Impeach the Bastard
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
freako104 said:
Come, now, freako. Surely you can't be that naive.
The law states, for good or for ill, that marriage is between a man and a woman. If you don't like the law, then you go out and vote to change it. It's really quite simple. That's the way it's supposed to be done. To put another 'spin' on this, I'll give you an example that is a bit extreme, but proves the point...
Your best friend (a mayor/senator, whatever) and you have a very bad argument, and he/she no longer likes you. As time passes, he/she feels that you no longer have the right to a part of the communal oxygen pool, and gathers a few folks to his/her side that agree with that sentiment. To sum this up, he/she kills you and the elected official does nothing. The law was broken (murder), and this person has decided that it was perfectly legal.
Before anybody get's their dander up, this was an extreme example, but it was extreme to prove my point. Civil disobedience is one thing, but an elected official is sworn to uphold the law...even laws that they may disagree with. Changing the law would've been the way to go...not breaking it.
chcr
Too cute for words
I agree with that as far as it goes, Gato. Civil disobedience is a viable alternative for drawing attention to unjust laws, however. Here's a question you might or might not know the answer to. When was interracial marriage finally legalized in all 50 states? The gay marriage issue is a civil rights issue, period. People are confusing the issue with emotional arguments, but the meat of the matter is: Do homosexuals have the same rights in America as heterosexuals? If the answer is yes, we must allow gay marriages. If it's no, I don't think all of us really understand America.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
chcr said:
Actually, interracial mariage is legal in all 50 states. The last state finally agreed to it in 1998. Alabama. Here's one for you...When did the black man actually become a full human male (according to most laws)?
Here's a tidbit for you to digest...During the civil-rights protests, most folks got arrested/beaten/persecuted for their beliefs. They practiced civil disobedience, but this is something different. The law is being broken by the authorities...not the public.
freako104
Well-Known Member
Gato_Solo said:Come, now, freako. Surely you can't be that naive.
The law states, for good or for ill, that marriage is between a man and a woman. If you don't like the law, then you go out and vote to change it. It's really quite simple. That's the way it's supposed to be done. To put another 'spin' on this, I'll give you an example that is a bit extreme, but proves the point...
Your best friend (a mayor/senator, whatever) and you have a very bad argument, and he/she no longer likes you. As time passes, he/she feels that you no longer have the right to a part of the communal oxygen pool, and gathers a few folks to his/her side that agree with that sentiment. To sum this up, he/she kills you and the elected official does nothing. The law was broken (murder), and this person has decided that it was perfectly legal.
Before anybody get's their dander up, this was an extreme example, but it was extreme to prove my point. Civil disobedience is one thing, but an elected official is sworn to uphold the law...even laws that they may disagree with. Changing the law would've been the way to go...not breaking it.
my post was done as a joke to Gonz attitude towards teh civial disobeidence gato,
chcr
Too cute for words
Gato_Solo said:
I think it was 2000 before it actually passed (and people talk about how far we've come). It is the public that is disobeying the law, although I will grant you the authorities in question are enabling them. This is a civil rights protest. The civil rights struggle is not over, in fact can never be over. I'm glad to hear no gays are being harrassed, persecuted or beaten up over this, I'm sure that will come as a comfort to those who have been harrassed, persecuted and beaten up. The arrests will come, we just haven't advanced that far yet. Finally, I would submit to you that it is unconscionalbe for an elected official to uphold an unjust law.
Re your question, I don't know. I'm sure it was the late twentieth century at the earliest. Maybe they still aren't. I know a lot of people who don't think so.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
chcr said:
Careful, now. You're saying that marriage is a right. It isn't. If it was, you wouldn't need to go through so much effort to get it.
Even though it may be unconscionable (nice word, BTW) for an elected official to uphold an "unjust" law, that official took an oath to uphold that law. In fact, that official is now in a position to further the cause of changing the law through legal means and, instead, chose to place 'innocent' people afoul of the law.
freako104
Well-Known Member
marriage isnt a right? I thought ti was for heterosexuals? as far as the govt officals not obeying it, i dont see whats wrong wiht that since they are allowed to express their beliefs no? the difference is and I think youll agree gato: they can make the change to laws or try to more than the layman
chcr
Too cute for words
Gato_Solo said:Careful, now. You're saying that marriage is a right. It isn't. If it was, you wouldn't need to go through so much effort to get it.
Even though it may be unconscionable (nice word, BTW) for an elected official to uphold an "unjust" law, that official took an oath to uphold that law. In fact, that official is now in a position to further the cause of changing the law through legal means and, instead, chose to place 'innocent' people afoul of the law.
Marriage is a right. What you're talking about is the registration process. In many states, if you live together for a specific amount of time, you are considered married without these registrations (common-law). You register your marriage to protect the rights of both participants, and these are the rights being denied to homosexuals. They used to be denied on racial grounds and gender grounds and we overcame that. It saddens me that so many people fail to see that this is exactly the same thing.
You took an oath to do your duty. If your CO lined up a bunch of eight year old boys and girls in front of you and told you to shoot them would you do it? (extreme example, I know
)
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
chcr said:Marriage is a right. What you're talking about is the registration process. In many states, if you live together for a specific amount of time, you are considered married without these registrations (common-law). You register your marriage to protect the rights of both participants, and these are the rights being denied to homosexuals. They used to be denied on racial grounds and gender grounds and we overcame that. It saddens me that so many people fail to see that this is exactly the same thing.
You took an oath to do your duty. If your CO lined up a bunch of eight year old boys and girls in front of you and told you to shoot them would you do it? (extreme example, I know
Your example is extreme, but I have an out. There are 2 kinds of orders. Lawful, and unlawful. I can refuse an order to shoot children under 99.999% of circumstances. The only way I could obey that order is if those children posed an imminent threat to myself, my peers, or my area.
As to the 'common-law' marriages, those only exist because of the "palimony" suits of the early 1980's. At that point, it was a "women's" issue. I stand by my statement that marriage is not a right, registration or not. The state can, and sometimes, although rarely does, deny marriage to couples.
As for my personal view on this whole thing...I feel that consenting adults can marry whomever they wish...provided that there is no blood-relationship between the two parties in question. I also feel that a line must be drawn somewhere. This is it...Source...
Get the picture? He was grandstanding.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
As I read these posts...again...something chcr said has been really bothering me. He didn't say it outright, but it was implied that the struggle for gay rights and the struggle for civil rights were the same. They aren't, weren't, and, hopefully, never will be. Homosexuality is not a visible difference...unless taken to an extreme...You can't see it. You can't taste it. You can't touch it. You know nothing about an individuals sexual orientation unless they come out and tell you point blank. If anyone tells you differently, then they're either a liar, or a fool. One more thing. A person's individual life-style choice is his, or her, right. Respecting that choice is one thing, and I can respect the choice made by anybody. Liking it, OTOH, is something that cannot be forced. I did not choose my pigmentation. I was born with it. I did, however, choose my life-style. Hopefully you can see the difference.
Ms Ann Thrope
New Member
I'm confused, Gato. Are you saying that sexual orientation is a choice? That homosexuals are the way they are because they chose to be? That we are all born heterosexual?
chcr
Too cute for words
The argument about choice or not will be going on long after we are gone. Point is, Gato, that discrimination of any kind encourages discrimination of every kind. It's not the same issue as racial civil rights, but the same beliefs apply. Either everyone is equal or they are not. I've chosen where I stand.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Ms Ann Thrope said:
In a majority of cases, yes. It is a choice. I'm not talking about those who are trans-gendered, either. Few are actually born with a genetic bent towards homosexuality. I'm not going to argue science and methodology with you, nor am I going to say that they have mental problems. On average, gay people are just as sane as hetero people. It's just that they chose their lifestyle and their sexuality differently than I did.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
chcr said:
I actually don't care one whit whether they have a 'right' to get married or not. As for your discrimination line, I suggest you read up a little more. Try here and here for starters, and then talk about discrimination. Fact is, most gay people are not discriminated against unless they become 'in your face' about their sexuality. If heterosexuals get 'in your face' about sexuality, the same things could also apply. Personally...I don't discuss my sex life with nybody but my partner. It's not anyone elses business. I make jokes sometimes, and I flirt a bit from time to time, but never in 'public'. Ergo, I'm not persecuted for my sexuality. I have been maltreated because of my race, however. There is a difference.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Here's some more. Now...ask yourself this. How can you equate the discrimination against an individual, which is the kind most gays face, with the discrimination of a whole people. People descended from those who use that same discrimination to keep an entire population in hopelessness and despair?
chcr
Too cute for words
And I've been fired for my religious beliefs (or lack thereof). I agree with you about discussing your sex life, however, I am openly heterosexual. If you think people who are merely openly homosexual have not been discriminated against, that's your business. I've seen it happen. I understand that you think it's different being discriminated against for race, and again, your business. If we all agreed it's be pretty darned boring. The religious right wants to make it a federal crime to be homosexual (not the way they put it, but that's the real intent) and that is discrimination of the highest order in my opinion. It's also frightening that they think they have the power to do it.