Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

It is not hard to deduce from his writing how he would have felt. Slaves were considered property so I would imagine it applied to them from the stand point of property by their owners.

I'm not much of a history buff so I really cannot argue either way.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by saden1

Given that he is the man who authored the the Declaration of Independence I feel confidant that he would be partial to gay marriage. That is to say if he is a principled man he would side with liberty and not with religious dogma.

interesting to be sure

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I think you have to draw a line somewhere and this seems as good a place as any. After this it will be plural marriage, then it will be lowering the age of consent, then it will be prostitution, then it will be animals, and on and on. We will never reach a point where there won't be someone who wants their sexual proclivity to be formalized in some way by law, no matter how creepy.

See, this is called changing the aspects of the issue at hand, then arguing against something completely different. It's like debating an advocate of gun control, when they inevitably assume that since you want to own a handgun or a semi-automatic rifle, then that also means you should be able to own an M-1 Abrahms tank, or a Pershing ICBM.

By the way, age of consent varies greatly all across the country. And keep in mind, we're talking about consent here, and last time I checked, animals cannot consent to anything.

For the record, I also think prostitution and plural marriage are fine since they too are actions which do not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

See, this is called changing the aspects of the issue at hand, then arguing against something completely different. It's like debating an advocate of gun control, when they inevitably assume that since you want to own a handgun or a semi-automatic rifle, then that also means you should be able to own an M-1 Abrahms tank, or a Pershing ICBM.

By the way, age of consent varies greatly all across the country. And keep in mind, we're talking about consent here, and last time I checked, animals cannot consent to anything.

For the record, I also think prostitution and plural marriage are fine since they too are actions which do not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

Slippery slopes are real. Read the history of the German race laws in the 1930s.

As to consent laws, I'm not talking about 17 or 16. I'm talking about 12 and younger, and believe me it's coming.

As to your last sentence, I'm actually glad you have the courage to express those views because you prove my point. Most people who hold such views take a much stealthier approach.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

Once you start legislating morality the war is already lost. It's simply a matter of time....like my man Thomas Jefferson said:

Morality is really the only thing you can legislate.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Angry

You do not believe that you are over reacting a little bit? Those statements remind me of Quagmire playing golf. You went off the deep end.

The age of consent will not be lowered unless they lower the "Legal" age all around.

Legal Polygamy will not be allowed because the government will never go for joint tax returns involving more than 2 people.

I would say that the majority of people on this Earth would not consider marrying an animal.

I don't get the Quagmire reference.

Age of consent and legal age are largely the same thing, I think.

The tax angle is interesting.

The majority of men would not consider marrying another man either.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dmek25

aren't you the same guy that thinks that the less government intervention into peoples every day lives, the better?

I'm not a Libertarian. I am a Burkean conservative. The government certainly has a role.

In this case, however, I would suggest that it is the other side that is seeking governmental sanction for their cause. This is an interesting tactic by the left. They alter a standard that is as old as civilization (abortion, gay marriage) and then pretend their opponents are the radicals.

I think the concerns that homosexuals claim to be trying to address with this movement could be dealt with with much less problematic laws. The hospital visitation thing, taxes, etc. The reason I talk about the slippery slope and worry that this process is neverending is that it seems like they are seeking approval or fulfillment that the political process can't provide. I don't think any law will make homosexuality seem normal or satisfy whatever need these folks are seeking to satiate.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Morality is really the only thing you can legislate.

Wow, I can't tell if you're serious or clowning. If you're serious that's unbecoming. The constitution is what exactly? It deals with what exactly? Statutory law deals with more than issues concerning morality.

Edit: It occurred to me you might be arguing that every issue we deal with has a moral component. In that respect you are right. My comment, however, was with respect to legislating Christian morality which is the bases for anti-gay sentiment.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I still have yet to hear a persuasive argument as to why homosexuality is wrong or how gay marriage is harmful to society. I've heard, "it's unnatural and so it's wrong" (the very same argument advanced with respect to interracial marriages). Homosexuality is "natural" insofar as people are born gay. Additionally, people do a lot of "unnatural" things which are, by all accounts, not immoral. Flying in a steel object at 30,000 feet at 400 miles per hour isn't "natural," but that doesn't make flying from D.C. to L.A. on US Airlines immoral. So, even if homosexuality is "unnatural," that doesn't make it wrong.

I've also heard that homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong because they accelerate the decay of social values (again, the very same argument advanced with respect to interracial marriage). That's conclusory and circular "logic" at its worst. What values does gay marriage erode, the importance of making a lifelong commitment to your partner?

I've also heard gay marriage is wrong, but it's difficult to articulate why it's wrong. I can articulate why murder, rape, robbery, fraud, etc. are wrong, so why can't opponents of homosexuality/gay marriage do the same? Because they can't.

I've also heard that homosexuality and gay marriage have been deemed immoral for thousands of years, as if that is somehow proof positive of immorality. Slavery existed for thousands of years, and still does in some places. Women were treated as property for thousands of years, and still are in many areas of the globe. Tradition isn't always a good thing. In fact, all too often tradition is used as a hollow justification for denying people access to rights that all people should enjoy.

I've also heard that gay marriage is dangerous because it could, possibly, someday lead to all sorts of crazy relationships (e.g., "If we allow gay marriage, we'll end up allowing people to marry a can of spam!"). Address each issue on the merits. Slippery slope arguments are, in general, pretty weak and this one is no exception.

Basically, opposing gay marriage or homosexuality in general comes down to intolerance and a paternalistic and perverse desire to impose personal sexual preferences on the rest of society.

[Daseal]

Very nice post SGG.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I still have yet to hear a persuasive argument as to why homosexuality is wrong or how gay marriage is harmful to society. I've heard, "it's unnatural and so it's wrong" (the very same argument advanced with respect to interracial marriages). Homosexuality is "natural" insofar as people are born gay. Additionally, people do a lot of "unnatural" things which are, by all accounts, not immoral. Flying in a steel object at 30,000 feet at 400 miles per hour isn't "natural," but that doesn't make flying from D.C. to L.A. on US Airlines immoral. So, even if homosexuality is "unnatural," that doesn't make it wrong.

I've also heard that homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong because they accelerate the decay of social values (again, the very same argument advanced with respect to interracial marriage). That's conclusory and circular "logic" at its worst. What values does gay marriage erode, the importance of making a lifelong commitment to your partner?

I've also heard gay marriage is wrong, but it's difficult to articulate why it's wrong. I can articulate why murder, rape, robbery, fraud, etc. are wrong, so why can't opponents of homosexuality/gay marriage do the same? Because they can't.

I've also heard that homosexuality and gay marriage have been deemed immoral for thousands of years, as if that is somehow proof positive of immorality. Slavery existed for thousands of years, and still does in some places. Women were treated as property for thousands of years, and still are in many areas of the globe. Tradition isn't always a good thing. In fact, all too often tradition is used as a hollow justification for denying people access to rights that all people should enjoy.

I've also heard that gay marriage is dangerous because it could, possibly, someday lead to all sorts of crazy relationships (e.g., "If we allow gay marriage, we'll end up allowing people to marry a can of spam!"). Address each issue on the merits. Slippery slope arguments are, in general, pretty weak and this one is no exception.

Basically, opposing gay marriage or homosexuality in general comes down to intolerance and a paternalistic and perverse desire to impose personal sexual preferences on the rest of society.

I think you just hit a walk-off. Debate over.

[saden1]

A toast to the chewbacca defense.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

Wow, I can't tell if you're serious or clowning. If you're serious that's unbecoming. The constitution is what exactly? It deals with what exactly? Statutory law deals with more than issues concerning morality.

Edit: It occurred to me you might be arguing that every issue we deal with has a moral component. In that respect you are right. My comment, however, was with respect to legislating Christian morality which is the bases for anti-gay sentiment.

Morality is not the same thing as sexuality. When people say "You can't legislate morality" what they really mean is "You shouldn't legislate sexuality". But even that is unavoidable. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Change should be organic. The people simply aren't ready. Homosexuals should concentrate on passing laws that don't seem like such a frontal assault on traditions that have been developed over many centuries. Revolutions that don't proceed from a strong popular consensus often have dangerous results. This is the difference between the American Revolution, for instance, and the one they had in France.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Morality is not the same thing as sexuality. When people say "You can't legislate morality" what they really mean is "You shouldn't legislate sexuality". But even that is unavoidable. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Change should be organic. The people simply aren't ready. Homosexuals should concentrate on passing laws that don't seem like such a frontal assault on traditions that have been developed over many centuries. Revolutions that don't proceed from a strong popular consensus often have dangerous results. This is the difference between the American Revolution, for instance, and the one they had in France.

Most people aren't yet ready to see gay couples getting married. There's no question that the majority of Americans don't want the states to recognize gay marriage.

However, opponents of gay marriage hurt their cause when they advocate the passage of constitutional amendments, propositions, etc. to ban gay marriage. Such laws have brought the "gay marriage debate" to the forefront of national politics and suggest that the issue is so important that legislators should spend time on it during wartime and a deep recession. Think about it, a few short years ago there was no debate over gay marriage outside of academia. Now, it's all over the news and people like us are giving it serious thought.

Moreover, gay marriage bans are powerful and highly visible symbols of inequality. It's not the same as seeing dogs bite at people peacefully marching in Birmingham, but it will lead to the same result. U.S. history shows that visible symbols of inequality tend to spur debate and typically result in the extension of civil rights.

[Dirtbag59]

Heres a page that help debunks the myths spread by the yes on prop 8 movement. Sad to see that they got away with lies convincing people that suddenly homosexuality was going to be forced on everyone including unsuspecting school children and churches would be forced to shut down due to discrimination. Which personally might have been the only "genuine" reasons to vote yes on 8, but with that said maybe the churches should reexamine their stance on this issue.

No On 8, Don't Eliminate Marriage For Anyone