posted
I wish it were as simple as pointing to a particular quality of maleness or femaleness that is absolute to each sex and therefore cannot be done without. Or perhaps I don't wish such a wish, because I like the mystique.
*shrug* For me, I've tried raising a boy in a two-women household, and I've tried raising a boy in two male-female households, and I have to say there's just something indefinably different about men than women. My two husbands (current and ex) are as different as two different men could possible be, yet they are both absolutely male, and something about that has been really good for my son. I don't think it was bad for my son to have two "mothers" for the years he did...but he did miss out on having a man in his life with the intimacy born of living in the same home.
But that's just one person's experience, and certainly doesn't cover the gamut of human variety. I don't think a child who is thoroughly loved in a healthy way is likely to be damaged irrevocably by what he doesn't have, whether it is a male or female parent that is missing. Everyone, I think, has things they must overcome about their childhood, whether it is poor parenting, lack of financial resources, missing parents, whatever. All things being equal (meaning the impossibility of equal parenting skills, financial resources, and other environmental factors), I'd say this was the spectrum of good to worst: two parent male-female; two parent same sex; one parent involved, one not so much; only one parent; and no parents at all. Just my opinion, but that's seems to me how it falls out.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: To brand marriage as the discriminatory lifestyle choice risks condemning it to cultural obsolescence
I do have several friends ( younger, straight couples) who have chosen not to marry out of protest of the lack of gay marriage rights. I think he has a point here.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that we all have rights of association, and the government has no business rewarding some people (through the tax code and through special benefits) for exercising this right of association in a specific way (i.e. same-sex marriage) at the expense of everyone else because this rewarding is tantamount to theft.
We have to ask the government to exercise our own right of association, and if the masses condescend to let us marry, only then we can marry.
I think all laws concerning governmental control over marriage should be removed and replaced with a system of voluntary private contract. If individuals wish to associate as in marriage, then they can create and sign an enforceable (for a fee) contract that stipulates the terms of their association.
In this way everyone inclduing homosexuals, heterosexuals, and polyamorists, can enjoy the full freedom of their rights of association.
Perhaps a counterargument to this proposal is that governmental subsidization of marriage promotes the greater good by ensuring a stable environment for children. Government subsidization does not cover the entire expense of raising children, so I think there is other motivation for getting married. Thus, people will continue to get married under a voluntary private contract system because whatever motivates people now to get married should continue to exist if government stops subsidizing marriage.
Removing government from our lives will streamline the tax code and remove excessvie administrative baggage, making the economy more efficient, and hopefully maing us all a little bit richer.
If marriages are good for children, then polyamorists should be allowed to marry. Some men have trouble remaining faithful to one woman. Suppose that the man has fathered children on both his mistress and his wife, then a polyamorous union would allow both of his children to have a father. The couple can consider the benefits of the polyamorous union on their own instead of being forced into awkward situations where the man cannot control his "cheating" because government has deemed, in its considerable wisdom, that we are not worthy of making our own decisions.
Posts: 178 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think part of the problem is the idea of the "traditional family." In modern American society we think of Mom, Dad and kids as the family. The "nuclear" family that supposedly permeates our society today is indeed disappearing as the census data shown previously indicates, but in reality, it hasn't been in existance for as long as people like to think either.
Throughout history the most traditional "family" that has existed is actually one man with several women. It was considered normal and even expected for men to keep a mistress even after he married. Women also often had lovers outside their marriage, though when they did, it was often much more discreet than a man was with his mistress.
We created this idea of what a family should look like along with television shows like Leave it to Beaver and other classic television. We put them on tv and stated, "This is a normal family." Even then it wasn't true, it was a new model of what the family should look like.
The nuclear family is simply Mom, Dad and kids. If you are remarried and someone is a step-parent, then you are not a part of the "traditional" nuclear family anymore. Likewise, single parents, same-sex partners who are parents, widows and widowers are all excluded from the nuclear family model.
At the age of 26, I can probably count on one hand, the number of friends I had in school and even today, who are actually a part of the traditional nuclear family, and I know for a fact that none of my friends in school came from a household with same-sex partners as the parents. In fact, in a group of friends my senior year in High School (1996-97) nearly 10 years ago there were 10 of us who hung out regularly. Of those 10, 3 of us came from what could accurately be described as a "traditional nuclear family." That's less than half. And, before someone brings class into the question, we were all from Middle Class homes.
The argument for same-sex marriage is not what is destroying the family. The "traditional" family began disappearing years ago.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jacob Porter: I think that we all have rights of association, and the government has no business rewarding some people (through the tax code and through special benefits) for exercising this right of association in a specific way (i.e. same-sex marriage) at the expense of everyone else because this rewarding is tantamount to theft.
So... you don't have a problem with the government rewarding some people (through the tax code and through special benefits) for exercising this right of association in a specific way (i.e. opposite-sex marriage) at the expense of everyone else? You don't consider that rewarding tantamount to theft?
Gee... I wonder why.
quote:Originally posted by Jacob Porter: We have to ask the government to exercise our own right of association, and if the masses condescend to let us marry, only then we can marry.
I think all laws concerning governmental control over marriage should be removed and replaced with a system of voluntary private contract. If individuals wish to associate as in marriage, then they can create and sign an enforceable (for a fee) contract that stipulates the terms of their association.
But you know that's not going to happen. Right? I mean, you're talking about something theoretically, when this affects people in real life. I totally agree that the government shouldn't be in the marriage biz. And there's as much chance of getting them out of it in my lifetime as there is of getting them to restrict themselves to police, army and courts, as they should.
In the meantime, there is a fairness issue that arises when my brother and his wife get goodies from the government that my partner and I don't get.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should all read the article in Time Magazine about this.
According to polling data, 38% of adult Americans are in favor of gay marriage, but 58% of college freshman are in favor of it, and many of those have Republican or at least conservative leanings.
The idea of homosexuality and gay marriage is much much more palatable to the next generation than it is to the current one in power. Doesn't mean proponents of gay marriage should give up and wait, but at least there is hope for them in the future. Progress comes with time, and the death of the close minded.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: At the age of 26, I can probably count on one hand, the number of friends I had in school and even today, who are actually a part of the traditional nuclear family,
Andi, you made excellent points. I only snipped for length.
I'm 42, and I was 8 before I even knew such a thing as divorce existed. My best friend told me one day that her last name was going to be different, and I was kind of blown away.
Things have changed fast in a short time, but I wonder if they've changed all that fast everywhere. My partner and I are still the only ones in either of our families ever to have gotten a divorce. Both of us married, intending to stay together forever, just like our siblings and cousins and aunts and uncles did and are doing. We intend to stay together forever.
Nowadays, most of the people I meet are from what used to be called broken families. We had some people over for lunch on Saturday, and one guy was describing his family, and I'm telling you, I would have needed a pen and paper to get it all. It was that complicated.
I think that a healthy and stable family environment is the most important thing for kids. I honestly do. Which is why it's so hard for me to understand why some people want to stand in the way of it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Throughout history the most traditional "family" that has existed is actually one man with several women. It was considered normal and even expected for men to keep a mistress even after he married. Women also often had lovers outside their marriage, though when they did, it was often much more discreet than a man was with his mistress.
We created this idea of what a family should look like along with television shows like Leave it to Beaver and other classic television. We put them on tv and stated, "This is a normal family." Even then it wasn't true, it was a new model of what the family should look like.
I don't know how true that is. American families have historically ALWAYS been 2 parent, male-female households. For the first couple centuries, divorce was RARELY allowed, and even then only in the cases of extreme spousal abuse. The 50's is when this family lifestyle was glorified and commercialized, but it wasn't invented here, it has long standing roots.
And if you want to look at historical marriages. Many African cultures didn't even have marriage, men owned a harem of women they could do whatever they wanted with. Arab cultures were polygamous, and in some cases it could go either way, with multiple husbands or wives. Ancient Greek culture in many ways glorified the man/man relationship, with a wife's only purpose being breeding stock. This was especially true to Spartans. But where marriage was applicable in many European cultures, especially in the AD years, monogamy has been more prevelant than polygamy.
The ancient Athenian statesmen Hippias, who was in charge of Athens in the years between conflict during the Persian Wars was actually killed over a three way love triangle with two other men.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, I do have a problem with government rewarding some people for exercising their right of association irrespective of what kind of association that is. The fact that I gave same-sex marriage as an example of this does not imply that government should reward people that have an opposite-sex marriage. I think this should have been clear when I said that I think that government should stay out of marriage.
If it were impossible that theoretical ideas could happen, then nothing would happen because every idea before it is implemented is theoretical. Thus, theoretical ideas must happen sometime because ideas are implemented sometimes. Maybe if more people believed that the government should properly restrict itself, then the government would restrict itself because people would vote for it to do that.
There is also a fairness issue when it comes to not having your money stolen from you and given to people that have never earned it.
Posts: 178 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, but you are talking about the sex life of married couples, not about the families. Mistresses haven't ended a two parent home, or at least, they didn't until the mid 20th century. A man was socially allowed to have a mistress, but it wasn't to interfere with his duties as a father and husband. For a man to leave his wife for his mistress was frowned upon heavily back then, and was not done very much.
Now a days it's alright. Couples stayed together back then because it was socially unacceptable for them to break up. So they had affairs, but they were very secretive.
As far as their sex lives go though, you are correct, a sizeable portion of men and women back then had affairs.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't know how true that is. American families have historically ALWAYS been 2 parent, male-female households. For the first couple centuries, divorce was RARELY allowed, and even then only in the cases of extreme spousal abuse. The 50's is when this family lifestyle was glorified and commercialized, but it wasn't invented here, it has long standing roots.
That's my point, at just over 200 years old, America is an extremely young country. I also didn't say that marriage consisted of one man and many women, but that the "family" which does not necessarily consist of marriage, was historically more often one man and many women a harem of sorts, whether owned or not.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: starLisa, I do have a problem with government rewarding some people for exercising their right of association irrespective of what kind of association that is. The fact that I gave same-sex marriage as an example of this does not imply that government should reward people that have an opposite-sex marriage. I think this should have been clear when I said that I think that government should stay out of marriage.
If it were impossible that theoretical ideas could happen, then nothing would happen because every idea before it is implemented is theoretical. Thus, theoretical ideas must happen sometime because ideas are implemented sometimes. Maybe if more people believed that the government should properly restrict itself, then the government would restrict itself because people would vote for it to do that.
There is also a fairness issue when it comes to not having your money stolen from you and given to people that have never earned it.
I know sL can speak for herself but I just wanted to add that as far as I remember, she is a Libertarian so I'm sure she understands what you're saying here. For me, I just think it is extremely unlikely that the government will ever do as they should and stay the heck out of marriage, so I fight for equality.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I still disputed your historical claim. Americans didn't invent the modern family unit, if anyone did, it's the Europeans.
How far back are you going historically? And what region of the world? I don't think you can generalize the history of marriage of the human species like that. You have to talk about it in terms of a specific culture. There has NEVER been ONE cultural norm dealing with marriage. Akkadia's version of marriage in 3500 BC was different from Egypt's, and from Greece's, and China, and North America, and so forth.
If you strictly mean European-American (Western World) cultural norms for marriage, then your harem of women theory is totally off and mostly baseless. Up until 300 AD, homosexual relationships and state instituted pederasty was a cultural norm, and sometimes was even mandated by law. But that's going back quite a ways, I don't know how far you intended to go back.
If you want to swing back to 1700AD, the family unit of a two parent household and kids was firmly entrenched in Europe and in America. Harems of women never lived inside the household, not in 1700, not in 1500, I don't even think in the second millenium.
If you want to bring other cultures into it that's fine, but then you are comparing apples to cows to volkswagons. The only commonality is that genetically, everyone on earth is human. Beyond that, behavioral connectivity on a cross cultural level doesn't exist when it comes to the family unit and marriage.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Should also point out that for most of the country in the first 120 years, the "norm" was one man, one woman, and a passle of relatives in close conjunction.
When discussing the evolution of marriage, don't forget:
-- The exodus of population from rural areas -- where it was more likely you'd have relatives nearby, and maybe in the same house, to help out with child-raising -- to urban areas where you were on your own. -- The increasing habit in the 20th century of putting older relatives in rest homes, thereby losing a source of cheap child care.
When the question is put forth, "Why do we need two-persom incomes when we didn't use to?" to condemn people for not staying home with their children, I wonder how much of it is because of the weakening of the extended family.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure where you're going with that comparison, theamazeeaz, but I think I disagree. Homosexuals can't get all the free milk they want.
To carry this dairy analogy further, they want to drink goat's milk. Currently the government says, "Well we aren't going to let you do that. You can drink cow's milk all you want, however, and we'll even give you cool stuff for doing it. But not goat's milk."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: I think what was intended was that saying, "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?" Meaning, "If you sleep with someone, he won't marry you because he's already gotten what he wanted from you." Or something along those lines.
quote:Originally posted by Jacob Porter: starLisa, I do have a problem with government rewarding some people for exercising their right of association irrespective of what kind of association that is. The fact that I gave same-sex marriage as an example of this does not imply that government should reward people that have an opposite-sex marriage. I think this should have been clear when I said that I think that government should stay out of marriage.
If it were impossible that theoretical ideas could happen, then nothing would happen because every idea before it is implemented is theoretical. Thus, theoretical ideas must happen sometime because ideas are implemented sometimes. Maybe if more people believed that the government should properly restrict itself, then the government would restrict itself because people would vote for it to do that.
There is also a fairness issue when it comes to not having your money stolen from you and given to people that have never earned it.
Amen, Jacob, but no one but the nuttiest of Objectivists thinks that such a thing can be accomplished overnight.
And by the by, a lot of the rights that same-sex couples are currently denied aren't a matter of them being given something by the government. They're a matter of being less restricted by the government. You should support that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not sure where you're going with that comparison, theamazeeaz, but I think I disagree. Homosexuals can't get all the free milk they want.
To carry this dairy analogy further, they want to drink goat's milk. Currently the government says, "Well we aren't going to let you do that. You can drink cow's milk all you want, however, and we'll even give you cool stuff for doing it. But not goat's milk."
Um... yeah. I told you it was too obscure. What theamazeeaz said was that gay people can have sex without marriage. But they want marriage anyway. Doesn't that say something good about marriage?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Treason: I know sL can speak for herself but I just wanted to add that as far as I remember, she is a Libertarian so I'm sure she understands what you're saying here.
<wince> No capital "L", please. I lost any hope of the Libertarian Party being more than a joke -- ever -- when the LP candidate for Lt. Governor in California campaigned on a single issue platform: ferret legalization.
Jacob sounds like someone who has very recently discovered the ideals of freedom and liberty, and tends to assume that everyone else just hasn't gotten there yet.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: For me, I just think it is extremely unlikely that the government will ever do as they should and stay the heck out of marriage, so I fight for equality.
Oh, maybe they will. But in the meantime, equality is an excellent first step.
posted
Porter, surely you're aware that no state in the union has ever had a ban on gay marriage; and that no such ban has been proposed, on either side.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Porter, surely you're aware that no state in the union has ever had a ban on gay marriage; and that no such ban has been proposed, on either side.
Whether or not it's labelled a "ban", Defense of Marriage Acts - which are present in at least 75% of states if memory serves - state that marriage is between a man and a woman only.
If that's not a ban in different words, feel free to prove me wrong.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh and if we're bringing up gender roles and such, what about a couple with someone whose gender role does not align with their sex. For example, a male identified female with another female or a female identified male with another male.
Considering the fact that you can get an operation to change your sex, how do people feel about that?
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Defense of Marriage Acts - which are present in at least 75% of states if memory serves - state that marriage is between a man and a woman only.
If that's not a ban in different words, feel free to prove me wrong.
OK. "Ban" means "prohibit" (according to Merriam-Webster); "state" means "to express in words" (same source). These obviously aren't related. There is no law prohibiting same-sex marriage; there are, however, laws declaring that the state will not recognize it.
Because of the First Amendment, my church membership may not be recognized by the government. Would it be reasonable to conclude that church membership is illegal in my state? Of course not.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is no law prohibiting same-sex marriage; there are, however, laws declaring that the state will not recognize it.
I submit that, for the purposes of this discussion, you are meaninglessly parsing words. The difference here is purely semantic, at least as far as the availability of civil marriage is concerned.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
For those who love Goat's milk, the government says, "You can have all you want for free--you just can't buy the goat." Or to be more exact, "... but only those who buy the cow get a subsidy."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not sure where you're going with that comparison, theamazeeaz, but I think I disagree. Homosexuals can't get all the free milk they want.
To carry this dairy analogy further, they want to drink goat's milk. Currently the government says, "Well we aren't going to let you do that. You can drink cow's milk all you want, however, and we'll even give you cool stuff for doing it. But not goat's milk." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um... yeah. I told you it was too obscure. What theamazeeaz said was that gay people can have sex without marriage. But they want marriage anyway. Doesn't that say something good about marriage?
Well, not THAT obscure... OSC even uses the cow analogy in Teacher's Pest with a little porcine twist, so I would have expected it to be slightly more well understood than it was. But, yes, the sex without marriage example was what I meant. People use the metaphor to discourage premarital sex by pointing out that sex is supposed to be a perk of marriage.
Though I think I like the idea of calling it "goat's milk." Not all people are comfortable with the idea of drinking goat's milk as opposed to cow's milk. Others think it is wrong. But the fact is, it's still milk, it's not unheard of, and people have been drinking it since forever. Why should I worry?
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference between prohibiting an activity and not endorsing it is "merely semantic"? Only in a totalitarian state.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will: you're talking about using the word marriage and attempting to practice it as a merely social custom. When proponents talk about gay marriage they mean the civil recognition, which is forbidden.
You're the one playing semantic games.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technically, no state has banned gay marriage.
What they've done instead is tighten the laws so that the option simply cannot come up, making such a ban unnecessary. No reason to ban what can't happen.
Of course, to the people in favor of gay marriage this is a very finely split hair indeed.
[ October 09, 2005, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Porter, surely you're aware that no state in the union has ever had a ban on gay marriage; and that no such ban has been proposed, on either side.
Um... that's entirely untrue. Almost a dozen states passed constitutional amendments last year which not only banned same-sex marriage, but some of which barred any kind of civil-union type arrangement that would allow same-sex couples any protections whatsoever.
There were people in Michigan who suddenly found themselves without health insurance when the government found that according to law, they had to cancel domestic partner coverage.
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Eliminating democracy and replacing it with oligarchy -- that's what really harms society. Including children.
Hmm... it's interesting. When Massachussetts made same-sex marriage legal, all of the antis were screaming about how the courts shouldn't do it; the legislature should. But last week, when the Govinator vetoed the California law making same-sex marriage legal, he said that such things need to be done by the courts, rather than by the legislature.
Pardon me if it's difficult to see such objections as being made in good faith. The antis are anti. They'll come up with excuses for it one way or the other.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I submit that it really doesn't matter at all whether "gay marriage" benefits children or not. Unless it can be shown that having same-sex parents significantly harms a child - say, worse than having straight parents who fight constantly - then the government should stay the hell out of it.
All other things being equal, the sex of the parents has no bearing on whether they are or can be fit parents. If they are unfit, it is for reasons that have nothing to do with their sexual orientation (e.g. abusive, deadbeat, negligent, etc.). As I've said before, perhaps having two "dads" and no "mother" is somehow less than ideal. So what? We don't legislate ideals in parenting. We legislate the bare minimum. Unless it can be shown that all gay couples, by nature of their being gay couples, are inherently less able to meet that minimum, barring gays from being parents is unjust discrimination.
Attempts to curtail the rights of gay couples to parent children by arguing they are "less than ideal", (a specious arguement anyway), are not born of considered interest in the well being of the children. They are born of anti-gay sentiment. There are hundreds of ways a child's environment can be demonstrably less ideal than having same-sex parents which we do not consider grounds for removal of parenting rights. There are even ways parents can be demonstrably harmful to their children* which we don't consider legal grounds for removing parenting rights. Why target gay couples, except for the irrational fear of them becoming equal participants in community and society at large?
*Straight parents can bicker constantly. Parents can be cold and un-loving. Parents can pass on their own bigotry and hatred. In fact, there are any number of negative qualities parents can pass on to their children that we don't consider legal grounds for loss of parenting rights. Why is some nebulous lack of "something" supposedly unique to one gender or the other more legitimate grounds than these?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
We disagree about the issue, and I think we always will fundamentally, but you present a very compelling argument that I'm going to have to think about.
quote:We don't legislate ideals in parenting. We legislate the bare minimum. Unless it can be shown that all gay couples, by nature of their being gay couples, are inherently less able to meet that minimum, barring gays from being parents is unjust discrimination.
And I compliment it because it's a solid argument.
BUT-- what happens if it gets shown, Karl?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It won't. I really believe there is no possible way that gay parents do not meet at least the bare minimum in child raising. What argument would you have that says they do not?
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't understand how it would be possible to do this without legislating a much higher "bare minimum" than we currently enforce.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But last week, when the Govinator vetoed the California law making same-sex marriage legal, he said that such things need to be done by the courts, rather than by the legislature.
Pardon me if it's difficult to see such objections as being made in good faith.
Only if you ignore the fact that a court in CA is currently hearing a case that will decide a very important issue about the referendum that was passed on this subject.
I think CA's referendum process is a poor way to run a government, but the legislature chooses to run over it on this issue? Why?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: This is what I compliment:
quote:We don't legislate ideals in parenting. We legislate the bare minimum. Unless it can be shown that all gay couples, by nature of their being gay couples, are inherently less able to meet that minimum, barring gays from being parents is unjust discrimination.
And I compliment it because it's a solid argument.
BUT-- what happens if it gets shown, Karl?
Well, if it gets shown, then barring gays from being parents would arguably be about more than simple unjust discrimination. But as others have said, I'm pretty confident it can't be shown. I'm also pretty confident that it can't be shown because it isn't true.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And by the by, a lot of the rights that same-sex couples are currently denied aren't a matter of them being given something by the government.
Obviously, this is true. No right can be something where the government gives someone something because this is a privilege. Rights are protected by the government.
quote:Jacob sounds like someone who has very recently discovered the ideals of freedom and liberty, and tends to assume that everyone else just hasn't gotten there yet.
Perhaps my application of the principles of freedom and liberty is pedantic, but people do seem to forget the principles of freedom, if they ever understood them in the first place, because they make laws that violate them. They need to be reminded.
I'm curious what any of your definition of equality is? Does this involve more government theft and special privileges? This isn't closer to a free society.
Posts: 178 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Schwarzenegger said that the people's will, as expressed by referendum, should not be reversed by the legislature. Of course, the people are not the courts. To claim that they are is nonsensical.
quote:Almost a dozen states passed constitutional amendments last year which not only banned same-sex marriage, but some of which barred any kind of civil-union type arrangement that would allow same-sex couples any protections whatsoever.
You state this -- and then tell me to check my facts? None of these states banned gay marriage. This is a matter of public record. Look at the laws. Not a single on prohibits gay marriage. They simply refuse to recognize it.
If refusal to recognize something is prohibition, then religion is illegal in the US. So's beauty. Love. Lots of other things that the government doesn't recognize or regulate.
It takes a special political perspective to claim that something is prohibited unless it's licensed and regulated!
[ October 10, 2005, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
