|
|
Post by pissin2 on Aug 25, 2004 12:16:48 GMT -5
You once again missed my point. IT SHOULDN'T BE VOTED ON IN THE FIRST PLACE. The very idea is unconstitutional. "you're gay so you can't get married" Get the fuck out of here. I don't care if you're an official, or chrisfan, or stratmans mom, none of you freaks have the right to take away other peoples rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 25, 2004 12:18:45 GMT -5
As Strat-o said, they already have the same rights that straight people do.
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Aug 25, 2004 12:19:13 GMT -5
And obviously stratman must be a homophobe or else he wouldn't have said anything. "oh but my mommy worked so hard, I feel bad" get the fuck outta here you ignorant ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Aug 25, 2004 12:20:16 GMT -5
As Strat-o said, they already have the same rights that straight people do. As I said they're trying to take them away. That's what we're talking about! Pay attention! |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 25, 2004 12:33:26 GMT -5
I'm married. I chose who wanted to marry, she agreed we got married. I have a freind named Kent, Kent is gay. Kent was a teacher untill his school found out he'd lived with a man for ten years. He still lives with this man going on twelve years. He calls him his "husband" though they have none of the rights of married people unless you count not being lynched as a right. How exactly does that measure up to "the same rights straight people do"?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 25, 2004 12:39:48 GMT -5
DED, you raise a few different issues there. On the issue of employment I beleive that without question, if he was fired for being gay, then his rights were infringed upon, and his being fired was wrong. However, I will say that with the assumption that he was teaching at a public school. If he were teaching at a private school, say a Catholic school, I'd have to think about it to be totally honest, and may have to change my view.
On the issue of marriage, allow me to answer your question with a question. And I'm not saying this to dodge the question or to jerk you around. It's an honest question -- is marriage a right in this country?
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 25, 2004 12:43:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I'll go with "yes, marrage is a right".
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 25, 2004 12:54:30 GMT -5
I ask the question, because I think that the word "right" is thrown around way too often, and way to casually these days, and the meaning is watered down. As an example, now we've got John Kerry saying that affordable health care is a right in this country. Is it? Based on John Kerry's defintion of it, we shouldn't only have the "right" to access it, but it's a "right" that the government should be providing for us. This is an example of the word being overused, IMO.
So how does it apply to marriage? Well some are arguing that a person should have a "right" to marry anyone that they want. But do they really mean that? Most people don't seem to have an issue with states putting a minimum age on marriage, so we're not extending the "right" to marriage to everyone. Only to people over 18 in most states. But everyone over 18 can't marry anyone they want to, who wants to marry them. First cousins can't marry. Siblings can't marry. You can't marry someone who is already married. So the "right" to marry is already being limited ... adding to the question of is marriage a "right", or is it something that some peole do?
I've asked the question several times in this debate -- Why does a society regulate marraige to begin with? The only logical answer I've ever heard to that question is to ensure the continuation of that society. Some will say that's not the case, because we allow senior citizens to get marry, and they can't have children. We allow sterile people to get married too. But in all fairness, we don't make an exception to the "Brothers and sisters can't get married" rules if the brother and sister promise not to have children.
So I guess I'm raising the question to consider whether or not ANY of us truly have the "right" to marry who we want, or if we just have the opportunity to get married, according to the rules of a state. I guess that I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "right", but perhaps that's just me. Looking at it as an opportunity ... we ALL have the opportunity to get married, as long as we abide by the rules of the state. Sure, it could be argued that gay people don't have the opportunity to marry the person they want to ... but I'd argue that people under 18, people wanting to marry a family member, and people wanting to marry someone who is married don't have that opportunity either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 25, 2004 13:02:34 GMT -5
Alrighty now we're having fun. Sibling can't marry because incest is illeagal and incest is illeagal because of proven birth defects when you don't mix up the gene pool enough. cousins have the same basic gene pool ergo: same reason. Most people agree that sometime in the late teens is when you should have enough sense to think for yourself...18 or sometimes 16 is the standard age for being responsible for your own well being. Old people, sterile people and midgets can get married becuase it's a fucking right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 25, 2004 13:06:18 GMT -5
Did you know in NC it's only leagal to have sex in the missionary possition with the lights on? That sorts leaves gays out the cool don't it? Most states make sodomy illeagal and many also include oral sex. Same rights? Um, no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Aug 25, 2004 13:21:05 GMT -5
"You have the right to remain . . . straight."
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 25, 2004 13:40:25 GMT -5
Alrighty now we're having fun. Sibling can't marry because incest is illeagal and incest is illeagal because of proven birth defects when you don't mix up the gene pool enough. cousins have the same basic gene pool ergo: same reason. So you think that the gene pool ... which relates directly to reproduction issues ... is a legitimate reason to limit who can get married? Because if reproduction is a legitimate reason to regulate it, which you appear to be saying it is, then it seems logical to me that states would not encourage, or would even forbid, gay marriage. After all, it can't produce a child. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 25, 2004 13:41:47 GMT -5
Did you know in NC it's only leagal to have sex in the missionary possition with the lights on? That sorts leaves gays out the cool don't it? Most states make sodomy illeagal and many also include oral sex. Same rights? Um, no. I'd have absolutely no problem with the people of North Carolina following the legally outlined methods to change laws in their state to take that law off the books. In fact, I endorse such a measure. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 25, 2004 13:45:49 GMT -5
So you think that the gene pool ... which relates directly to reproduction issues ... is a legitimate reason to limit who can get married? Because if reproduction is a legitimate reason to regulate it, which you appear to be saying it is, then it seems logical to me that states would not encourage, or would even forbid, gay marriage. After all, it can't produce a child. ACK...no. The prevention of birth defects is something else entirely. You see if we didn't make so much damn money on it pregent women wouldn't be allowed to smoke. Also that last bit ending in midgets really should've cleared this up. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 25, 2004 13:50:09 GMT -5
ACK...no. The prevention of birth defects is something else entirely. You see if we didn't make so much damn money on it pregent women wouldn't be allowed to smoke. Also that last bit ending in midgets really should've cleared this up. Okay, then go back to my original point. If a brother and sister promise to not have children, so birth defects aren't an issue, why can't they get married? What if they simply want to make sure they can share their benefits, have the legal access needed to make legal decisions for each other, and publicly declare their commitment to each other? |
|
