Proposition 8: Who Needs Civil Rights Anyway?

Page 5 of 5 [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

24 Aug 2010, 6:38 am

visagrunt wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
I've also said I'm a pragmatist.


Here's where I get confused.

What is pragmatic about opposing same-sex marriage?


Well, this is what I believe and know to be true (and others have well-disputed my position).

There is a larger goal in mind for same sex marriage....the forcing of everyone to acknowledge homosexuality as equal and valid as any other lifestyle...ultimately punishing those who hold and teach otherwise.

Even if you claim it is only a minority of the Gay Rights Movement that would back such an end goal, there is no doubt that once they gain some positive legal footing upon which other claims for "equality" can be based, they will keep pushing.

Individual liberty says you can't force someone to accept what you believe.

Around the world, there are already courts that view that parents teaching their child that homosexuality is anything but normal and natural is to "poison" the child and should be equated to child neglect. The upbringing of your child is the epitome of personal liberty. I am the child's parent, not the state. I am morally obligated to (and answerable for) the upbringing of my child, not the state.

Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but see this issue as a legal linchpin event. If it goes one way, you will see a chain of events unfold with virtually nothing being able to stop it. Some might welcome it, others will be appalled by it. In either case, I can promise you that in the end, such a society would strip the rights of many to believe what they choose to believe and express those beliefs to uphold the "right to not be offended" (no such legal animal) of a few.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't need or want the state's permission to marry. I think state involvement in marriage has created more problems than solutions. That's my libertarian viewpoint. If you're gay/lesbian and want to "marry," go ahead and do your thing. Live with whether people accept or reject it. I know if I marry without a license from the state, many places could refuse to acknowledge my marriage because I don't have the state's blessing on my union. Well, anything I value from that piece of paper I know how to get via other legally binding methods, so I care not.

To acknowledge that you need the state's permission is to admit you are the state's servant and not its master.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

24 Aug 2010, 9:10 am

zer0netgain wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
I've also said I'm a pragmatist.


Here's where I get confused.

What is pragmatic about opposing same-sex marriage?


Well, this is what I believe and know to be true (and others have well-disputed my position).

There is a larger goal in mind for same sex marriage....the forcing of everyone to acknowledge homosexuality as equal and valid as any other lifestyle...ultimately punishing those who hold and teach otherwise.

Even if you claim it is only a minority of the Gay Rights Movement that would back such an end goal, there is no doubt that once they gain some positive legal footing upon which other claims for "equality" can be based, they will keep pushing.

Individual liberty says you can't force someone to accept what you believe.

Around the world, there are already courts that view that parents teaching their child that homosexuality is anything but normal and natural is to "poison" the child and should be equated to child neglect. The upbringing of your child is the epitome of personal liberty. I am the child's parent, not the state. I am morally obligated to (and answerable for) the upbringing of my child, not the state.

Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but see this issue as a legal linchpin event. If it goes one way, you will see a chain of events unfold with virtually nothing being able to stop it. Some might welcome it, others will be appalled by it. In either case, I can promise you that in the end, such a society would strip the rights of many to believe what they choose to believe and express those beliefs to uphold the "right to not be offended" (no such legal animal) of a few.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't need or want the state's permission to marry. I think state involvement in marriage has created more problems than solutions. That's my libertarian viewpoint. If you're gay/lesbian and want to "marry," go ahead and do your thing. Live with whether people accept or reject it. I know if I marry without a license from the state, many places could refuse to acknowledge my marriage because I don't have the state's blessing on my union. Well, anything I value from that piece of paper I know how to get via other legally binding methods, so I care not.

To acknowledge that you need the state's permission is to admit you are the state's servant and not its master.


Aside from the ceremony itself, as has been reiterated many times, there are tax and other financial arrangements and hospital visiting privileges vital to two people living congenially together. "Normal" is a word of personal prejudice.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

24 Aug 2010, 10:05 am

zer0netgain wrote:
Well, this is what I believe and know to be true (and others have well-disputed my position).

There is a larger goal in mind for same sex marriage....the forcing of everyone to acknowledge homosexuality as equal and valid as any other lifestyle...ultimately punishing those who hold and teach otherwise.


I question that such an agenda exists, that opinion could be the subject of coercion, or punishment. Even if this were the case, I see no basis for failing to make the correct legal decision in the instant case.

Quote:
Even if you claim it is only a minority of the Gay Rights Movement that would back such an end goal, there is no doubt that once they gain some positive legal footing upon which other claims for "equality" can be based, they will keep pushing.


And the validity of each of those claims will be tested, and those that are found wanting should fail.

Quote:
Individual liberty says you can't force someone to accept what you believe.


I don't ask you to believe that same sex marriages are fine, moral or upstanding. Only that they are legal.

Quote:
Around the world, there are already courts that view that parents teaching their child that homosexuality is anything but normal and natural is to "poison" the child and should be equated to child neglect. The upbringing of your child is the epitome of personal liberty. I am the child's parent, not the state. I am morally obligated to (and answerable for) the upbringing of my child, not the state.


I would be interested to see such a precedent. More importantly, I would be interested to see such a precedent from a United States jurisdiction. Even if such a case exists, I doubt that it would be of any precedential value in any US jurisdiction.

Quote:
Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but see this issue as a legal linchpin event. If it goes one way, you will see a chain of events unfold with virtually nothing being able to stop it. Some might welcome it, others will be appalled by it. In either case, I can promise you that in the end, such a society would strip the rights of many to believe what they choose to believe and express those beliefs to uphold the "right to not be offended" (no such legal animal) of a few.


If that's the case, then why has the sky not fallen in Canada? This is scaremongering with no factual basis.

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, I don't need or want the state's permission to marry. I think state involvement in marriage has created more problems than solutions. That's my libertarian viewpoint. If you're gay/lesbian and want to "marry," go ahead and do your thing. Live with whether people accept or reject it. I know if I marry without a license from the state, many places could refuse to acknowledge my marriage because I don't have the state's blessing on my union. Well, anything I value from that piece of paper I know how to get via other legally binding methods, so I care not.


This is an irrelevancy. The state is involved in granting permission to marry, and so long as it is, it must do so in a way that complies with the Constitution.

You have a valid public policy argument to make, but it is a different argument. Perhaps there is no valid role for the state in marriage, but in that case, all of the legal recognition of marriage has to go with it.

Quote:
To acknowledge that you need the state's permission is to admit you are the state's servant and not its master.


Lovely rhetoric, but the epitome of idealism over realism. There is nothing pragmatic in this sentiment.


_________________
--James


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

24 Aug 2010, 10:11 am

zer0netgain wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
I've also said I'm a pragmatist.


Here's where I get confused.

What is pragmatic about opposing same-sex marriage?


Well, this is what I believe and know to be true (and others have well-disputed my position).

There is a larger goal in mind for same sex marriage....the forcing of everyone to acknowledge homosexuality as equal and valid as any other lifestyle...ultimately punishing those who hold and teach otherwise.

Even if you claim it is only a minority of the Gay Rights Movement that would back such an end goal, there is no doubt that once they gain some positive legal footing upon which other claims for "equality" can be based, they will keep pushing.

Individual liberty says you can't force someone to accept what you believe.

Around the world, there are already courts that view that parents teaching their child that homosexuality is anything but normal and natural is to "poison" the child and should be equated to child neglect. The upbringing of your child is the epitome of personal liberty. I am the child's parent, not the state. I am morally obligated to (and answerable for) the upbringing of my child, not the state.

Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but see this issue as a legal linchpin event. If it goes one way, you will see a chain of events unfold with virtually nothing being able to stop it. Some might welcome it, others will be appalled by it. In either case, I can promise you that in the end, such a society would strip the rights of many to believe what they choose to believe and express those beliefs to uphold the "right to not be offended" (no such legal animal) of a few.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't need or want the state's permission to marry. I think state involvement in marriage has created more problems than solutions. That's my libertarian viewpoint. If you're gay/lesbian and want to "marry," go ahead and do your thing. Live with whether people accept or reject it. I know if I marry without a license from the state, many places could refuse to acknowledge my marriage because I don't have the state's blessing on my union. Well, anything I value from that piece of paper I know how to get via other legally binding methods, so I care not.

To acknowledge that you need the state's permission is to admit you are the state's servant and not its master.


How is homosexuality not normal and natural?


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


BigK
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

24 Aug 2010, 10:14 am

zer0netgain wrote:
Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but see this issue as a legal linchpin event. If it goes one way, you will see a chain of events unfold with virtually nothing being able to stop it. Some might welcome it, others will be appalled by it. In either case, I can promise you that in the end, such a society would strip the rights of many to believe what they choose to believe and express those beliefs to uphold the "right to not be offended" (no such legal animal) of a few.


Yep. it's the slippery slope.

Before you know it they'll take away our right to discriminate against who ever we want to.
We won't even be able to call a sinner a sinner any more.

We'll be brainwashed into electing a gay, black, woman president and there will be nothing on the TV but lesbian gangsta rap music.

It's the slippery slope man. No doubt about it.


_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

24 Aug 2010, 12:48 pm

a transgender, gay, black, woman president!
And apple pie will be outlawed unless it's made with locally grown organic apples in season, there will be mandatory weekly 'community meetings' where everyone is forced to gather and be indoctrinated in equality-think, catholic priests will run rampant amongst the children, evangelical priests will have gay sex in the isles, and then the species will go extinct because all of the women will be feminists and refuse to have children. No, they'll abort all of their pregnancies in the last trimester, and roast them for dinner at the community meetings!

We're doomed! DOOOOOOOOMMMED, I tell you!

/sarcasm



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

24 Aug 2010, 3:05 pm

LKL wrote:
No, they'll abort all of their pregnancies in the last trimester, and roast them for dinner at the community meetings!

How is that a bad thing? At least that will feed the hunger.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

24 Aug 2010, 3:07 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
This isn't ironic, it's rather a statement in itself from people who were once mistreated, and wrongfully so, due to the superficiality of their skin color alone.

If gay marriage is a civil right, there you have the blatant irony.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

24 Aug 2010, 3:08 pm

greenblue wrote:
LKL wrote:
No, they'll abort all of their pregnancies in the last trimester, and roast them for dinner at the community meetings!

How is that a bad thing? At least that will feed the hunger.
Do you mean the hungry? :P Feeding the hunger, ... hey, that might be a good name for the alien species on the Alien Quadrilogy. The Hunger. IDK, :P