[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
I mean, what possible reason could there be for not allowing gay maarriages, other than to adhere to old laws which are clearly outdated and discriminatory

Gay Marriage! I hate Gay marriage they definately should keep that banned.

Not that I have anything against gays but they definately shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Am I being right-wing? Nope. Should gays be allowed to get the tax and legal benifits of being married. Yep. Should they be allowed to call it marriage. Nope.

English is complicated enough as it is. If gays are allowed to "marry" then every time you use the word in a neutral context you'll have to qualify whether you're talking about 2 men, a man & a woman or two women.

Bah if gays and lesbians want it they can come up with their own bloody word for it (Actually make that two words, one for a gay marriage and one for a lesbian one).

[Black Ace]

Just a friendly reminder from the lurkers to make sure things stay under control in this thread.

Thanks!  *returns to shadows*

[Nico]

Originally posted by karajorma


Gay Marriage! I hate Gay marriage they definately should keep that banned.

Not that I have anything against gays but they definately shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Am I being right-wing? Nope. Should gays be allowed to get the tax and legal benifits of being married. Yep. Should they be allowed to call it marriage. Nope.

English is complicated enough as it is. If gays are allowed to "marry" then every time you use the word in a neutral context you'll have to qualify whether you're talking about 2 men, a man & a woman or two women.

Bah if gays and lesbians want it they can come up with their own bloody word for it (Actually make that two words, one for a gay marriage and one for a lesbian one).

just because of a word mixup?

[Stryke 9]

Makes sense to me. We should also have one that's specific to coffee drinkers only. You know, 'cos maybe the ceremony's done a little faster.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Venom
just because of a word mixup?

[falsetto] What about the language! Won't someone think of the language! [/falsetto]

[Sandwich]

I probably don't need to state my opinion, so I won't. What I will do, though, is take this on a slightly different tangent: On American money it says "In God we trust". And every American is familiar with the "...one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" line of the pledge of allegiance.

Separation of state and religion is something that many nations that were founded upon the morals and actions of a group of adherents to a certain belief system have trouble with. Often those nations have in their foundational statements a declaration of faith or something to that effect. Such as the above example of the USA.

The basic rules and laws of the US are based upon Biblical principles. But the US was also created to be, among other things, a haven for the persecuted and outcast: "Give me your poor, your needy..." (sic). But accepting everyone also introduces an enormous diversity of beliefs, something that was not so blatantly present during the founding moments 200+ years ago.

So that leaves us with a nation that was created for the express purpose of being "fair" to everyone, and yet was created "under God". So there is an irreconcilable clash or conflict the further "fairness" (don't kill me for this terrible inspecificity, Su!) for all meant a further distancing from the tenets that God laid down and were incorporated into the founding guidelines of the nation.

Israel also has this problem. We are the only democracy in the Middle-East, and yet we were created specifically as a nation for the Jewish people. The majority of citizens are currently of Jewish nationality, but we also have a significant number of citizens who have their status because of immediate familial ties to people the state considers to be Jewish (like my case), or because of the generosity of the state in letting Arabs who were living on land conquered (in Israel's defensive wars - not to get into that subject) get citizenship. The only difference between a Jewish citizen and an Arab citizen in Israel (AFAIK) is that the mandatory military service does not concern the Arab citizens. This is more a matter of sensitivity to the desires of the citizens than discrimination against them, as the IDF does have numerous Bedouin and Druze soldiers - they just don't want to forcibly recruit someone who both doesn't want to serve in the military and whose loyalties to the State of Israel would be in question.

Anyway, the problem is that the Arab population slice of citizens is out-growing the Jewish population, and - if the current trend continues uninterrupted - they will outnumber the Jewish citizens in around 40 years or so. And, since they have full voting rights, the government of this explicit Jewish State would be composed mostly of Arab members - most of whom show nowadays specific loyalties that verge on the traitorous.

The solution? There is none that maintains both Israel's democratic tenets and her explicit purpose of being the Jewish homeland.

Same thing with America. There is no way to reconcile the morals of her citizens today with her founding tennets. It just doesn't work. When you create something with a specific purpose, you already are discounting perfect freedom, regardless of whether that purpose is to be "one nation under God" or a "homeland for the Jews".

[an0n]

Pfff. People should conform to norms dictated by the state. The state should not be forced to conform to the ideals and beliefs of a bunch of rebelling scum who want things changed just because they wanna **** each other in the ass.

Sure, if everyone goes "We like gays." then change stuff. But if a few people go "Change to law so we can be gay." they should just shoot them. When murderers, rapists and single-mothers try to change the law, they get ignored. Why the hell should gays get special treatment?

Death to all the non-conformists and hypocrits........Except me!

[Rictor]

Banned for a week and your first post manages to be as hatefilled as if you've never left

bravo:yes:

edit: or just very unfunny sarcasm. Sometimes I cant tell with you..

[Nico]

Originally posted by an0n
Pfff. People should conform to norms dictated by the state. The state should not be forced to conform to the ideals and beliefs of a bunch of rebelling scum who want things changed just because they wanna **** each other in the ass.

Sure, if everyone goes "We like gays." then change stuff. But if a few people go "Change to law so we can be gay." they should just shoot them. When murderers, rapists and single-mothers try to change the law, they get ignored. Why the hell should gays get special treatment?

Death to all the non-conformists and hypocrits........Except me!

to sum up: no , they shouldn't conform, coz in the end, they win.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by an0n
Pfff. People should conform to norms dictated by the state. The state should not be forced to conform to the ideals and beliefs of a bunch of rebelling scum who want things changed just because they wanna **** each other in the ass.

Sure, if everyone goes "We like gays." then change stuff. But if a few people go "Change to law so we can be gay." they should just shoot them. When murderers, rapists and single-mothers try to change the law, they get ignored. Why the hell should gays get special treatment?

Death to all the non-conformists and hypocrits........Except me!

When I first read this, I wasn't sure if I was supposed to take it seriously. Hell, this is an0n we're talking about, so I know enough not to take him too seriously.

All the same, there are a few things I want to respond to in An0n's post that I feel need addressing.

Originally posted by an0n
Pfff. People should conform to norms dictated by the state.

This is true enough, as far as it goes. Of course for the rule of law to function and to keep society safe from murderers, rapists and other lawbreakers, people have to obey the law or be punished when they do not. That's not in dispute. However, the function of law is to keep people from harming one another. No one can reasonably claim that two guys having sex in their own bedroom in the privacy of their own home harm anyone else. Conservatives claim the opposite, but c'mon, what sort of harm does consensual gay sex done away from the sight of everyone else and in the privacy of their own home really do?

Yes, the state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting behavior that harms others, but here the court is only saying that the state cannot just prohibit consensual gay sex by just claiming "This is immoral, we don't like it so it's now illegal." The state now has to state a legitimate public interest if it wants to regulate behavior that might be considered immoral.

To illustrate, here are a couple of examples: Prostitution can still be outlawed because the state has a legitimate interest in preventing sex being sold for money. Bestiality can still be illegal because animals are incapable of consenting to sex with a human. Incest can still be prohibited because it very often leads to sexual abuse of children.

But consensual gay sex is now permissible because the state has no legitimate reason to prohibit it. Just saying "it's immoral" is not enough; there has to another underlying legitimate purpose for the state to prohibit it, as in the above examples. And as I said above, there is no way to say that consensual gay private sex causes harm. Since there's no showing of harm, the state can't have a good reason for prohibiting it.

That's pretty much the Lawrence ruling in a (mostly accurate) nutshell.

Originally posted by an0n
The state should not be forced to conform to the ideals and beliefs of a bunch of rebelling scum who want things changed just because they wanna **** each other in the ass.

Funny thing about that term "rebelling scum": gays are neither "rebelling" or "scum". They're not rebelling because they are just asserting their voice in our political system, the same as any other politically active group. They're not "scum" because I've met quite a few gay people through mutual friends and they were the nicest people I've ever met. All they want is to live their lives free of discrimination, something the Equal Protection clause guantees them as Americans.

Originally posted by an0n
Sure, if everyone goes "We like gays." then change stuff. But if a few people go "Change to law so we can be gay." they should just shoot them. When murderers, rapists and single-mothers try to change the law, they get ignored. Why the hell should gays get special treatment?

Actually, criminal defendants have managed to change some criminal law statutes by appealing their cases to the Supreme Court; they haven't always been ignored. Some of them were even innocent and had their convictions overturned. (Here's a rhetorical Zen question: If an innocent man is convicted of a crime he didn't commit and he later overturns his conviction on appeal, is he still a criminal?)

And gays aren't seeking "special treatment," they're only seeking equal protection and equal enforcement of their privacy rights that they are entitled to as Americans. It never ceases to amaze me when conservatives loudly proclaim that gays are seeking "special" rights when all gays want is to be treated like everyone else.

Back in the 19th and 20th Centuries, conservatives made the same argument about "special rights" when women demanded equal treament under the law as separate persons rather than be treated as the property of their husbands, when African-Americans demanded freedom from slavery and when African-Americans fought to get the right to vote. Today is no different. Gays are going to get equal treatment, the same as any other previously discriminated minority. The Court's ruling has made this even more inevitable.

If you're an American you're entitled to be treated the same as any other American, regardless of your skin color, gender or sexual orientation. Period.

Originally posted by an0n
Death to all the non-conformists and hypocrites........Except me!

This is classic an0n. It was this line that convinced me that he wasn't being (at least entirely) serious.

This is gays all over the country today:

This is conservatives all over the country:

This is me:

Any questions?

EDIT: I think Rictor asked earlier how the dissenters made their argument against yesterdays's ruling. I read the two dissents (one by Scalia and the other by Thomas) and I'll post summaries of both.

Thomas (his dissent was mercifully short, only two or three paragraphs) basically said that while this Texas anti-sodomy law was "silly" he thought it should have been the job of the Texas legislature to strike it down. But being a "strict constructionist," he didn't see the right of privacy applied at all because he doesn't even think the right to privacy even exists.

(Meh, Thomas never struck me as someone who is particularly smart anyway. He got to where he is through affirmative action, then decides to say that affirmative action should no longer be used to help promote other African-Americans. Classic case of a guy climbing to the top, then pulling the ladder up after himself so no one else can follow him to the top.)

I need to re-read Scalia's dissent to try to make sense of it. I already read it once so I can tell you guys for sure he was pissed.

[tEAbAG]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Something about "furthering the gay agenda" to make everyone else gay. Basically, conspiracy theory based on personal bigotries- sorta like ZOG with more pink.

Beware of the Pink Mafia!

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Rictor
Banned for a week and your first post manages to be as hatefilled as if you've never left

bravo:yes:

edit: or just very unfunny sarcasm. Sometimes I cant tell with you..

Looks liek someone missed you already an0n

[Nico]

Originally posted by Su-tehp
This is me:

Any questions? [/i]

yeah. how do you manage to do anything, if you're just a little board?

ok, I guess I'll go for a walk, need some fresh air.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Rictor
Since I really dont wanna read like 50 pages of legal mumbo-jumbo, can you please summarize how the "nay" judges made their case? I mean, what possible reason could there be for not allowing gay maarriages, other than to adhere to old laws which are clearly outdated and discriminatory?

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Something about "furthering the gay agenda" to make everyone else gay. Basically, conspiracy theory based on personal bigotries- sorta like ZOG with more pink.

Scalia did mention the Supreme Court "now taking sides in the culture wars" and "joining the gay agenda" or somesuch. But it did contain quite a bit more than that, including some very thoughtful analysis (but still wrong, IMO). As I just mentioned in my above post, I need to re-read Scalia's dissent before I can post a summary of it here.

More to come, stay tuned.

[diamondgeezer]

Religion and govenment policy need some sort of injunction to keep them apart. I mean if our government listened to the catholic church (for example), we'd have no contraception and be knee-deep in babies. Religion has no place in modern politics, thank you.

[Goober5000]

If we had no contraception, there'd be fewer teen pregancies and fewer cases of STDs.

(To spell it out - contraceptives create a false sense of security.  No contraceptive can protect 100% against either pregnancy or STDs.)

EDIT: Not that I'm in favor of a church-run government.  The government should be a separate institution from the church, but that doesn't mean legislators should be prevented from administering the law according to their religious convictions.

[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by Goober5000
but that doesn't mean legislators should be prevented from administering the law according to their religious convictions.

Oh yes it bloody well does. What if they're not my religious convictions? Like that woman last year who went to court to beg to be allowed to die - she was sufferring from motor neurone, IIRC. If it wasn't for the church, Britain would have leaglised euthanasia by now. But instead she's been forced to live out the remainder of her life in daily misery.

[Rictor]

Or the woman who drowned her baby becuase she didnt want him to live in sin? If you allowed the religious fanatics to take over, she'de be free.

[CP5670]

Thomas (his dissent was mercifully short, only two or three paragraphs) basically said that while this Texas anti-sodomy law was "silly" he thought it should have been the job of the Texas legislature to strike it down. But being a "strict constructionist," he didn't see the right of privacy applied at all because he doesn't even think the right to privacy even exists.

ah, I like this guy already. This "right to privacy" has to be one of the funniest political ideas around.

Oh yes it bloody well does. What if they're not my religious convictions? Like that woman last year who went to court to beg to be allowed to die - she was sufferring from motor neurone, IIRC. If it wasn't for the church, Britain would have leaglised euthanasia by now. But instead she's been forced to live out the remainder of her life in daily misery.

I never heard of that, but can't she just kill herself anyway? I mean, after you are dead, there is not a whole lot the law can do to punish you.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Goober5000
If we had no contraception, there'd be fewer teen pregancies and fewer cases of STDs.

(To spell it out - contraceptives create a false sense of security.  No contraceptive can protect 100% against either pregnancy or STDs.)

Goob, I don't know whether you live in the UK or here in the States (I know DG is in Great Britain), but in either case, if we didn't have contraceptives, we'd have more teen pregnancies and STDs, not less. Just because contraceptives are available doesn't make more people have sex.

While you're right that contracewptives are not 100% effective (in fact, nothing is 100% effective), the failure rate of most contraceptives is pretty low. I don't know the failure rate of any contraceptives, but how many times will a brand new, US-made latex condom fail if you only use it as directed? 1 time out of 10? Just think of how many pregnancies and STD transmissions that contraceptives have prevented. That's what they're designed to do, after all.

Originally posted by Goober5000
EDIT: Not that I'm in favor of a church-run government.  The government should be a separate institution from the church, but that doesn't mean legislators should be prevented from administering the law according to their religious convictions.

I don't know how things are done in England, (again, Goob, I don't know where you live) but in America we have the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, which basically prohibits the US government from supporting or helping to establish any particular religion over any other religion while at the same time letting each American citizen practice his or her own religion (or practicing none at all) in his or her own individual way.

The danger of letting legislators "administer the law according to their religious convictions" is that once you allow that, which religious convictions should be allowed to govern? Protestants and Catholics have been at odds over some religious ideas for centuries. Then there are the Jews, Hindus and Muslims. How do you reconcile their religious ideas in the law? And what about the atheists (like me)? If religion is injected into the law, how are we atheists supposed to deal with religious values and laws we want no part of?

Originally posted by CP5670
I never heard of that, but can't she just kill herself anyway? I mean, after you are dead, there is not a whole lot the law can do to punish you.

Um, CP, how can a woman suffering from motor neurone kill herself? I admit, I don't know what motor neurone is, but if it's anything like multiple sclerosis or muscular distrophy, where your nerves and/or muscles don't function, how could this woman even be able to pick up a gun to kill herself in the first place?

Originally posted by CP5670
Ah, I like this guy [Justice Clarence Thomas] already. This "right to privacy" has to be one of the funniest political ideas around.

The right to privacy isn't a political idea, it's a legal one (albeit with political consequences). And I've been studying it off and on for three years and I never found anything funny about it.