Gay Rights are Not Civil Rights

[Ronin]

When do I get to marry a carrot?

I say as soon as the carrot becomes sentient and develops free will ....I think you got a case.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I say as soon as the carrot becomes sentient and develops free will ....I think you got a case.

What about relatives?

[Ronin]

What about relatives?

if they are consenting adults...why the hell not?
I wouldn´t advocate something like that...but it's none of my concern/problem what they do.

[Rhyfelwyr]

if they are consenting adults...why the hell not?
I wouldn´t advocate something like that...but it's none of my concern/problem what they do.

Well they could create horrifically mutilated children for a start - and then its the childs problem.

[Ronin]

Well they could create horrifically mutilated children for a start - and then its the childs problem.

there are plenty of things that can lead to children being born malformed....including incorrect behavior by a pregnant woman.....

people also jeopardize their own health every day by eating unhealthy foods, having unhealty habits and engaging unnecessarily in dangerous activities for fun....

but we don´t make any of those things illegal....so why should this be?

[Rhyfelwyr]

So its quite acceptable that a baby should be born retarded and physically deformed, and grow up knowing that its mums also its sister - and we should accept this because we wouldn't want to trample on people's 'rights'?

Fat people make themselves fat, if they do extreme sports or whatever they are only endangering themselves.

The muddy water is over things like pregnant mothers smoking. This is a chance that it could cause some harm to the baby, but probably not enough to justify banning the mother from smoking.

There is a line though that can be crossed when things are no longer acceptable. For example, a mother who decides to celebrate finding out she's pregnant by drinking a bucket of wine.

[Ronin]

So its quite acceptable that a baby should be born retarded and physically deformed, and grow up knowing that its mums also its sister - and we should accept this because we wouldn't want to trample on people's 'rights'?

Fat people make themselves fat, if they do extreme sports or whatever they are only endangering themselves.

The muddy water is over things like pregnant mothers smoking. This is a chance that it could cause some harm to the baby, but probably not enough to justify banning the mother from smoking.

There is a line though that can be crossed when things are no longer acceptable. For example, a mother who decides to celebrate finding out she's pregnant by drinking a bucket of wine.

I will agree with you that I don't find this correct behavior....but then again...this isn't illegal...neither do I think it should be.

[Strike For The South]

Im going to agree with Ronin

[Yoyoma1910]

So wait, all y'all still talking about carrots? Because wouldn't the breeding of a human and a carrot create strange mutations anyway?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Pregnancies are difficult when it comes to rights because in the end there are two people involved, and only one can consent when harm is being done.

This doesn't just apply to people who see foetuses as human, because many of the defect caused by stupidity during pregnancy are not apparent until the baby is born, and recongnised as a human in everyones eyes.

But then, what can you do in reality?

[m52nickerson]

All I can say is what happened to:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Were are the equal right?

Why are we preventing some peoples pursuit of happiness when it will not take away from our own?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Because marriage is a specific privilege recognised by the government. If priveleges had to be accepted by the government to comply to human rights, then nobody would ever pay taxes.

Really, any marriage at all should not be recognised by the government. If the gay marriage activists attempt to argue that homosexual marriages are constitutional, they are doomed to failure, because no marriage is constitutional, it is a seperate contract between two people, non-related to the state. Whether or not the current marriage system practical in reality, homosexuals are not discriminated against from a legal point of view, and so cannot complain on those grounds.

Heterosexual marriages are a quirk in the system. Arguing against the nature of marriage is also not the correct approach, some people may give marriage a different meaning but it won't change what marriage has always been taken for granted as meaning.

The only constitutional option, as far as I can see, it to scrap marriage altogether regarding its priveleges recognised by the government, and make it a purely religious institution. Of course it doesn't have to be specifically religious, any two people can enter into a contract.

The bonus of this is that I also wouldn't have to recognise this contract, no more than the state would recognise my own if I was to marry. Everyone can have their own views on what marriage means.

[m52nickerson]

it is a seperate contract between two people, non-related to the state. Whether or not the current marriage system practical in reality, homosexuals are not discriminated against from a legal point of view, and so cannot complain on those grounds.

Since it is the states that issue a marriage license that state is related.

The problem is that marriages confer privileges on those couples that can't be duplicated by other contracts, like filing taxes jointly, tax withholding at the married rate.......

Civil unions do not even confer these. So Homosexual couples are discriminated against.

[ICantSpellDawg]

All I can say is what happened to:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Were are the equal right?

Why are we preventing some peoples pursuit of happiness when it will not take away from our own?

There is no evidence that anyone who wrote that had the "right of gays to marry one another" in mind. In fact, I believe that they would have balked at the notion. Gay marriage is one of those unfathomable - not because it was technologically out there, but because it is absurd.

This is no civil rights issue.

[m52nickerson]

There is no evidence that anyone who wrote that had the "right of gays to marry one another" in mind. In fact, I believe that they would have balked at the notion. Gay marriage is one of those unfathomable - not because it was technologically out there, but because it is absurd.

This is no civil rights issue.

Am sure when the second amendment was written they did not has modern weapons in mind, perhaps we should only be allowed to own muskets.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Am sure when the second amendment was written they did not has modern weapons in mind, perhaps we should only be allowed to own muskets.

The Declaration of Independence holds no legal sway over the Constitution, Jefferson owned slaves, yadayadayada.

[m52nickerson]

The Declaration of Independence holds no legal sway over the Constitution, Jefferson owned slaves, yadayadayada.

Your right, but it goes to the point that just because idea like Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness did not have modern specifics in mind does not mean they are not relevant today. It was no the principal that all men are created equal that slaves were freed.

So, how do you justify standing in the way of others pursuit of happiness.

[Strike For The South]

I made a strawman SOZ

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So, how do you justify standing in the way of others pursuit of happiness.

Don't ask silly questions like that mr. nickerson, this thread is about the constitution

[m52nickerson]

Don't ask silly questions like that mr. nickerson, this thread is about the constitution

.....and I thought it was now about Gay marriage, oh it was.

That arguments of if marriage it self civil right or not is used because people who support traditional marriage know that it is not going to be taken away. The constitution for the a large part states what government can't take from people, so it is no surprise that marriage is not in their. With all the argument against gay marriage people forget we are talking about people who just want to build a life together just like hetero couples. Whether you like it or not, if you are arguing against gay marriage you are arguing against peoples pursuit of happiness.

[ICantSpellDawg]

.....and I thought it was now about Gay marriage, oh it was.

That arguments of if marriage it self civil right or not is used because people who support traditional marriage know that it is not going to be taken away. The constitution for the a large part states what government can't take from people, so it is no surprise that marriage is not in their. With all the argument against gay marriage people forget we are talking about people who just want to build a life together just like hetero couples. Whether you like it or not, if you are arguing against gay marriage you are arguing against peoples pursuit of happiness.

Should the government be able to restrict people from marriage based on age? If it is a civil right, why would you cut it off based on something as foolish as age?

Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman of an age described by law and without too many existing familial connections. There is no illegal or immoral discrimination going on here.

Since it is not a legitimate constitutional question and is a matter of public policy, the appropriate legislature should either change it or not. You are trying to make civil marriage into some bizarre metaphysical union based on a concept that is not inherent to the institution. By all means try, but try to play fair. Civil union, if open to all, is an interesting option as is the abolition of the civil institution of marriage to be replaced by an unions with no interest in the biological functions or family life. These should be looked into by the people who write and re-write policy and not by various panels of unelected judges with a separate hob description.

[m52nickerson]

Should the government be able to restrict people from marriage based on age? If it is a civil right, why would you cut it off based on something as foolish as age?

Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman of an age described by law and without too many existing familial connections. There is no illegal or immoral discrimination going on here.

Since it is not a legitimate constitutional question and is a matter of public policy, the appropriate legislature should either change it or not. You are trying to make civil marriage into some bizarre metaphysical union based on a concept that is not inherent to the institution. By all means try, but try to play fair. Civil union, if open to all, is an interesting option as is the abolition of the civil institution of marriage to be replaced by an unions with no interest in the biological functions or family life. These should be looked into by the people who write and re-write policy and not by various panels of unelected judges with a separate hob description.

Laws regarding age affects all people the same. If someone is to young to marry it does not matter their sex or the sex of the person they want to marry. With not allowing gay marriage there is discrimination because people are not allowed to marry because of no other reason then their sex. That is sexual discrimination.

Civil Unions don't carry the benefits from the federal government as marriage, so it is not he same. Couples in civil unions can't files taxes jointly. Insurance may not cover partners in a civil unions because there rules state that people have to be married. So no, they are not the same.

Please spare me the talk about the definition of marriage, or the institution of marriage, or the sanctity of marriage. Through most of history marriages were arranged, and not about love but about money, titles, positions. Then that changed. Marriage was to be for life. Then that changed. Then it was to be between a man and a women of the same race, or only for white people. Then that changed. It will change in the future as well.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Laws regarding age affects all people the same.

What?

Person A and person B cannot marry because of their age while person C and person D can marry because of their age.

You don't see how this is discrimination but you can see how allowing everyone of a certain age get married is (to someone of the opposite gender).

Do you mean that both are forms of discrimination but one is a form of discrimination that you approve of?

[m52nickerson]

What?

Person A and person B cannot marry because of their age while person C and person D can marry because of their age.

You don't see how this is discrimination but you can see how allowing everyone of a certain age get married is (to someone of the opposite gender).

Do you mean that both are forms of discrimination but one is a form of discrimination that you approve of?

What you fail to realize is that persons A & B can't marry each other or anyone one else because of there age. Persons C & D also could not marry anyone before they became of age, which also points out a huge difference. A & B will be able to marry once they come of age. It not a permanent positions they are in. Now if persons A & B are both the same sex, well that does not change over time.

So what else do you have?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What you fail to realize is that persons A & B can't marry each other or anyone one else because of there age. Persons C & D also could not marry anyone before they became of age, which also points out a huge difference. A & B will be able to marry once they come of age. It not a permanent positions they are in. Now if persons A & B are both the same sex, well that does not change over time.

So what else do you have?

So age discrimination is an acceptable form of discrimination based on the rhetorical evidence you've provided.

You assume that marriage in the state is about sexual love. If you didn't take this as an assumption would there be unacceptable discrimination?

[CountArach]

Because marriage is a specific privilege recognised by the government. If priveleges had to be accepted by the government to comply to human rights, then nobody would ever pay taxes.

Errrr..... what?

[Rhyfelwyr]

It is being argued that by not being granted priveleges by the government, homosexuals are being discriminated against. It was argued that their pursuit of happiness is being hampered because the government won't give them privileges that others do not have (eg people who don't want to marry, why shouldn't they get privileges?).

As was said earlier, they (homosexuals/people who don't want to have sexual partners or marry them) are not in fact being discriminated against, rather only heterosexual couples can take advantage of these privileges (in practice).

And I think everyone here agrees that privileges based on marriage are unconstitutional for anyone.

Although it could be argued that the traditional marriage deserves some form of recognition by the state.

[m52nickerson]

So age discrimination is an acceptable form of discrimination based on the rhetorical evidence you've provided.

You assume that marriage in the state is about sexual love. If you didn't take this as an assumption would there be unacceptable discrimination?

Limits based on age are just that, limits. They affect all people the same, and for the same length of time. Those limits are lifted when a person reaches 18, which is pretty much seen as the age of adulthood. So not it is not a discrimination, it is a limit.

.....and no to answer your next question not allowing gay marriage is not a limit. People's sex normally does not change, nor are there requirements that gay couples can meet to make it legal to marry were it has been banned.

Marriage is about love, but even without that factored in it is still discrimination that two people of the same sex can't marry.

[m52nickerson]

How about a civil liberty........

Civil Liberties are defined as, the rights to freedom of thought, expression, and action, and the protection of these rights from government interference or restriction. Civil liberties are the hallmark of liberal, democratic “free” societies. In the United States, the Bill of Rights guarantees a variety of civil liberties, most notably freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, expressed in the First Amendment.

or

Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference.

or

Civil liberties is the name given to freedoms that completely protect the individual from government. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it can not abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens.

and then from the Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[ICantSpellDawg]

How about a civil liberty........

Civil Liberties are defined as, the rights to freedom of thought, expression, and action, and the protection of these rights from government interference or restriction. Civil liberties are the hallmark of liberal, democratic “free” societies. In the United States, the Bill of Rights guarantees a variety of civil liberties, most notably freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, expressed in the First Amendment.

or

Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference.

or

Civil liberties is the name given to freedoms that completely protect the individual from government. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it can not abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens.

and then from the Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What is your point?