At the center of it all

[Professur]

I don't think you quite understood my point Cam. My bad, I didn't express it well. Second shot.

50 years ago, this wouldn't even be a matter for discussion. Today, it is. Is that because we're suddenly more solicitous of gay rights, or because of a progressive desensitising? 100 years ago, having sex with a 12 year old girl was perfectly normal. Even marrying her, and getting her preggers. Today, the very idea provokes outrage, and is considered the ultimate betrayal twixt parent and child.

Opinions, sentiment, and even legal definitions change over the years. The line moves. My point isn't wether gays should or shouldn't have the right to marry. Or blacks marry whites. Or women vote. The point is, where do we finally say, "enough"?

My view on the american constitution and Bill of rights is well enough known that I don't think I really need to repeat in detail. It's a cockup. As a legal document, it's a joke. It's got loopholes you could fly a jetliner through. Attempting to govern a modern society with it is doomed to failure. Are we seeing that failure occur before our very eyes?

 

[chcr]

Opinions, sentiment, and even legal definitions change over the years. The line moves. My point isn't wether gays should or shouldn't have the right to marry. Or blacks marry whites. Or women vote. The point is, where do we finally say, "enough"?

Occasionally we do. Sex with twelve year old girls is a good example. Suffrage is another. I seriously don't believe in god or religion, so I have to make my own judgements. It seems to me that if it does no harm (offending someone does not harm them, no matter what they think) then it should be allowed in a society that considers itself free. Of course I've been aware that our government doesn't consider our society free for a long time. People are attempting to govern a modern society re this issue based on rules much more out-of-date than the constitution.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Occasionally we do. Sex with twelve year old girls is a good example. Suffrage is another. I seriously don't believe in god or religion, so I have to make my own judgements. It seems to me that if it does no harm (offending someone does not harm them, no matter what they think) then it should be allowed in a society that considers itself free. Of course I've been aware that our government doesn't consider our society free for a long time. People are attempting to govern a modern society re this issue based on rules much more out-of-date than the constitution.

That's the main point, chcr. If the rules are out-of-date, then eliminate them, or change them. Don't just break them because you don't agree with them except as a last resort.

 

[chcr]

I think these people consider it a last resort, Gato.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I think these people consider it a last resort, Gato.

How many of them went to court first to air their grievances? I think freako was looking for that, and he hasn't posted any findings yet. How can they justify breaking a law...or asking others to break the law...without actually trying to get it removed legally first? Fact is that they can't, so their cause is now suspect. They've given themselves criminal intentions without a firm basis for doing so.

 

[chcr]

Gato, we can't have this argument because you disagree with the basic premise. I say everyone has a right to marry who they choose (within reason) and you say it isn't a right. Point is, it shouldn't be a legal question at all.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Gato, we can't have this argument because you disagree with the basic premise. I say everyone has a right to marry who they choose (within reason) and you say it isn't a right. Point is, it shouldn't be a legal question at all.

Correct. It's not a right. It's a priviledge. Just like driving a car...flying a plane...days off from work (other than scheduled)...travelling to a foreign land...etc. That's what makes it a legal, not a personal, question. Nobody has a right to get married.

 

[chcr]

Correct. It's not a right. It's a priviledge. Just like driving a car...flying a plane...days off from work (other than scheduled)...travelling to a foreign land...etc. That's what makes it a legal, not a personal, question. Nobody has a right to get married.

I disagree.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I disagree.

Which is where we have the main impasse. The meat, as it were, of the matter.

 

[chcr]

Oops, sorry.
Days off from work doesn't apply, has nothing to do with the law. You have to qualify to get a drivers license, that's what makes tha a priviledge. Traveling to a foreign land, I believe if your immunizations are up to date and you are not a known criminal (and you have a passport) you can travel to foreign lands as you wish. Right. I'll tell you what, why don't you come down here and tell my wife she doesn't have the "right" to be married. There aren't qualifications (okay, blood tests, but they won't stop you from getting married because of them so it isn't really a qualification). Of course you do have to ask her and she has to say yes, but that's between you and her and has nothing to do with the law.

It's all moot though. If homosexuals have equal protection under the law (and the law says they do) you must let them marry. This is so obvious and yet so many people raise so many emotional issues. It would be funny if it weren't ulrimately so sad.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Oops, sorry.
Days off from work doesn't apply, has nothing to do with the law. You have to qualify to get a drivers license, that's what makes tha a priviledge. Traveling to a foreign land, I believe if your immunizations are up to date and you are not a known criminal (and you have a passport) you can travel to foreign lands as you wish. Right. I'll tell you what, why don't you come down here and tell my wife she doesn't have the "right" to be married. There aren't qualifications (okay, blood tests, but they won't stop you from getting married because of them so it isn't really a qualification). Of course you do have to ask her and she has to say yes, but that's between you and her and has nothing to do with the law.

It's all moot though. If homosexuals have equal protection under the law (and the law says they do) you must let them marry. This is so obvious and yet so many people raise so many emotional issues. It would be funny if it weren't ulrimately so sad.

What you don't know is this...if the state had said that you and your wife unable to marry (which does happen in extreme cases), you wouldn't be married today. Priviledge.

 

[chcr]

What you don't know is this...if the state had said that you and your wife unable to marry (which does happen in extreme cases), you wouldn't be married today. Priviledge.

Rare and extreme cases, each judged on an individual basis and not affecting the general populace at all. Right. I think we're simply going to disagree on this point, Gato. I still feel it's moot.

Here's another idea. Go to your significant other and compare getting married to getting your driver's license. Then duck.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Rare and extreme cases, each judged on an individual basis and not affecting the general populace at all. Right. I think we're simply going to disagree on this point, Gato. I still feel it's moot.

Here's another idea. Go to your significant other and compare getting married to getting your driver's license. Then duck.

You mean my ex? I had to get my commanders permission to marry that b**ch, and, if it wasn't for the kids, I would've wished she hadn't given it.

If you ackowledge that a marriage can be denied by the state, no matter how rarely and extreme the circumstances, then you 'must' admit that the state has the right to deny a marriage. That would make marriage a priviledge, and not a right...even by liberal standards.

 

[chcr]

You mean my ex? I had to get my commanders permission to marry that b**ch, and, if it wasn't for the kids, I would've wished she hadn't given it.

If you ackowledge that a marriage can be denied by the state, no matter how rarely and extreme the circumstances, then you 'must' admit that the state has the right to deny a marriage. That would make marriage a priviledge, and not a right...even by liberal standards.

1. Please don't call me a liberal. Those jerks piss me off about just much as the conservatives do.

2. I still disagree. 99.9% of people can get married with no input from the state whatsoever (as long as they aren't gay ). The rare exceptions don't make it a priviledge rather than a right, IMO.

 

[freako104]

i had thought it was a right cause of all this controversy. the slippery slope as it is called makes me think it is a right not a privelege tho in a way.

 

[Professur]

Not to break up your pissing contest, but what, in your opinions, is the actual issue here?

 

[freako104]

ok well for me: equal treatment and equal rights for all people.

 

[Gato_Solo]

1. Please don't call me a liberal. Those jerks piss me off about just much as the conservatives do.

2. I still disagree. 99.9% of people can get married with no input from the state whatsoever (as long as they aren't gay ). The rare exceptions don't make it a priviledge rather than a right, IMO.

I never said you were a liberal. I said that the state saying no to a marriage, though rarely, made marriage a priviledge even by liberal standards. My personal opinion is that the government has no business whatsoever in the day-to-day lives of it's citizens...except in cases of violating another persons rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness...

 

[chcr]

Not to break up your pissing contest, but what, in your opinions, is the actual issue here?

Is homosexuality a valid minority?

IMO, the real issue is whether homosexuals do or don't have equal protection and equal rights (or priviledges as the case may be) under the law.

What do you think?

 

[Professur]

Three very good, yet very disparate thoughts. But arguing one against the other isn't gonna work. Pick one, argue it, then move onto the next.