMPLETELY twisted what I said to the point that it's beyond recognition. Let me ask you a question: does not our government ALREADY have laws that state that employers cannot discriminate against people because of their race, age, sex, disability, etc.? How on earth do you read that as "Person B taking Person A's money?" People should have the right to hire whomever they want for a position - AS LONG as they're not obviously hiring in discriminatory ways. Our government has already said this. It has nothing to do with one person wanting another person's money. It's about the individual having the right to a reasonable chance at employment without discrimination.

So you would recognize "the right of Person B to Person A's money", right? That's exactly what you're saying.

Also, might want to take a deeper look into this bud. You don't think that people should be able to choose who they want to and you think it's right to force that onto others. There are people who don't think it's right for homosexual relationships to receive the same recognition as heterosexual, or to receive the definition given to heterosexual unions since recorded history... It's not harming anyone, is it?

Now tell me, why should Person B have a right to Person A's money? I would agree with you that it is most certainly wrong for Person A to discriminate Person B in the job market, but I would most certainly disagree with you on thi:. Person A, in his so-called "discrimination", is simply hiring the person that he wants to and is not harming anyone. I think that is fine. It's his money, why can't he do what he wills with it?

Don't you think that BET is discriminatory in their hiring policies? I think they can hire whoever they want to: it's their money. What do you think?

 

[fanatiquefou]

So you would recognize "the right of Person B to Person A's money", right? That's exactly what you're saying.

Sigh...

NO. That is NOT what I am saying, and you're having to do an awful lot of manipulation to try to make it even SEEM like that's what I'm saying.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Sigh...

NO. That is NOT what I am saying, and you're having to do an awful lot of manipulation to try to make it even SEEM like that's what I'm saying.

I'll wait for you to respond to the rest of my post. If you're just too busy tonight then I can wait.