Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is exactly the logic that was used to defend legal segregation and, before that, slavery.
The harm in it is that both the right to abortion and marriage are basic human rights, not privileges granted by individual states. "States rights" is a crock. it has always been used to deny people basic equality.
Look, it is ridiculous to assert that abortion and gay marriage are rights. They simply aren't.
If you take marriage as an example, there are already plenty of laws on the books that regulate marriage. Close family members can't get married. They do a blood test in this country before you get married, which largely just tests for STD's. But in some countries, couples who have certain debilitating genetic disorders are barred from marrying each other. Such as if both persons have sickle-cell anemia. Polygamy is illegal, as well as age restrictions, which vary by state(some states you can marry as early as 14 with parents permission).
Not only is marriage not a right in this country, sex itself is regulated and can be illegal. Marriage is a legal contract, whose guidelines and obligations are regulated by the state. Moreover, marriage is nowhere to be found in the constitution. Because it simply isn't a right, at least not an absolute right, just like freedom of speech is a right, but not an absolute right. There are several restrictions placed on free speech.
Secondly, abortion is also not a right. Had it been a right, it would have been there since 1787 when they created the constitution. Nor is it a natural right to have an abortion, and in no society on Earth in all of history, was it ever acceptable for a woman to have a selective abortion. The whole concept of abortion as a right, is not based in anything whatsoever. It was the result of women making the statement that they have absolute power over any life which still resides within their body, and that the government has no authority over that life. Regardless of the fact that the government is charged with protecting life and liberty of all humans subject to its authority. And more importantly, if a woman who is pregnant is killed or harmed, and the baby dies. The person who caused the death of the baby, can even be charged with murder or manslaughter. That is most certainly a recognition by the states that the unborn child is a person with rights. And the same women who want to say that "a fetus is not a person", are perfectly accepting of laws that declare the fetus to be a person. As long as it means penalties for harm to that human life by someone else.
It is difficult for me to accept the idea that either abortion or gay marriage are basic human rights, since they have never been a right of anyone at all since the beginning of human history, until very recently. A "natural right" or "basic right", is something that has basically always happened naturally. For instance, freedom of association is a "natural right", freedom of speech is a natural right. Abortion is not a natural right, gay marriage isn't a natural right. It is a legal, social, or civil right. But that is not the same thing as a natural or basic right.
You could make a better argument that prostitution is a "natural right" than abortion. Prostitution has existed since basically the beginning of civilization, in every country and culture on Earth. Many times directly sanctioned by the government itself.
With that said, the regulations on marriage will invariably be turned over to society. And just as close family members can't marry, and polygamy is illegal, so is gay marriage.
So how should the situation with gay marriage be handled? I would argue, on a state level. Which has historically been advantageous for gay marriage. Had marriage always been regulated by the federal government, then it would still be illegal in this country. Since far fewer than half of the states in this country support it. Trying to make it a federal issue is in my opinion, disadvantageous to "the cause". Wait till at least half of the states adopt it, then you might have a case for changes at the federal level.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-13-2012 at 09:05 AM..
And I think, social/personal issues need to be left to the individuals. That was the premise of Bill of Rights.
I.e. the federal government. You will never be able to force people to accept something they consider to be morally wrong according to their religion. So until somebody comes up with some way to compromise on these two issues, every Presidential election will be decided by them. Our country will continue to go down the crapper while liberals feel all warm and fuzzy about supporting "equal rights" and conservatives continue to preach moral values, all while neglecting the issues that really matter. Everybody now has to suffer through four more years of Obama mostly because he was the pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage candidate. Romney was only the nominee by default because of Santorum splitting the social issues Republicans from the economic/business Republicans.
Leaving it up to the states would solve the problem because people in California for the most part think very differently from people in Tennessee. The federal government, in such a situation, should either turn all marriage rights to the states or agree to grant benefits according to the definition of marriage in the state in which the couple is married in.
I.e. the federal government. You will never be able to force people to accept something they consider to be morally wrong according to their religion...
The key word is "their religion".
The key to personal freedoms is... your freedoms, not that of others. Keep your nose out.
As for your understanding of my response, again: Bill of Rights was to secure the rights (enumerated and otherwise) of persons, NOT of states. Like I said earlier, if someone like wjtwet more than just thinks about incest for relationship, he/she should be able to do so with a consenting adult. Or, should state, or a mob rule dictate what he/she should or should not?
Abortion comes down to one simple question: When does human life and all the associated human rights begin? That's a matter of opinion -- much like capital punishment and that sort of thing. The United States Constitution defers to the states for such issues.
No it doesn't. Abortion falls under a privacy issue, which is protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Quote:
If the federal government wants to jump into the gay marriage debate on the basis of civil rights/discrimination, it opens the door to other things. Aren't anti-bigamy laws also discriminatory? Aren't they also telling certain types of marriage/marriage-like relationships that they are immoral and wrong? On what basis do you mandate acceptance for gay marriage while still leaving anti-bigamy laws in place?
Slippery slope fallacy. The state has no compelling interest to stop same-sex marriage. It has them for bigamy and polygamy issues. So until someone comes up with valid legal arguments on why the State cannot prohibit them, it's not relevant.
Factually incorrect. No matter how many times this is proven wrong to you people, you keep pushing the same lie. Marriage predates religion, and Christianity had no involvement for over 1000 years.
I do believe that the states should make these decisions - through the democratic process, with the representatives of the people voting towards the will of the people.
If you make everything federal, you only get one option. Whatever is the Federal law. The vastly, vastly different convictions of the white fundamentalist Quiverfull Christian in the Midwest and the liberal, professional person of color in a coastal city deserve government that serves them both.
People can and do move where the laws more closely reflect their deeply held beliefs.
Factually incorrect. No matter how many times this is proven wrong to you people, you keep pushing the same lie. Marriage predates religion, and Christianity had no involvement for over 1000 years.
Marriage is between man and woman, and has been since the beginning of the human race, no matter how many times you assert otherwise.
I do believe that the states should make these decisions - through the democratic process, with the representatives of the people voting towards the will of the people.
The will of the people does not dictate civil rights. That's called tyranny of the majority and completely in opposition to how our government works. The overwhelming majority of society opposed interracial relationships 50 years ago. The will of the majority was rejected in that case too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
