At the center of it all

[chcr]

One more time: Do homosexuals have the same protection under the law that heterosexuals do? Yes or no?

 

[MrBishop]

it is a priviledge? i dont get it. I thought it was a right since it does say by the power vested in me by the state. the state gives them the right to be married doesnt it

Actually...that line means that the state has given the priest, rabbi or JOP, the right to marry them (legally)... not the right to get married.

PT-I'm not sure about that one either...God blesses their union but doesn't endow them with the 'rights' to marry.
I'll have to ask one of the priests at my work for a better answer on that one.

 

[Professur]

One more time: Do homosexuals have the same protection under the law that heterosexuals do? Yes or no?

Yes, they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. To reproduce, and to bring up those offspring as they see fit.

 

[chcr]

Yes, they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. To reproduce, and to bring up those offspring as they see fit.

Ah, so they have some, but not others then. Just the ones you approve of? Sorry, that doesn't work for me.

Oh and evidently no one has the "right" to get married (semantic bullshit, but some are fond of it).

 

[Professur]

What others? Clarify please.

 

[freako104]

One more time: Do homosexuals have the same protection under the law that heterosexuals do? Yes or no?

in all my CJ courses we are told people are supposed to be equal under the law. they arent in practice but they are supposed to be

 

[chcr]

in all my CJ courses we are told people are supposed to be equal under the law. they arent in practice but they are supposed to be

Well put. Or as Orwell said, "Some are more equal than others."

 

[freako104]

God gives them the right to be married, the govt shouldn't have anything to do with it.

what do you mean by this PT? that it is a religious institute? it was but it has become part of the state. think about it this way. tho it isnt romantic by any means at all some people get married in the court house instead of a church.

 

[MrBishop]

One more time: Do homosexuals have the same protection under the law that heterosexuals do? Yes or no?

The same protection...they should, but there are loopholes large enough to drive Mack trucks through.

Marriage (as far as the GVT should be concerned) is a legal union which endows the two people involved certain rights (ie. Taxation rebates, RRSP, medical coverage, power-of-attourney re: medical treatments at hospitals (DNR), etc etc) - as far as this goes...the GVT should have no choice but to grant it to homosexual couples.

It's the moral/ethical/religious aspect of GVT which is stepping in and taking over. Their religious beliefs, or those of their constituants, are making them go against the constitutional rights of equality under the law, and ban gay marriages.

If there were a true seperation of church and state, then gay marriage wouldn't be an issue...it would be legal. Period.

Churches wouldn't be forced to bless the marriage because of the seperation of church and state. No problems there.

Churches wouldn't be stepping into policy issues <---- there's the issue

Not only are churches stepping in, but the human being who is charged with following the constitution, is allowing his/her church to step in and influence the constitution.

This issue is the same as the abortion issue, or the euthanasia issue, or any other number of issues which are emotional and religious/moral based....each of them is living proof that the sentence "Seperation of church and state" is, at best, an ideal..but in reality...a failed attempt.

 

[chcr]

Churches wouldn't be stepping into policy issues <---- there's the issue

That's involved in this issue, but it's a separate issue. Churches have been doing that as long as there has been religion. If homosexuals have the same protection under the law, then you must let them marry. If they don't, well then there's a word for that. It's really a very simple issue but everyone tries to cloud it with emotional and frequently unrelated arguments. It's not a question of preferential treatment, it's a question of the same treatment. I find it a sad commentary on society that so many refuse to see that. It's obvious to me.

 

[Ms Ann Thrope]

That's involved in this issue, but it's a separate issue. Churches have been doing that as long as there has been religion. If homosexuals have the same protection under the law, then you must let them marry. If they don't, well then there's a word for that. It's really a very simple issue but everyone tries to cloud it with emotional and frequently unrelated arguments. It's not a question of preferential treatment, it's a question of the same treatment. I find it a sad commentary on society that so many refuse to see that. It's obvious to me.

And those people will never see that fact as long as they continue to believe that homosexuality is a CHOICE. These are the same people that, if the clock were to be turned back, would probably fight against a woman's right to vote and own property.

 

[chcr]

And those people will never see that fact as long as they continue to believe that homosexuality is a CHOICE.

I don't agree. Whether or not you believe it is a conscious choice is immaterial to the argument at hand.

These are the same people that, if the clock were to be turned back, would probably fight against a woman's right to vote and own property.

And against interracial marriages 40 years ago.

 

[Professur]

The question, therefore, must be, where do we draw the line? 40 years ago, it was interracial marriages. Today, it's gay marriages. Is incest legal tomorrow? Bestiality? At what point does a single person's rights or desires fail before the majority good? Or the majority will, for that matter?

 

[chcr]

You think gay marriages affect the majority good in any way?

 

[MrBishop]

The question, therefore, must be, where do we draw the line? 40 years ago, it was interracial marriages. Today, it's gay marriages. Is incest legal tomorrow? Bestiality? At what point does a single person's rights or desires fail before the majority good? Or the majority will, for that matter?

Two very good questions/points.

The majority good & the majority will.

Thus far...the majority will goes against gay-marriage (at least in the USA - I don't have the figures for Canada or the rest of the world) .. mind you, that was also the case for interracial marraige and for the women's vote. Sometimes, the GVT has to make hard decisions to go against the majority for the betterment of the whole

this leads us to .. the majority good.

Which is what I believe is at the true crux of the arguement (and not minority status, as Gonz states). Will the allowance of gay-marraige be of more benefit or harm to the society as a whole?

Thus...we repoen the voling polls

 

[freako104]

And those people will never see that fact as long as they continue to believe that homosexuality is a CHOICE. These are the same people that, if the clock were to be turned back, would probably fight against a woman's right to vote and own property.

while I agree with the post for the most part, as Chic said it is not only those who believe it is a choice. Some would say it is biological(I have heard it referred to as a biological error). but the rest I agree with.

 

[Camelyn]

The question, therefore, must be, where do we draw the line? 40 years ago, it was interracial marriages. Today, it's gay marriages. Is incest legal tomorrow? Bestiality? At what point does a single person's rights or desires fail before the majority good? Or the majority will, for that matter?

I find it kinda disturbing that your slippery slope leads from interracial marriages and ends up in beastiality??

 

[Gato_Solo]

I find it kinda disturbing that your slippery slope leads from interracial marriages and ends up in beastiality??

Disturbing as that may be, interracial marriage was one thought of as bestiality. That wass the idea behind it's illegality. Even though, at the time such laws were enacted, 99% of all blacks were mixed...and over 80% still are. If you're a black US citizen, and can't trace both sides of your family tree to Africa, then you are mixed...most likely with slave owners in the past. That's the main problem in the US when it comes to discrimination against black people. It's mostly a subconscious effort to disavow the institutionalized rape of an entire race of people. Once that ugly thought is overcome, and blacks are acknowledged as the family members of white people, this ugly nest of hate will slowly fall apart.

 

[Camelyn]

I know Gato, and I agree.

I just found it profoundly disturbing to read that in the year 2004. It sounded like an argument I would have heard more than 50 years ago when people were making a case for not making interracial marriages legal. The implication that the splippery slope started there, which opened the door for gay marriages, and will inevitably lead to beasiality...it just floors me that someone would equate any marriage between two people with a deviant sexual behaviour in the same thought process, today, in 2004...

 

[chcr]

Every time I hear the "slippery slope" argument I thnk of this:

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions!
Mayor: What do you mean "biblical"?
Dr. Raymond Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor. Real wrath of God type stuff! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, and volcanos!
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

It would be a joke if so many people didn't accept it.