The Political Discussion Thread

[Col.Foley]

And you have every right to make the choices that you want to make, but do not expect that every single individual, group, or society in general to support you, agree with you, and depending on your choices...if you make a choice that takes someones liberty from them in total. You should be punished for it, for instance.

^ I could apply that in full to you and other religious people who. You want your specific choices to control millions of people regardless of whether they agree with you or not, and you're knowingly choosing to deny others the liberty to be equal under the law as laid out in the 14th Amendment. You should be punished for it.

I am doing no such thing. I am a fan of Liberty, Freedom, and Liberty by Law. I am a fan of equal justice, not social justice. I love the principles of our founding the religion, the science, and the freedom of spirit.

[s09119]

I am doing no such thing. I am a fan of Liberty, Freedom, and Liberty by Law. I am a fan of equal justice, not social justice. I love the principles of our founding the religion, the science, and the freedom of spirit.

It's exactly what you and the religious right are doing. You claim to be protecting liberty by stripping rights from citizens who lack the block of votes to defend themselves in Congress. You are advocating that certain people should not have equal protections under the law, be it an inability to file joint taxes (and thus not be unfairly taxed without recourse) or the inability to speak for one's partner in a medical emergency (and thus forfeit their right to have a doctor's wishes overruled). In your world, millions of Americans are relegated to second-class citizens, unable to receive the legal recognition enjoyed by their fellows that would grant them protections, rights, and privileges open to other committed relationships.

All in the name of "preserving" liberty? Whose liberty? That of a minority that is shrinking by the day; believe it or not, Americans are deciding more and more each year that gay people are human beings who deserve to be afforded the same opportunities as everyone else. Public opinion has a majority of pro-gay marriage rights, and it is overwhelmingly so for the younger generations. Like it or not, liberty will win out. Just not the kind you're talking about... which is probably for the best, seeing as I'm not sure how you think there's anything noble in what you suggest.

[Col.Foley]

It's exactly what you and the religious right are doing. You claim to be protecting liberty by stripping rights from citizens who lack the block of votes to defend themselves in Congress. You are advocating that certain people should not have equal protections under the law, be it an inability to file joint taxes (and thus not be unfairly taxed without recourse) or the inability to speak for one's partner in a medical emergency (and thus forfeit their right to have a doctor's wishes overruled). In your world, millions of Americans are relegated to second-class citizens, unable to receive the legal recognition enjoyed by their fellows that would grant them protections, rights, and privileges open to other committed relationships.

All in the name of "preserving" liberty? Whose liberty? That of a minority that is shrinking by the day; believe it or not, Americans are deciding more and more each year that gay people are human beings who deserve to be afforded the same opportunities as everyone else. Public opinion has a majority of pro-gay marriage rights, and it is overwhelmingly so for the younger generations. Like it or not, liberty will win out. Just not the kind you're talking about... which is probably for the best, seeing as I'm not sure how you think there's anything noble in what you suggest.

Again, doing no such thing. And I do not think a lot of the 'religious right' is doing any such thing either, though some are. Every single thing you accuse me of is not true in the least and is very shallow in its thinking both of me, and our current situation. You want to fix things? Instead of trying to extend a non exisistant right to people that I do not have and you do not have and no one has why don't you fix the problems that you mention? Make it so that any couple can file taxes jointly regardless of what religious ceremony they attended or participated in. How about changing the law where anyone who the individual in question considers to be special or important can do those descisions? Make a list of people who can be with you at the hospital and can over ride a Doctor's wishes. This is not a complicated issue. Or how about completly rewriting the tax code to where it favors liberty, and you do not have to file, JOINTLY OR OTHERWISE. Again these issues are not complicated and to accuse me of wanting to take away anyones liberty is blatantly unfair when you clearly do not know my opinions on these exact issues.

Yes and Most Americans are in favor of a lot of things that are wrong, do not make sense, and I do not agree with. Majority does not rule in a Constitutional Repbublic, the Constitutition does! Majority rules in Democracies, which is why they fail and is why when the US becomes one I am packing up my bags. Or going to speak out against it until my dying breath. they will have to kill me to shut me up.

Everyone's Liberty. The Liberty to make choices, and if you make choices that effect or take away my Liberty or my life you should be punished by the law.

huh?

oh and you know I do miss things all the time, too much stuff in my head. Gay people are people too. I have never said otherwise.

[lordofseas]

LOS: First of all you are dead wrong and your argument starts in the rears when you are talking about Minority Rights. Minorities do not have any special rights over anyone else and least of all over the minority. Second of all while I generally agree we should not vote on the rights of someone else, but first of all that is the only way Gay Marriage will become a right is through the vote. Unless you advocate the courts do it, which is a vote, and an abuse of their power. And the founders voted on the creation of our rights in the fist place they voted they created, and came together to draft a Bill of RIGHTS. And all amendments since then to the US Constitution, including rights, have been voted upon by the general populace. (Most of them anyways.)

Ridiculous. Under that idea, in the 1800s, if the entire American populace that were recognized as "people" then were asked to vote on the rights of a woman (namely, if a woman was a person), and of blacks (that they were people), neither would have gotten rights, to be even recognized as human beings. People should only vote on things that affect the collective of the people. As marriage only affects the two people within that union, it should not belong in the hands of others to decide whether or not it's right or wrong. Also, I'm not asking for special rights. I'm asking for equal rights, nothing more, nothing less that what you, or anyone else has.

[s09119]

Ridiculous. Under that idea, in the 1800s, if the entire American populace that were recognized as "people" then were asked to vote on the rights of a woman (namely, if a woman was a person), and of blacks (that they were people), neither would have gotten rights, to be even recognized as human beings. People should only vote on things that affect the collective of the people. As marriage only affects the two people within that union, it should not belong in the hands of others to decide whether or not it's right or wrong. Also, I'm not asking for special rights. I'm asking for equal rights, nothing more, nothing less that what you, or anyone else has.

Precisely. If people were asking for a special class of marriage with special benefits that no one else got, that would be wrong. All homosexuals are asking for is what is already given to everyone else regardless of gender, race, or creed.

[Col.Foley]

Ridiculous. Under that idea, in the 1800s, if the entire American populace that were recognized as "people" then were asked to vote on the rights of a woman (namely, if a woman was a person), and of blacks (that they were people), neither would have gotten rights, to be even recognized as human beings. People should only vote on things that affect the collective of the people. As marriage only affects the two people within that union, it should not belong in the hands of others to decide whether or not it's right or wrong. Also, I'm not asking for special rights. I'm asking for equal rights, nothing more, nothing less that what you, or anyone else has.

Wrong, again. I do not know where the first part of your post came from at all, or the examples, or what have you, but I do not have the rights that you are asking, and demanding no less, that gays should have so then at the least that will ensure that gays have a right I do not have so they are now a special class above me in the Governmental hierarchy, or then everyone else will have a right that they should not have in the first place.

Precisely. If people were asking for a special class of marriage with special benefits that no one else got, that would be wrong. All homosexuals are asking for is what is already given to everyone else regardless of gender, race, or creed.

Except no one shuld have the right.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

For once I sort of agree with Col. Foley.

I can't think of a reason why married people should get different rights than everyone, why should married couple have more rights than non married ones?

But if Heterosexuals can have have civil legally recognized marriage now, why should this not be same for gay couples.

I guess that brings us to the issue is marriage a human right, does everyone deserve it no matter who they are. If death row inmates can do it why not gay people.

[Col.Foley]

For once I sort of agree with Col. Foley.

I can't think of a reason why married people should get different rights than everyone, why should married couple have more rights than non married ones?

But if Heterosexuals can have have civil legally recognized marriage now, why should this not be same for gay couples.

I guess that brings us to the issue is marriage a human right, does everyone deserve it no matter who they are. If death row inmates can do it why not gay people.

Well....let me be clear. I think Gays should have the right to pursue marriage just like everyone else. Marriage itself is not a right but you have the right to try and be married to someone, and in a church, and what not. But neither the person nor the church should be forced to agree with you.

Now, when one is talking about 'civil marriage' I am of two minds of it. if there is such a thing one should not discriminate based on gender, race, religion, creed, or orientation. However I also do not think that Government should neccessarilly be involved in the marriage buisness period.

So where does this leave Gay People? I am sure one should ask. Well first off I think the better solution should be to remove all benefits married people should get from the Government, just for being married people. Second of all you should go to the Government and say, 'this is my relationship with this person.' therefor the Government can acknolwedge you as a couple no matter if you are married, or not, or just together, or what.

[mad_gater]

For once I sort of agree with Col. Foley.

I can't think of a reason why married people should get different rights than everyone, why should married couple have more rights than non married ones?

But if Heterosexuals can have have civil legally recognized marriage now, why should this not be same for gay couples.

I guess that brings us to the issue is marriage a human right, does everyone deserve it no matter who they are. If death row inmates can do it why not gay people.

coulda sworn this topic was addressed a few pages back....

anyhow the answer is the same....render the debate moot by getting government out of marriage altogether

[s09119]

For once I sort of agree with Col. Foley.

I can't think of a reason why married people should get different rights than everyone, why should married couple have more rights than non married ones?

But if Heterosexuals can have have civil legally recognized marriage now, why should this not be same for gay couples.

I guess that brings us to the issue is marriage a human right, does everyone deserve it no matter who they are. If death row inmates can do it why not gay people.

Married people have privileges single people don't simply because of practicality. For example, a married couple can file joint taxes because they're earning as a single unit. It's mostly logistical things that gay couples would like to take advantage of like everyone else to make life easier. And then there's of course the blatant inequality in it that actually angers people.

[Col.Foley]

Married people have privileges single people don't simply because of practicality. For example, a married couple can file joint taxes because they're earning as a single unit. It's mostly logistical things that gay couples would like to take advantage of like everyone else to make life easier. And then there's of course the blatant inequality in it that actually angers people.

That is a flaw in our tax system and should be rectified.

[s09119]

That is a flaw in our tax system and should be rectified.

Even if you were to end the "flaw," there would still be plenty of reasons as to why gay people should be allowed to legally be a couple.

[Col.Foley]

Even if you were to end the "flaw," there would still be plenty of reasons as to why gay people should be allowed to legally be a couple.

I have no problems with gays being able to be a couple and to love eachother if theychose to do so, I have no problems with it even being some form of 'legality'. But only in the sense of the Government not interfereing with it and only in the sense of book keeping. And I have no problem with gay marriage per se. Just some of the organizations doing the marrying do. They are well within their rights to do so.

What I have a problem with is the Government extending a right where it does not exisist, and especially given where when they do extend 'rights' they are doing nothing but enforcing mandates. And just generally the whole process of Government getting involved in things that they do not understand and should be far from.

[s09119]

I have no problems with gays being able to be a couple and to love eachother if theychose to do so, I have no problems with it even being some form of 'legality'. But only in the sense of the Government not interfereing with it and only in the sense of book keeping. And I have no problem with gay marriage per se. Just some of the organizations doing the marrying do. They are well within their rights to do so.

What I have a problem with is the Government extending a right where it does not exisist, and especially given where when they do extend 'rights' they are doing nothing but enforcing mandates. And just generally the whole process of Government getting involved in things that they do not understand and should be far from.

...so where is your opposition to gays being married? I mean let's drop your belief of how the world and government involvement should be, because that's not really related to the preset state of things. Why can't two men get married?

[Col.Foley]

...so where is your opposition to gays being married? I mean let's drop your belief of how the world and government involvement should be, because that's not really related to the preset state of things. Why can't two men get married?

I do not know. I have no personal objections to gays getting married. I never have. My objection is to the Government specifically controlling things that they should not be in control of, and involved in something that I do not think they should even be involved in in the first place.

I do think Gay behavior is a bit unusual and weird but I think that of a lot of things humans do, and also there are certain hetero practices I also find unusual and weird.