Comments for Mass. Senate votes to let out-of-state gays marry »
Posted By TechnologyExpert 1 year, 5 months ago in StyleOut-of-state gay couples got one step closer to a Massachusetts wedding Tuesday when the state Senate voted to repeal a 1913 law that has been used to bar them from marrying here.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 177
-
Neutral
ningyo1 year, 5 months ago
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive9 Replies
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Forty-four state legislatures have passed Defense of Marriage laws..."
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=121
I imagine in these cases, it just the government working the way it is supposed to.
Know what I think? I think all this hollering about 'activist judges' or 'legislatures not listening to the will of the people' is a smoke screen. Y'all simply think gay marriage is wrong and what you really want is a federal ban on gay marriage so even states won't be able to decide for themselves.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are assuming as well that the Legislature is acting AGAINST the will of the people. Polls say different:
"# A statewide poll by Mass Equality in May 2005 found that 62% of those Massachusetts residents polled support marriage equality for gays and lesbians.
# Fully 84% of voters believe marriage equality has either had a positive impact or no impact on the quality of life in Massachusetts.
# 82% of those surveyed said allowing gays and lesbians to marry has either had a positive impact or no impact at all on traditional marriages, contradicting one of the core arguments of opponents."
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/a/MassO...
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 5 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
UnusualSuspect1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Luckily, traditions change...gay marriage probably won't become legal in most states for at least a decade or two, but it will become legal eventually.
Once the people who are afraid, or don't understand, are dead and gone, things will change. That's the way it's always been, and that will also be the case for gay marriage, too.
Reply -
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How is it an attack? How does two people's personal relationship harm another?
Prove to me that a family is physically harmed by the existence of another family and I will gladly stop pressing to have the same rights as every other tax paying citizen.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 5 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, stop it, ningyo! Give it up! The issue is one of institutionalized discrimination under the law.
It's rightly recognized that no plebiscite supporting that discrimination can be allowed to stand, as none could that barred blacks from opportunities other races enjoyed.
Now, as for the MA decision: apart from the reasonableness of the decision, the state recognized the economic advantages of allowing out-of-state gays to get married there.
All-in-all, a good thing!
Reply -
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 5 months ago
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive26 Replies
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What is your point, Global? That because a judge can make a wrong decision, gays should be prohibited from getting married?
That "the people" should be given the right to uphold discrimination because a judge may be fallible or make a decision with which someone disagrees?
Reply -
Neutral
ghengisghan1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Voted on by public ballot issues..."
Not always. The Vermont state legislature passed their Defense of Marriage act without a ballot initiative. So did Michigan. So did South Carolina. So did Washington. There are likely others as well.
I didn't see you hollering about those, nor did I expect to. Folks like you and ningyo simply don't want gays getting married. Everything else is a smoke screen.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, like slavery was one of the mores of the south.
The Defense of Marriage acts in the states I mentioned were laws instituted by state legislatures without being ballot initiatives. Isn't that what you are complaining about in the first place?
Reply-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When did I say it had 'universal acceptance'? It certainly had state acceptance.
Again, I'm not talking about constitutional amendments, I'm talking about LAWS that were passed by state legislatures without ballot initiative. That was the whole crux of your argument against the MA state legislature action.
You holler when such action allows gay marriage, but not when it forbids gay marriage. This supports my assertion that what you are REALLY opposed to is the issue of gay marriage itself, not some 'legislature overstepping bounds' nonsense.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We're arguing in circles now. Of the states where the people have spoken, the people have spoken. Of the states where the legislatures decided, have the people spoken or not?
Further, and more to the point, are the people always right?
Reply-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, that is what YOU are doing. You stated your opposition against the action of the MA legislature because there wasn't a ballot initiative. I have pointed our several laws prohibiting gay marriage that were passed by state legislatures without ballot initiatives. Somehow those legislated laws are OKAY if they are against gay marriage, but COMMUNISM if they are for gay marriage.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Constitutions are used to GRANT rights, not take them away. You are a fool if you think that those laws will hold under legal scrutiny.
Just like the sodomy laws which now are gone forever thanks to the diligent work of some incredible lawyers and some brave judges.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 5 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
ZippySpincycle1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tangent: "The point is, the public cannot, say, vote that people no longer have the right to peaceably assemble."
Dropkick: "Actually, if it was an amendment to the Constitution, yes they do."
Provisions of state constitutions which conflict with the US Constitution are unconstitutional, thanks to the 14th Amendment. Therefore, a state could NOT legally pass a constitutional law to rescind the rights of free speech, freedom of assembly, or, for that matter, gun ownership.
The process of amending the US Constitution, as I'm sure you are aware, is NOT subject to public vote--it's all done through Congress and the States.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We are not talking about amendments, you are. We are talking about if you give rights to one American citizen through laws, you have to give those rights to all American citizens or none of them. Otherwise that law is unconstitutional.
You choose. Everyone gets the same rights. And we finally are moving in that direction. Or no one does.
What's it going to be?
Reply-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Marriage isn't in the Constitution, moron. It's rights are granted through a series of laws. Those laws are not Constitutional because they discriminate on who can get married and who can't. Your circle speak that you learned so well from Bush and Rove doesn't work here.
Reply-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I asked him point blank to show proof of physical harm to any other marriage caused directly by a same sex marriage and apparently he would rather spew more idiotic rants. That's why I have since blocked him.
Several other countries have had marriage equality for years now and there is no proof anywhere that opposite sex marriages were harmed.
If anyone can show me physical proof of how an unrelated marriage can affect another unrelated marriage, I will eat my hat.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
agoodlibertarian1 year, 5 months ago
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
States have their own rules for constitutional amendments. An amendment to the US Constitution requires a 2/3 majority of both the House and Senate and then ratification by 3/4 of the states. It can also be amended through a State Convention, but that method has never been used and would be fairly complicated.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The US Constitution may be amended in two ways:
1. After passage by 2/3 of a quorum in Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states, either their legislatures or special conventions, as established by Congress
2. At a Constitutional Convention convened by congress upon application by 2/3 of the states.
So: Congress may propose amendments, but each STATE gets a vote to enact them. Consequently, NO individuals get a vote on a Constitutional amendment.
Each state sets the requirements for the amendment of its own constitution, so people DO get to vote on state amendments. State constitutions are subject, however, to the Federal legislature, and to the Federal judiciary.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, it is OK to force "your" morals onto others? Assuming so, then we can dispense with the typical "don't force your morals on me" argument for while gay marriage should be allowed and move on to substantive issues. Why are the morals of person X better than those of person Y and so it is OK for society to force the morals of person X onto person Y and the rest of society.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gay marriage doesn't force morals on anyone. Denying gay marriage does. Marriage is a state institution being denied to a particular class of people. It's like saying blacks can't vote.
Abolishing slavery WAS 'forcing morals' on its face, but underneath it was a constitutional issue.
Reply-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On its face, and in fact. It is a moral issue to say people must be treated the same regardless of race. There is no biologically or natural law to say this, therefore, we have made it up based on "our" ideas of right and wrong. ie, morals.
It is a moral issue to say that marriage must, or must not, be sanctioned between two men or two women. I guess we should change the law to allow parents to marry their kids (over 18), siblings to marry, etc. And we certainly should not say anything negative about those who just love each other and want to do this. Wouldn't want to force morals on anyone.
Every law is a moral judgement. Every law forces its moral judgment onto others and forces them to act (or not act which is forcing the opposite action) in a way that "you" find appropriate. ie, forces "your" morals onto others.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
US laws are essentially to prevent harm, working from the assumption that all people are equal. In general, behaviors are not prohibited unless they deprive another of their inherent rights. Incest in general is demonstrably harmful, both psychologically and through the high potential for genetic defects in progeny.
The 'morals' that prohibit gay marriage are largely artificial, since there is no demonstrable harm.
I have heard the argument before that allowing gays to marry would be a 'slippery slope' that will end in people marrying their pets. It's just another logical fallacy. Other countries that allow gay marriage have seen no such thing.
Reply-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, I'll post again assuming propeller ate my post :(
There is no real problem from genetics on a population basis from incest. That is an urban legend. Maybe for an individual, but not a society. If this were truely the issue, we would test all people prior to allowing them to mate to ensure birth defects would not be expected. This is ENTIRELY a social contruct forced onto people who in many cases do not agree.
Psychologically, I thought people over 18 should be able to decide for themselves who to marry and sleep with. That has been the MAIN basis for the discussion for why gay marriage should be legal. "Stay out of my bedroom. Who are you to tell me who I can sleep with if it makes me happy."
iirc, it was one of SCOTUS justices saying there was no logical way to decide that incest, polygamy, or ****** could be illegal if gay marriage was legal. Someone can probably find this info.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"...no logical way to decide that incest, polygamy, or ****** could be illegal if gay marriage was legal."
On it's face, this seems little more that a 'slippery slope' argument. Again, other countries that have legalized gay marriage have not had this problem. Looking a little deeper, the argument has some merit, but to say the law couldn't make these sorts of distinctions is frankly wrong. If marriage is an institution entered into by a pair of equals, for instance, polygamy could be reasonably outlawed because it is essentially saying one man is the equivalent of two or more women. Parent-child incest is again between two unequal parties, similar to sexual harassment laws. Be$tiality has one non-consensual party, the same reasoning that underpins anti-animal abuse laws. Brother/sister marriage would be a bit more complicated, but psychologists agree such a relationship is an inherently unhealthy confusion of familial intimacy with romantic intimacy.
Reply-
-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I enjoy it as well :D I know I slip sometimes, but I try to remain pleasant.
The 1:1 relationship has no reasonable foundation. Except, again, "your" morals. Many societies today and throughout hisotry have gone for the multiple partners theory. To say "we should overturn a thousand [sic] years of hisory of man:woman marriage for man:man, but 1:1 is sacrosanct" is kind of hard to support.
I did say parent child > 18.
You can get psychologists to say anything you want. Again, if you want to say "anyone can marry whomever they want in an adult consensual relationship" you can not exclude incest. To say "a psychologist can say it would cause problems" would imply that we must give psychological exams and prevent marriage of people for whom marriage to a specific person would cause psychological harm.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You make very good arguments. I like it when I'm challenged. Personally, I don't think there should be a tax benefit for marriage alone. Raising kids should be rewarded. DINKS (Double Income No Kids) already get an advantage by virtue of a shared household. There is no reason to reward their 'commitment' to each other through tax breaks. However, a committed partner should have rights regarding medical decisions, hospital visitation, insurance benefits, etc.
You may not agree, but I think it is appropriate for gay couple to be able to adopt. Marriage was originally about the legitimization of children. I think loving families, regardless of their gender composition, should be fostered and rewarded.
Reply-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's been fun :D I am not 100% sure how I feel about gay marriage. Personally I am currently of the opinion that marriage is a religious institution and the state has no place in it. Civil unions should be the government's version of marriage for all people and marriage should be for the churches. This is a different idea than most have, I know, and so many people just lump me into one side or the other because I don't agree with "them".
Marriage has a history and has prestige (? can't think of a better word). That is one reason gays want marriage rather than civil unions defined under the law as the same (seperate defined as equal. A dozen = 12 regardless of the fact that the words are different, they are equal). But they want the history that comes with the concept of marriage even if, at least in the US, they don't actually have any of the history.
Reply-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It makes sense. You can either get something new that has to be molded, or you can "take" something from others that they have built up over generations. Why would you go for the thing that you have to work for? That isn't a great explanation, but I'm not able to come up with the perfect right now. Basically, tradition is that marriage is 1:1 male:female. You want male:male? That should be a different term. You think this means that secular governemtn (won't argue how BS this idea is :D )should make it equal with man:woman? Fine, change that one as well.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
More power to them. State legislatures should be dealing with issues of marriage. If the voters don't like it, they can vote out these representatives and replace them with another batch who remove this law. Or they can like it and maybe other states will follow suit. At the same time, other states have the right to say "no" and to not recognize these marriages. States rights FTW!
Reply-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, state X can create law for state Y? No. Either marriage is a state issue or it is not. Take your pick.
This certainly explains why it's such a hot button issue. One side wants to impose their morals on the rest of the nation through a non-representative process. Sounds like a problem that has come up in the history of the US in the past...
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"One side wants to impose their morals on the rest of the nation through a non-representative process."
From that point of view BOTH sides want to 'impose their morals'. Yes, the Constitution is 'non-representative', that is its point - to stop a tyranny of the majority.
State laws DO cross borders. Because I am licensed to drive in Colorado, I can legally drive anywhere in the US. Marriage is more complicated, but essentially the same issue applies. A state cannot refuse to recognize an interracial marriage, for example.
Reply-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"From that point of view BOTH sides want to 'impose their morals'. " BY JOVE I THINK HE'S GOT IT!!!!!!
Major breakthrough of the day :D
I've been over this before. CA does not allow cars to be sold in the state that pass other state's standards, but do not pass CA's. Banks run on different rules in each state because laws do not transcend state borders. There are thousands of laws that are state specific. Sorry, you can find an example to prove that laws can but do not always cross borders. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the state can decide or reject these marriages. Then you allow state sovereignty and state rights. Otherwise, we go back to the feds to steal more power and enforce "their" morals on the states.
Reply-
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
This was the point of DOMA(Defense of Marriage Act), passed in 1996. It allowed States opposed to gay and lesbian marriage not to recognize such marriages from states that allowed it.
Reply-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I didn't know that. Kinda like I learned the the Con is irrelvant from Propeller becasue treaties outweight the con meaning all that is needed is a majority vote in the Senate (I think) to eradicate any portion of the Con they feel like.
Having read this, however, it seems just as reasonable to say that if a public act says you can not have gay marriage in 1 state then you can't in another...
Guess next time i move states, i'll tell my new state i already ahve a lisnce from another state and they can't make me get one from their's. I'll tell VA i can legally ahve a radar detector in another state, so too bad. Or any of a dozen other examples. I guess we need to redo MANY laws in the US.
Reply-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you are charged with using one in Virginia, the Maryland(or wherever) sheriff is required to give you the summons. And if you are charged often enough to be charged with a felony, the Commonwealth of VA can extradite you from SC (or wherever) even though what you did here is legal there. In other words, the constabulary is required to enforce Virginia's ruling on this matter wherever you are, and whether it is legal there or not. And the same should be true of legally established relationships, like marriages or adoptions or guardianships or powers of attorney.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My goodness, Global, you are a homophobe! And, it sounds, a puritan as well.
Surely it would be a better, more morally hygienic world if everyone derived sexual pleasure from the exact SAME sexual practices--that is, the ones that you endorse, no?
NO!
The vehemence of your rejection (let's call it) of male-male anal intercourse (presumably, you find the male-female kind not quite so disgusting) says VOLUMES about YOU, not about gay sex.
And those volumes don't make pretty reading.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I stand corrected.
The action was to "...repeal the law, which prohibits couples from obtaining marriage licenses if they couldn't legally wed in their home states."
As it stands now, states do not have to recognize these marriages.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
smeejay1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Gentlemen, i offer this resolution... that the States of the Union may ratify it. Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and adverse to every sentiment of pure american spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremecy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania...let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy"
In December 1912 and in January 1913, Representative Seaborn Roddenberry introduced a proposal to the United States House of Representatives to insert a prohibition of inter-racial marriage to the U.S. Constitution and thus create a nation wide ban on inter-racial marriage.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
smeejay1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've always wondered what is "right" or "wrong". How do you determine what interracial marriage is "right"? If the North lost the civil war, would we now consider it "wrong"? What biologically or naturally defines interracial marriage as "right"? If nothing does, then it must be someone's mores, forced onto others who may disagree. And if it is not a natural law, then who has the moral authority to decide this?
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In my opinion, the 'morals' contained within the US Constitution are rooted in Rationalism which begins with the notion that all people are inherently equal. Everything follows 'naturally' from there. The Constitution does not grant rights, it prevents inherent rights from being infringed. Basically, you get to do what you want unless and/or until it infringes on the rights of another. Which leads to my basic question for those who oppose gay marriage: "How does gay marriage infringe on anyone else's rights? What is the possible harm?"
Reply-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But is based on a set of morals which are based on???? Nothing basically. They are not even universally accepted in the world or even in the US. Everything comes from peoples preferences and which preferences they like to force onto others.
"Theology. the doctrine that human reason, unaided by divine revelation, is an adequate or the sole guide to all attainable religious truth."
So, basically rationalism says "I am right because I say so and therefore no one can debate me because I neither have nor need any basis for my opinion".
Your question keeps presupposing you are right in your opinion of mores. You keep glossing over any defense of your position and any logically reason that you are right. Except you seem to imply that it is your mores and is, therefore, entirely appropriate to force onto others.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fair enough. I'll give it my best shot:
Rationalism is derived from the notion of "I think, therefore, I am", perhaps the most unarguable philosophical proposition we have. It goes roughly like this: I exist. I perceive others. I see no evidence my existence is either inferior or superior to that of another, therefore I accept no authority over me, nor do I attempt to inflict authority over others.
I do not say Rationalism is 'right' (though it is my personal philosophy), but it is the manner in which our government was set up to operate. Slavery is not 'immoral' it is 'irrational' since it assumes inherent inequality. Same with women's suffrage and civil rights in general.
Reply-
-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, people can decide marriage is, in itself, moral or not. They can decide that gay marriage is moral or not. They can, therefore, impose their morals on others in the same way they do for pedophelia, incest, polygamy, or ******. If one agrees that any of these 4 can be regulated, then you lose the moral authority to say gay marriage should be allowed because it is imposin gmorals on another.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Pedophilia and be$tiality certainly have non-consensual victims. I have already made cases for polygamy and incest. Gay marriage is two (and only two) fully-functional, consenting adults entering into a life-long commitment with each other.
Again, what is the harm?
Reply-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Pedophilia has been considred alright thoughout most of history in many societies. If she's old enough to bleed she's old enough to breed has been used for millenia. You might cause some physical harm, but probably not if you wait long enough. Sides, what does 18 or 16 or 14 mean? We have decided that they can't consent, but that is, as I keep repeating, a societal creation. Many other societies in the world today allow marriage much younger. So, we should get rid of the age limit since it is based on our personal mores, right?
You can put a dog in a cage all day. Put a spiked choke collar on him. Use electric shock on him. Smack him on with a newspaper. Shove his nose in his poop. But not have sex with him? That is just TOOOO much?
Reply-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
btw: i read an idea once that nature increases homosexuality as a population grows bigger. That is to slow the growth of the population. a cool idea, though i don't know where i read it or if it had any support. somehow i doubt it but interesting to think about none-the-less.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From that perspective, I don't think slavery could have lasted much longer than it did, even if the south won the civil war. Slavery may have persisted in the South, but I don't think it would have necessarily become any sort of norm in the North.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Slavery was in decline economically by the time of the Civil War. I remember a study that was conducted in the South and pointed out that most serious agricultural injuries were suffered by paid laborers and not slaves. Paying a wage was more cost-effective than risking an expensive slave. The influx of immigrant labor in the late 19th and early 20th centuries would have doomed slavery in any case.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
RCHIII1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Which never made it to the ballot."
And neither should an amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Both proposed bans, gay marriage or interracial marriage, come from the same place. From small minded people who want everyone to be like they are.
The right loves to talk about small government. "Stop regulating us" they scream. Unless someone else is living a life they don't agree with, then the government better stop it! Don't regulate our corporations! Regulate our bedrooms!
Reply -
Neutral
ZippySpincycle1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi, Dropkick. Please re-take your high school civics class. NO amendment to the US Constitution has EVER been "made it to the ballot."
I doubt your ability to actually read the Constitution on this matter, but this is a pretty accurate summary from The Simpsons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WpwAWUpsXM
But just in case you think The Simpsons is too tainted by left-wing thought, try this more conventional discussion:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
Reply -
-
-
-
ScrimshawComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, Drop, when did you choose to be (presumably) heterosexual?
Oh--I'm sorry! That's the human-sexuality default position against which all other forms of sexual expression should--no, MUST--be measured for legitimacy.
PS, gayness in itself has no more moral significance than straightness does. In that sense it's inconsequential--like preferring vanilla ice-cream to chocolate.
But do keep trying to insert a wedge between people on baselss grounds; do keep trying to deny others the same rights you enjoy simply because, in re one morally neutral, inconsequenial matter, they're different from you, have different tastes.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The notion that homosexuality is genetically derived is supported by homosexual behavior in other species, such as dolphins (they don't call it a 'blow-hole' for nothing) and bonobos. It was also likely evolutionarily 'useful' to increase group cohesion during our hunter-gatherer days.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And KISA, above, a question: why do you posit marriage--the act of two people voluntarily committing themselves to each other--as moral IN ITSELF?
Could be moral; could also NOT be, depending, I suppose, on what use the marriage was put to. But then you'd have to decide what "part" of a marriage made that union moral or im-.
Reply-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poulenc, when did I posit that marriage was moral? You presupose my opinion, though I'll give you a glimpse. I think that it is entirely possible, right, and even necessary to impose one set of morals over another. This is the only way for society to work. If you don't do so, you end up with 300,000,000 people trying to do "their own thing" including rape, murder, stealing, etc. Even then, the "strong" would then impose their "morals" on the "weak". It is not possible to avoid imposing morals on others, we all agree on that, but don't always admit it.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I think that it is entirely possible, right, and even necessary to impose one set of morals over another."
Agreed. How those 'morals' are derived is a crucial issue. There is a set of people who would deny gays the right to marry based on arbitrary religious dogma and personal revulsion. Denying gay marriage simply has no rational merit, other than a 'slippery slope' argument which has no basis for comparison with other countries that allow same-sex marriage, and can otherwise be dealt with using existing legal precedence.
Reply-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry, I don't have the energy to really debate this much more. My main point has been to point out that the argument "don't force your values on me" is a foolish argument. If you start from accepting that as fact, then the debate can continue on possibly rational grounds.
As to whether a set of values that has survived 2000 years should be chucked because of person preference today? Why do we not like incest and pedophelia? I guess if really young it could harm the child physically, other than that, it is a social construct that this causes mental harm. It works fine in many cultures and has throughout history. I keep coming back to the fact that our opinion of gay marriage (and most other things) is based on the society we were raised in. It is based either on nothing, or on a 2000 year old book (mostly). Either way, it is a flimsy basis and one of which you can hardly convince anyone else.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why do we not like incest and pedophelia? I guess if really young it could harm the child physically, other than that, it is a social construct that this causes mental harm. It works fine in many cultures and has throughout history."
Actually, incest and pedophelia do not work fine. Incest leads to genetic disorders and child-bearing seriously injures or even kills even teen-aged girls, and especially younger ones. Sex on young teens or children can permanently injure them.
People 2000 years ago from which our culture descended were far more ignorant and superstitious. We are just starting to widely spread the knowledge of the danger of sex for children generally, and childbirth for girls and young teens. We now know--and acknowledge--that there is a very high incidence of permanent damage to internal organs.
2000-year-old indoctrination doesn't necessarily equate to a healthy set of values. Today we know that some common ancient practices were destructive.
Reply -
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Sorry, I don't have the energy to really debate this much more."
I'm sure we'll cross paths again, worthy adversary (though I suspect there is more we would agree on than disagree). Your points are well reasoned and I look forward to our next exchange.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.