Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendments?

[burgundy]

It's too bad you can't have selective job discrimination. Gays, men, women, should all be treated equally for the purposes of choosing your company's CEO. We ought to be able, though, to not hire a man at Hooters, or a homosexual as a breast inspector.

An employer can refuse to hire an individual if they can't do the job. I'm pretty sure nothing is making Hooters hire men, unless there's something I'm not aware of.

[AstroBlue]

So I guess you would of voted against Ammendment 29 because of 1 Timothy 2:11-15? Which I believe was historically used incorrectly by the conservatives as an argument against women's rights.

[burgundy]

Reform power of attorney law. Beyond that, the guy doesn't deal with the best reason not to redefine gay marriage: "51%+ of Americans don't want to."

Which fails against the best reason to redefine gay marriage: Amendment V.

[Jeremy]

Burg, I think there was a discrimination suit against Hooters, which led to them hiring guys. Or more guys, or whatever the case was.

[Fe 26]

What a load of condescending wank. It's not bullshit in any way. Sometimes the best way to make another party understand something is to use an "anchor" or "common understanding" to build your argument around. It's not trying to play on emotions at all, all it's saying is very simple: "If you think that Rosa Parks being forced to sit at the back of the bus was wrong, Why do you think it's right for a homosexual couple to not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple?". It's not trying to emote, it's trying to spark critical thinking.

If that sentence is bullshit, every literary work which uses metaphors, similes, comparision, contrast etc, to convey meaning is absolute bullshit.

Using emotions and fear to win arguments is bullshit. That sentence does that. It is asking the speaker to go "oh god, im not a raciest, by all means let them get married." It is not meant to get anyone to think. It's only goal is to get people to do what they want through fear of being labeled a raciest.

You don't need African Americans and the racism that was used against them to set common ground. All peoples basic right to be free and what that entails is universal. Being human is your "anchor" or "common understanding".

If you can't understand how people are abusing the civil rights movement to scare people into agreeing then you are probably one of the kindest and pureest hearts on this board.

As it stands no one has made a simple logical argument that I can see on why any human being deserves any rights. One side says they shouldn't get married because they can't make babies, or because its religiously immoral. The other side is saying "omg you are the raciest, how can you be the racist!?!"

Would someone please just cut to the heart of the matter and quit referencing? The truth that all humans deserve to be free is self evident. I know at least one of you can connect that truth to why gays marring is part of that.

[burgundy]

I can't inject my arguments into your brain. You have to read what I post and link.

[Fe 26]

I can't inject my arguments into your brain. You have to read what I post and link.

Thank god for that to, that board members can't inject things into my brain. I don't nead goatc.ex pictures shot into my brain at random parts of the day. And you fuckers would if you could.

[AstroBlue]

Don't doubt it for a second.

[Fe 26]

A really good question that needs to be answered is if being able to marry is a right. And why is a it a right?

We know that not everything is a right to everyone. We don't let 12 year olds drive, we don't let 30 year olds have sex with 11 years. Why is that? I would like to say because doing so, though it may make one side happy, could infringe on the happiness of others.

So, would it be correct to say that everyone has the right to do whatever they want as along as it does not infringe on the enjoyment of life of others? (that’s a big "if" though, we also live in a society where people don't have the right to kill themselves, regardless of how hopeless or painful life is for them)

Lets assume that is so. The question then becomes how would letting gay people get married effect the PHYSICAL happiness of others? This is the real question. How would allowing this, restrict other peoples freedoms and/or happiness? The answer to this question is the answer to this issue.

Religion doesn't apply this issue because Americans have freedom of religion, and the freedom to believe what they want. Homosexual couples can believe what they want about marriage, they have that right.

The government giving benefits doesn't effect this issue either. Couples who pool their resources have been proven time and time again to be more productive members of society. The government would get back what it put into said couples, be them strait or gay. They could also adopt if a person wants a union of two people to produce future members of society.

The jury is still out on pedophile. You can't compare the US to those ancient cultures. Their concept of sex was worlds apart from ours. Where ours is a expression of love, or desire of pleasure, theirs entitled all sorts of social class games, and domination. Uncles had sex with nephews because they were stronger and because they had higher rank. Rich wives had sex with workers to show them who was boss, who owned them. Sex existed beyond that of being attracted to others and as a way to dominate and control others. You can't compare that with to days culture. You can't put the same expectations on to days people.

The only real question here is how allowing homosexual couples to marry would effect other peoples rights in a physical way.

[Frogacuda]

You have it all wrong. I am held accountable to God for all of my actions. As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is not morally permissable because it is an abomination to God. My purpose, as a Christian is to please and glorify God. As a member of this particular gonvernmental body, it is my belief that I should cast my vote in such a manner that would be pleasing to God. Not casting a vote is unacceptable, as is voting into office those who would seek to grant homosexual's a type of marriage. Therefore, I will seek to vote those into office who will vote in favor of my views, as they are pleasing to God.

It's funny how greatly Judiasm and Christianity differ on this attitude. Under jewish interpretation of law, it is not a sin for non-jews to commit such acts. The law of the Torah is the blessing and burden of the Jewish people, and only the jewish people. God is not pleased by having those who have rejected him forced to go through the motions.

As for my personal philosophy, I think it is a mistake to regard the laws of this country as a moral code, and it is an abuse of legislature to inject laws serving no greater purpose than morality. The purpose of secular law is to promote order. It's to create an equitable, stable, and orderly society. They sometimes overlap, and some people get them confused, but it's an important line to be draw. There are many things which are almost indisputable amoral, but which aren't illegal, because they're private matters.

I've said it before and I think it bears repeating here: To beleive in freedom, limited or otherwise, is to make the concession that people should be allowed to do certain things that they ought not to do. It's inescapable. In this constitutional civil libertarian government it is not the place of law to make people do what they ought to do, but rather to protect others from being hurt by them.

I beleive it's wrong to cheat on your girlfreind, but that doesn't mean that I think it ought to be ilegal. You might beleive that everybody ought to go to church on Sunday, but I somehow think (or hope) that you wouldn't see a law requiring such as appropriate. It's because law and morality occupy distinct domains that only partially overlap. It's important not to lose sight of this.