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.
Setting the matter of whether or not it's an act of injustice for a state within a federal union to not legally recognize homosexual marriage aside , is it really necessary to fight against what one deems to be injustice even if it occurs far from one's immediate surroundings ?
Necessary? No, not at all. If you're of the conviction that injustice ceases to exist the moment can't see it, then... Carry on. Speaking for myself, I seem to burdened down with capacity of empathy - I'd never make a good conservative, I'm afraid.
Quote:
In short the claim that those who oppose extending LGBT rights in general are doing so merely because they are prejudiced and/or hateful towards LGBT individuals is a very false one IMHO .
Why do you feel that it is better to let states enforce their will on their residents than it is to let the federal government force its will on residents of the nation?
Dont you think that if something is right or wrong it should apply to everyone?
I am trying to figure out why people prefer state tyranny over federal tyranny and I am guessing it has to do with the idea that if the federal government opposes their preference, moving it to the state can allow opportunities for some places to do what they wish while others will do what they dont wish. So better have some wins than a total loss.
I have seen politicians use it as a way to avoid taking a stance on a controversial issue. Rather than taking a position, they say "the states should decide" which allows them to get a pass on saying something that may **** off a bunch of people.
Great questions, great debate. Absolutely - state tyranny is far better than federal tyranny because as you said you can move to a different state and vote with like-minded people. In the end, like natural selection time will tell which legal structure was more successful.
But big picture, we are a federal constitutional republic. The states agreed to join mostly for common national military protection, for a stable framework regulating interstate commerce, and to protect basic inalienable rights which are believed to be from god and not subject to a tyrant's whim. Direct democracy exists on a state level, not on the federal level.
The current bureaucratic state of the federal government is grotesque and an abomination. I can only hope the next Republican majority slashes at least 50% of the government and shuts down a bunch of entire departments
Last edited by BlakeJones; 06-28-2022 at 04:05 PM..
Here's a good example of a liberal idiot taking things too far.
Who is advocating for sharia law? I'd just like to see society go back to normal. We're giving too much freedom and attention to the freaks of this world. Men shouldn't be running around in dresses and marrying other men. They should be marrying women.
I have young children and I don't want them to grow up in a world like this. Maybe you don't have children and, thus, don't have to worry about these kinds of things. Good for you. But some of us just want to be in a normal society surrounded by normal people. Is that too much to ask?
That's a little presumptuous of you to expect every other male in the country to be just like you. They are not. Humans aren't binary on sexual preference. The vast majority are completely heterosexual. Some are completely homosexual. Some are not picky at all.
None of my gay friends has any interest at all in a heterosexual relationship. It's the way they are wired, and that's not going to change.
As for men in dresses, why do you dislike Scottish men's clothing so much? Or Arab men's clothing?
And yes, you are asking too much when you want everyone else to conform to your view of how things should be.
I'm not religious. I don't want my kids exposed to perverts, which is what the left is constantly trying to push on us.
I'm very happy that we now have people in power that will fight against this craziness. The Supreme Court needs to act for the good of the people and society as a whole (even if the people don't realize what's best for them). It's very good that we finally have a Supreme Court with foresight and bravery to fight against the radical left.
If the Supreme Court allows states to ban same sex marriage, it is not going to change the number of people who are homosexuals. It will only be that, unlike you, they cannot marry the person they love and want to spend their life with.
If the Supreme Court allows states to ban same sex marriage, it is not going to change the number of people who are homosexuals. It will only that, unlike you, they cannot marry the person they love and want to spend their life with.
How does banning gay marriage stop gay people form being with eachother?
Are you suggesting that homosexuality is going to be made illegal again
Do you realize that every single one of your talking points were used to fight interracial marriage?
That's always the case when people argue against same sex marriage. And they still cannot demonstrate how same sex marriage harms them. The aren't forced to get same sex married, they aren't forced to perform same sex marriages, there is no impact. I am convinced to a certain degree that the main objection to same sex marriage is that the relations are "icky". Except for lesbian marriage, which most of the male naysayers find to be really hot stuff.
I personally believe that it is important that every single place on earth has the same rights. Even if 100% of a population thinks that gays shouldnt marry and only heterosexuals should marry, I would still believe that gay marriage is a right there (as long as government wishes to regulate personal relationships, I do not believe government should be regulating them to begin with). No government anywhere has a right to force their preferences on anyone unless those people are directly harming others.
Do you really believe that literally every single place on Earth should have the same set of legal/political rights accorded to its citizens ?
As far as government regulating personal relationships is concerned , are you merely referring to personal relationships of a romantic/sexual nature or personal relationships in general ?
Because at the risk of coming off pedantic , taken literally this statement would very well mean that the government has no right to prosecute anyone for fraud within the context of a very much personal business transaction .
Of course I realize that this is probably a rhetorical question on my part , since you have clearly stated that you do support government interference in cases of people directly harming others , but it's nonetheless important to risk looking like a smart aleck when it comes to discussions as these because usage of certain phrases is very important .
Taking the statement of " everyone should have equal rights " for instance , the fact of the matter is that said statement is far too often conflated with support for equality before the law/equality of opportunity .
In other words while I'd wager that upwards of 99% of people living in contemporary Western society ( myself included ) support every person being subjected to the same legal process during criminal trials and/or all adults of sound mind having the same opportunity to apply for employment/like things , taking the statement of " everyone should have equal rights " literally would very much result in allowing drunkards to become truck drivers , something which I imagine literally nobody ( including those who like to use this phrase ) supports .
Egalitarian spirited statements like this obscure the fact that equality before the law/equality of opportunity as classically defined should not be conflated with granting the inalienable right of everyone to engage in every possible facet of life , with homosexual marriage being a perfect example of this .
Since homosexuals can neither naturally conceive nor properly raise children , and it's of crucial importance that a child be raised by both a mother and a father ( a role which homosexuals obviously cannot fulfill ) , it's very much consistent for even a society wedded to the conception of classical liberalism to exclude homosexuals from this facet of life without ( naturally ) contradicting these aforementioned principles of equality before the law and equality of opportunity .
In short John Locke , Benjamin Constant , Alexis de Tocquevile , etc. , would most certainly not have been supportive of homosexual marriage in spite of being amongst the preeminent figures of classical liberalism .
Marriage comes with certain rights and privileges which I believe are necessary to have the best chance of producing stable nuclear families that raise stable and well adjusted children that benefit from two committed parents of influence from two sexes. For sure not all marriages end well, but traditional marriage gives society the best chance of prosperity.
That's not to say that some of these rights should not extend to gay couples, specifically the right for partners to be involved in hospital care or financial decisions, which is why I support civil unions. But things like IRS tax breaks & joint filing tax benefits should be for traditional marriages which incentivizes stable child raising
What about my gay friends that have children? Do they get excluded? How about heterosexual marriages with no children. Should they lose the tax benefits? Should elderly parents lose the tax benefits since they are well past childbearing age and their children, if any, have left home?
What about my gay friends that have children? Do they get excluded? How about heterosexual marriages with no children. Should they lose the tax benefits? Should elderly parents lose the tax benefits since they are well past childbearing age and their children, if any, have left home?
"What about my gay friends that have children? Do they get excluded?"
Yes, it is in society's best interest for children to be raised by two parents of opposite sex and the incentives should be as such. That being said, two same sex parents is better than no parents at all as it concerns orphaned children who cannot be placed in a traditional family.
"How about heterosexual marriages with no children. Should they lose the tax benefits?"
As I stated, 'incentives and best chances of'. Does not guarantee children but provides the best chance
"Should elderly parents lose the tax benefits since they are well past childbearing age and their children, if any, have left home?["
No, it's part of the deal.
And not for nothing, the previous status excluding gay marriage was not taking away any rights. Every single adult had the same right to marry a consenting non-relative adult of the opposite sex
Necessary? No, not at all. If you're of the conviction that injustice ceases to exist the moment can't see it, then... Carry on. Speaking for myself, I seem to burdened down with capacity of empathy - I'd never make a good conservative, I'm afraid.
Why should I care about their motives?
May I ask why you seem to believe that being accepting of injustice existing outside of your immediate surroundings is tantamount to lacking empathy ?
I mean would I be presumptuous in assuming that both you and I feel a great degree of empathy for those currently oppressed by the Taliban , while both simultaneously opposing a new invasion of Afghanistan in order to correct those wrongs ?
One obviously doesn't have to care about the motives of anyone , yet ( correct me if I'm wrong ) it seemed to me that you were implying that the stance I've advanced with regard to this issue is derived from being prejudiced and/or hateful towards LGBT individuals , which is why I brought this up .
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.
