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.
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.
Why? Are you among those who believe that if the US were a (pure) democracy, that you would trust federal government more? After all, what you believe and support is technically a downsized version of that.
IMO, you either trust ANY government, or you don't. You either trust mob rule, or you don't. James Madison didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi
If I tell you that the Sun will appear in the East tomorrow morning will you ask me what I base my assertion on?
Yes. Would you mind explaining that too, besides answering my question you just avoided?
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.
You are comparing two things that cannot be compared. Interracial marriage has existed to some degree for thousands of years. Basically as far back as there was the ability for people to travel far enough to find people of differing races. The Romans regularly had interracial marriages. So did the Egyptians. Even in the bible there were interracial marriages, Moses married a dark-skinned woman.
Making interracial marriage illegal has no historical justification. Nor does it produce any potential burdens on society(interracial marriages are still "fruitful").
Gay-marriages have no historical basis at all. They have been frowned upon in every society throughout history, and every major religion has always condemned them.
To try to argue that gay-marriage equals interracial marriage, is just dishonest. In terms of "rights", there is a much stronger argument for polygamy and polyamory than for gay marriage.
You are comparing two things that cannot be compared. Interracial marriage has existed to some degree for thousands of years.
So has same-sex marriage.
Quote:
Making interracial marriage illegal has no historical justification. Nor does it produce any potential burdens on society(interracial marriages are still "fruitful").
The arguments against interracial relationships came from the Bible. There is plenty historical justification for it. Your prejudicial bias is quite obvious.
Quote:
Gay-marriages have no historical basis at all. They have been frowned upon in every society throughout history, and every major religion has always condemned them.
False. Rome, Greece, Egypt, China, etc. have all had same-sex marriage.
False. Rome, Greece, Egypt, China, etc. have all had same-sex marriage.
You need to understand the distinction between marriage and weird fetish relationships.
In Greece, there was pederasty. Which was basically old rich men who used young teenage boys, many times as basically sexual toys, because the boys couldn't get pregnant.
In all of those examples you mentioned, gay marriage was not a general right. Where it existed at all, was usually incredibly limited and brief. Mostly as a result of the emperor, king, or some other aristocratic type being gay, and declaring he had the right to marry whomever he wanted.
Basically, homosexuality has always existed throughout time. Where legal same-sex bindings existed, were always in places of privilege in society, and were always limited to that privilege only. Same-sex marriage has never in all of history been socially acceptable by and for the general populous. Even the acceptability of homosexuality itself was largely for the aristocracy only. The rich men wanted to "play" without consequences.
If you were going to compare a historic basis for same-sex marriage, vs a historic basis for polygamy for instance, there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever. Your examples of same-sex unions were limited to a tiny section of the population, only in very small and specific areas of the world, for very short periods of time. Polygamy has existed to some extent, all over the world, since civilization began.
As I said before, there is a much much much stronger argument for polygamy than for same-sex marriage.
In fact, there is a much stronger argument for "incestuous" marriage than for same-sex marriage. Historically, there has been much more "incestuous" marriage than same-sex marriage. Does that mean close-family marriage is also a right?
And yet, states have passed laws against them. Why?
We are having an argument about what is and what isn't a right. Marriage is generally seen as a right, but not an unlimited right.
In regards to natural rights, marriage has existed since the beginning of civilization. It has been seen as necessary by all civilizations for two people to come together under a social contract, generally for the protection of offspring.
But, there have always been restrictions placed on marriage, by every society. These restrictions can be classified more appropriately as unions that place a "burden" on society. Such as marriages between close relatives. In most cultures, there has been an age restriction, usually prohibiting marriage until at least puberty.
Interracial marriages had for the great bulk of history never been restricted, neither were they ever considered to be a social burden. And so there isn't a consistent principled basis for excluding those unions. And thus, they are a "natural right".
The same argument cannot be made for same-sex marriages.
One should realise that if the only debate the R-W have is concerning abortion (settled RvW 1973) and the civil rights of gays, they do not belong in the political arena. Obama captured 60% of the youth vote 19-29 and they support SSM 70% and are pro choice.
The evangelical movement aka tea party has done more for the atheist cause of a secularised country than they could hope to do themselves, not to mention, many of them are leaving religion in 20th century where it belongs. You cannot fool the folk anymore in the digital age when your policies are no more than christianity dressed up in a political frock or visa versa.
In 10 years when more baby boomers will be dead, the support for a liberal society will be far greater.
This is what should concern you as the states could move easily to a "one party state" with the GOP opposition marginal and irrelevant.
If you have had the desire, and a consenting adult to go for it, please do. Trust me, I couldn't care less about you or that other adult you would want to be with.
Just checking on how people stand on consenting adults marrying your vote is incest as long s they are adults is fine
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.
