The ethics of homosexuality.

[Baron Max]

The difference between democracy and mob-rule is protection of rights and opinions of minority groups. In this case democracy is certainly failing homosexuals. People forget that the government is supposed to work for us as well.

So now we're back to you thinking that it's a "right"? And just where did that "right" might come from? ....ahhhhh, government of the people, by the people and for the people, huh? And if we can GIVE "rights", then we can also withhold "rights", right? (Or are you going to suggest that "rights" are God-given????)

And don't forget, government is supposed to work for US as well! If we don't want gays to marry, then we should not permit it. If we think gay marriage is harmful to our society, then we should protect society.

Gays are a special-interest group that wants nothing more than SPECIAL rights bestowed upon them by society. And society should resist those efforts at all costs.

If y'all don't like this nation and how it's treating gays, why don't you go to "Gayland"??? Please??? How does it feel to be an outcast in a society? How does it feel to be NOT wanted within your own society?

Baron Max

 

[jayleew]

jayleew i dont think very many (if ANY) homosexuals give a TOSS what you want to do in your church. Its when your church says that "this is wrong so we want LAWS to stop it" that you put yourselves in conflict with other groups.

I doubt that Mystech wants to be a christan in your church, what he DOES want is the right to have a legal contract with his partner alowed under the GOVERMENTAL system of the country he lives in. Im sure that is what ALL the homosexuals, lesbians ect want. You keep saying that goverment and religion should be seprate and i agree with you but your next sentance is that the goverments should take there morals from god. When was the last time god voted??????????????

WHO CARES WHAT GOD WANTS, i dont, i care that the goverment works for ME and the greater good. The greater good is not served by restricting legal rights to select groups

I understand now where you are all coming from. I stand by the government that founders have set forth for the freedom and justice for all.

So, that leaves us with the question of the thread. The ethics of homosexuality. However, as I said before, that God aside, we are left with our own biased ethics' systems. In this case, where there is currently no law for same-sex marriages, it should be left for the majority to decide the ethics of homosexuality. Contact those senators!

As far as the ethics of homosexuality (God aside, and Liberty aside) we are left with Philosophy to debate the ethics of homosexuality. Is homosexuality, by its destruction of what nature intended, unethical? Further, does what nature intended have anything to do with what is ethical in this case?

 

[heart]

If y'all don't like this nation and how it's treating gays, why don't you go to "Gayland"??? Please??? How does it feel to be an outcast in a society? How does it feel to be NOT wanted within your own society?

Just what the hell is the above statement suppose to prove, Max? Do you practice being an asshole, or does it just come naturally?

 

[Bowser]

<i>"In this case, where there is currently no law for same-sex marriages, it should be left for the majority to decide the ethics of homosexuality."</i>

I've been saying that for years! Oh well...

 

[Mystech]

In this case, where there is currently no law for same-sex marriages, it should be left for the majority to decide the ethics of homosexuality.

Actually at the moment there are plenty of laws dealing with same-sex marriage in the US, and that's the problem. In the absence of these laws, homosexuals would be allowed to marry by default.

The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 essentially outlaws same sex marriage on a federal level, and since about 2002, a large number of states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same sex marriage - a move which is largely useless, as every state in the union already had some law or other which outlined prohibited marriages, and same-sex unions was among them. Right next to those laws, however, are generally the ones about it being legal to hang a man for stealing your horse, so I suppose that stricter measures were deemed necessary. . . that and Republicans really needed to seem like they were doing something about the fag problem it whip up voters in 2004.

I've been saying that for years! Oh well...

And you've been wrong all that time.

 

[Mystech]

So now we're back to you thinking that it's a "right"? And just where did that "right" might come from? ....ahhhhh, government of the people, by the people and for the people, huh? And if we can GIVE "rights", then we can also withhold "rights", right? (Or are you going to suggest that "rights" are God-given????)

No, the foundation of these rights are in the constitution, they are backed by the 14th amendment, equal protection under the law, as well as the spirit of life liberty and happiness of all.

We can restrict rights, we can not, however restrict rights to select groups of individuals based on no rational criteria at all.

And don't forget, government is supposed to work for US as well!

A particularly meaningless peice of rhetoric when taken into the context of what you're using it as a responce to. Thanks for sharing that.

If we don't want gays to marry, then we should not permit it. If we think gay marriage is harmful to our society, then we should protect society.

And if we think all the Jews should be rounded up into camps then we should do it? Trying to assert that the majority in any responsible democracy should have this depth of control and selectiveness over whatever groups along any arbitrary lines they'd like to draw around them is absolutely absurd. We've been down this road before and tend to look at these sorts of things as sources of great national shame.

Gays are a special-interest group that wants nothing more than SPECIAL rights bestowed upon them by society. And society should resist those efforts at all costs.

We want the rights which are due to us to be fulfilled by the government. We'd like society's arbitrary and often theological value judgments about who we are to be irrelevant in how legislation effects us. We want nothing more than equal rights - special treatment is exactly what we'd like to get rid of.

"society" as you seem to be defining it, doesn't really have much room to have a valid say in the matter.

If y'all don't like this nation and how it's treating gays, why don't you go to "Gayland"???

I was born and raised in America, I truly believe that it's the greatest nation on Earth. Some of the people in it are insufferable morons, but I'm sure that'd be true of any place. You make the mistake of trying to think of homosexuals as something separate from western society, from our life and culture. Nothing could be farther from the truth, we've had as much, if not more influence on the shape of the world today, of the country you live in, than any other particular group. We can't just leave, we're not some separate element, we're inseparable.

We're here, we've been here, and so we shall continue to be. The only thing that's changed in recent years is that people aren't so frightened to admit that.

Please??? How does it feel to be an outcast in a society? How does it feel to be NOT wanted within your own society?

This seems like a rather eschewed perception if you ask me. Those vocal elements which wouldn't like to have us here are growing increasingly irrelevant, and are loosing ground on issues where harassing us and trying to make our lives harder are concerned.

The fact that they are still out there, however, makes me feel happy that the second amendment is in place and Interpreted in such a politically correct manner as it is.

 

[SpyMoose]

Is homosexuality, by its destruction of what nature intended, unethical? Further, does what nature intended have anything to do with what is ethical in this case?

You are still making a theological argument, as homosexuality quite obviously does not "destroy what nature intended". It merely defies your scripture, which is hardly a manual of natural sciences.

 

[SpyMoose]

So now we're back to you thinking that it's a "right"? And just where did that "right" might come from? ....ahhhhh, government of the people, by the people and for the people, huh? And if we can GIVE "rights", then we can also withhold "rights", right? (Or are you going to suggest that "rights" are God-given????)

Wow, Max, maybe you are right! Only... could you tell me that if y'all didn't want to give us our rights, you guaranteed it in the constitution? Seems like a pretty boneheaded thing of the founders to do... you know, to guarantee us rights they didn't want us to have. Maybe it wasn't their intent to have minorities arbitrarily victimized by a hostile majority, hm?

Its ok max, you can go form the nation of the he-man fag haters. I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun! (Make sure not to guarantee uniform application of the law! That’s what screwed up America with all those uppity women, blacks, Mexicans, and faggots and such)

And don't forget, government is supposed to work for US as well! If we don't want gays to marry, then we should not permit it. If we think gay marriage is harmful to our society, then we should protect society.

Hm, maybe. Show that it's harmful.

Gays are a special-interest group that wants nothing more than SPECIAL rights bestowed upon them by society. And society should resist those efforts at all costs.

We have already established that what gays want is the elimination of the special laws being written that pertain to us. In the absence of laws limiting homosexual rights, we actually get to have our rights. The constitution guarantees it.

How does it feel to be an outcast in a society? How does it feel to be NOT wanted within your own society?

Baron Max

Were you talking about us or yourself?

 

[Baron Max]

Seems like a pretty boneheaded thing of the founders to do... you know, to guarantee us rights they didn't want us to have.

Well, they wrote the Constitution and the nation lived with it for over a hundred years ....with blacks in slavery! ...some of them owned by the very people who wrote the Constitution! So now what do you have to say about the founding fathers' ideas? And worse, the nation fought a bloody, vicous Civil War before blacks were even considered "people". Now tell me again what you think the founding fathers were thinking about???

And I'd really appreciate you not calling me a "fag hater", 'cause I ain't. I have friends who are gay and lesbian ...but that still doesn't mean that I think they should be permitted to marry. Why is that so hard to understand?

In the absence of laws limiting homosexual rights, we actually get to have our rights. The constitution guarantees it.

But you already have those rights, dammit!! You (if ye're a male) can marry any woman that will have you as her husband! And lesbians can marry any male that will marry her! Those are the rights! But YOU want to CHANGE those rights so that males can marry males ...that's CHANGING the basic rights for special interest groups - gays and lesbians.

Oh, by the way, when I asked about "How does it feel....?", I was trying to be somewhat sincere. I have no point of reference for how that might feel, how it might affect your everyday lives, etc. I was just curious. And yeah, I've asked that of other "outcasts", but the answers ain't so easy to understand, ya' know?

Baron Max

 

[SpyMoose]

Now tell me again what you think the founding fathers were thinking about???

I think they were thinking about creating a system of government that gave its people the right of self determination, without trampling on the rights of minorities. I think they did this so well that groups they held in contempt, such as slaves, and women, eventually realized what the constitution said and managed to claim their rights.

As always your point about homosexuals having the right to marry members of the opposite sex is moot, as it requires that our rights are held from us on the condition that we submit ourselves to rape. Why? Why should we be raped? Because you don't like to think about two guys or two chicks kissing?

 

[Baron Max]

I think they were thinking about creating a system of government.......

Well, I don't! So now what? I think they simply didn't consider slaves and women as having any rights under the Constitution. It never even occured to them because it had never come in up in their world!

Spy, your rights are NOT withheld. As far as I know, nothing anywhere in the law or in the Constitution says that males have the right to marry males. Where do you get that? And where do you get that just because "normal" males have the right to marry "normal" females, that YOU should be permitted to marry another male? How? Where? When? Geez,,,,,,,,,?

Baron Max

 

[SpyMoose]

Lets see... where in law do I seem to find indication that same sex marriage is a right that can be claimed by homosexuals? Why don’t you look up the following items, Max.

Amendment I
Amendment IX
Amendment XIV

And what the hell, while you are at it, read the preamble.

 

[Bowser]

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


We are assuming that this is a question of religion or general ethics at large?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don't see where this enters the argument...

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

*Reconstruction Amendments:
The XIII, XIV, and XV amendments are often referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments because they were drafted by the Republican majority congress following the Civil War. These were intended to abolish slavery
and to extend civil rights to former slaves.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/

PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE

'Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. 2 ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?'' 3'

 

[Baron Max]

As I see it, Spymouse, you, as a gay male, have exactly the same/equal rights that I, as a heterosexual male, enjoy in the USA .......you can't marry a male, neither can I!

But see, you want to change that ....for your own special interest. And yet you claim that you don't want special rights? We're equal under the law, Spymouse ...why can't you see that? ....or don't you want to see that?

Baron Max

 

[Bowser]

Moose,

I will try to be thoughtful here.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

Certainly there is a religious influence involved in this issue, but as for the whole of those who oppose gay marriage I think it involves more of the base instinct of the common individual. The social structure and values that homosexuality challenges will not simply go away. They are too deeply rooted.

Civil contracts, civil unions, It is so close to marriage that I really don't see the line. However, If a public union is simply a fiat for obtaining a binding contract between you and your partner, than I see no reason not to support it. I don't believe it will garnish any public acceptance are legitimacy for homosexuality, but as an individual right you should be free to tie yourself to another individual (add an (S) if you are Mormon.)


AMENDMENT XIV

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...

You have an argument there if all you want is a binding contract between you and yours; however, trying to force homosexuality into the true nature of marriage just wont work.

 

[Bowser]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Feel free to correct me when I'm in error here

 

[SpyMoose]

Three posts and you havn't managed to construct a readable responce to any one of the amendments I sited. Impressive work Bowser. All I can assume is you would like me to explain how I believe each of these amendments applies to the homosexual condition?

 

[SpyMoose]

As I see it, Spymouse, you, as a gay male, have exactly the same/equal rights that I, as a heterosexual male, enjoy in the USA .......you can't marry a male, neither can I!

But see, you want to change that ....for your own special interest. And yet you claim that you don't want special rights? We're equal under the law, Spymouse ...why can't you see that? ....or don't you want to see that?

Baron Max

I think I and others have answered that question with the same response somewhere on the order of a dozen times over the course of this thread, and you have yet to address it.

 

[Baron Max]

I've responded numerous times .....y'all want special rights ...and there ain't no gettin' around it. Have y'all considered civil war? Please?

Baron Max

 

[Mystech]

Civil contracts, civil unions, It is so close to marriage that I really don't see the line. However, If a public union is simply a fiat for obtaining a binding contract between you and your partner, than I see no reason not to support it.

See, I knew you were reasonable on some level. You've got the heart of the issue right here, even if your facts are slightly off. Entering into a legal contract befitting of the union of two people in an exclusive pairbond. Homosexuals feel that - being that homosexuality is no longer able to be criminalized in the us (Since the Supreme Court's ruling on Lawrence v Texas in '03), and as such the idea that the government has a right to step in and take a direct legislative stand against homosexuals has really sort of evaporated, Homosexual unions should now be entitled to that same sort of contract.

The problem with a "civil union" is that at present it's a non-entity. It simply doesn't exist, not anywhere, save for in Vermont, but that's it. There's no guarantee that it could provide the same rights as a marriage, other laws and civil codes often expressly use the term "marriage" and refer to legal spouses, and whether or not such things would have to apply ty "civil partners" would have to be figured out, quite likely over a number of years and many subsequent court battles. Marriage, by contrast, is a federally protected and recognized institution which, though varying slightly from state to state, is at least uniform at it's core, and easily recognized and applied across state lines, and universally on a federal level. Civil unions, however could have 50 different flavors which don't exactly make sense across state lines, and are simply incapable of producing the same results as the legal marriage license.

Aside from that, a civil union could only, at best, be an attempt at a "Separate but equal" institution. . . something that I'm not really sure would hold up under Judicial review giving our nations history with that sort of thing.

But do we even need a separate institution? We already have one which describe the rights that homosexuals seek - in fact it is these rights that homosexuals seek, because they are the ones that heterosexual couples already enjoy. We don't want a different institution of our own, we just want a universal application of the same laws. The institution that we want to take part in already exists - Civil Marriage (sounds a bit less painful when you phrase it that way, doesn't it)? It's not a religious institution, though marriage certainly has that aspect for many people. Our government, however, is not now, nor has it ever been in the business of bestowing blessings from God. Civil Marriage is simply a legal contract, nothing more, one that's tied up in a lot of other laws, and is a lot simpler than sitting down with a lawyer and trying to work out every little affair of domestic life with your partner before you declare yourself married, and also a lot more powerful as it serves to indicate to those around you what your relationship with this other person is - something that certainly goes beyond a mere social benefit when a Doctor can let you in to see your injured loved one in the event of an emergency without fearing that he's breaking some law or hospital policy by letting a non-relative in to see his patient.

We're not seeking a redefinition of marriage, everyone is entitled to feel how they wish about the spiritual side of things. We're just looking to remove the laws which exclude us from entering into that particular civil contract.