If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2654
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7236 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2654 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
  2007-04-01 08:15:51 PM
Bring it on, I can handle it...:)
 
  2007-04-01 08:39:05 PM
What about third party politics?

Is it wrong to vote green if that means a republican will win? And vice versa for other third parties?

Can we ever have a third party in the system?

I'm of the opinion that a viable third party will never take off until they start winning more state seats and local positions such as mayor, governors, etc. Kind of a "from-the-ground-up" approach.

I also believe that until the big two parties start losing elections because people are voting for third parties, they will never pay attention to their issues. The mass media didn't care about the Greens until Florida in 2000, for instance. So I guess I would disagree with people that say you should still vote for the lesser of two evils, instead of the candidate you actually agree with.
 
  2007-04-01 08:53:09 PM
As long as people feel they are have no choice other than "the lessers," the two-party system is going to continue to reign the day. A third party might shock a little reality into the Republicrats, but why should we continue to give the status quo so much respect considering the Presidential results of the past 50 years?

What if the majority voted for a candidate who did all his campaigning on the Internet, aside from a rigorous schedule of personal appearances?

And what would then be a majority vote if there were three or four parties? Still 51% of the population? 26% or greater?

Seems like one of the longest-standing reasons for the two-party racket is that together they supposedly represent a majority of the country's viewpoints.
 
  2007-04-01 09:29:21 PM
dottedmint has a point, a "politics" forum is a bit overbroad. I think if you are going to have single topic forums like this that are not about a particular article then the issue should be narrowed at least slightly.

There are no more than about five issues that constantly hit flamewar status when an article about either of them is submitted:

Evolution vs creationism
atheism vs theism
global warming
gun control vs unregulated gun ownership
repub vs dem / right vs left

Why not create separate forums for each of these issues?
 
  2007-04-01 09:58:19 PM
Let's debate why this thread isn't good for debating.
 
  2007-04-01 10:32:02 PM
Thorndyke Barnhard: Why not create separate forums for each of these issues?

LOL the Fark Abortion Forum!

I guess I don't have a problem with discussing those issues (and others) by going back a few hours, seeing what people are talking about and contributing.

At any rate, we're not exactly awash in topics right now. I don't really see why this open forum should be uncomfortable.

Make this place what you want.
 
  2007-04-02 12:20:14 AM
Cleveland-Steamer

Har-har. (meta-humour makes me lol :))

whidbey

You may be right, this could be more than adequate. dottedmint's post just elicited this thought and I figured I'd share.
 
  2007-04-02 10:39:29 AM
Just get Total Fark.
 
  2007-04-02 05:36:22 PM
thorndyke

Didn't mean to pick on you (I actually brought up what you said when I Boobiesed in this forum) but I just thought that was funny.

Calmamity

Are there individual forums on totalfark? My problem is that there are already too many articles on the main page, and my other obvious dilemma of being a dirt poor second-year law student who is already $80,000 in debt. (And my work is all public interest, and no one pays public interest interns. If they do pay it's pittance. I don't really understand how anyone gets into public interest work after passing the bar unless they are already wealthy, which doesn't seem right to me.)

Maybe it's also the principal that I don't want to pay $5 a month for something I know is going to be a huge time suck and take my attention away from my work. Free Fark already does a good enough job of that.

Anyways....

Gay marriage? Yay or nay? I say yay.

Federal ID card? Nay

Legalization of marijuana? State issue, no fed usurpation of state police powers. So yay I guess.

Gun control? State issue, individual right even though 2nd amendment seems to be about militias, we are a democracy and I am in favor of the government keeping out of the business of dictating personal responsibility.

Well, there. I just vomited some sticky political points onto the internet. I hope I didn't get any of that on anyone's shoes.
 
  2007-04-02 06:02:03 PM
Cleveland-Steamer: I actually brought up what you said when I Boobiesed in this forum

Ya you just can't make that stuff up.


/need to get owned by the filter at least once a year
//keeps you honest
 
  2007-04-02 06:43:06 PM
Cleveland-Steamer

No worries! I was sincere about the meta-humour. :)
 
  2007-04-02 06:47:56 PM
About your federal ID card, it just seems silly and superfluous to me really. I mean how are your drivers liscence/passport any different? Why would we need ANOTHER federal id card we already have a bunch of other federal id cards!
 
  2007-04-02 08:18:52 PM
Cleveland-Steamer: Let's debate why this thread isn't good for debating.

I blame Bush
 
  2007-04-02 10:05:34 PM
Alright...

Gay Marriage....It is an issue that should be left up to the States to decide. The Feds have no authority to say we must have gay marriage. IF a state wishes to say they want gay marriage that's fine with me...as long as the PEOPLE of the state say this and it is not pushed on them by the courts.

Legalize Pot......I agree that it should be a state issue. Or at least I sorta agree. I have never figured out why it is legal for me to get so drunk that I would pass out but it is not legal for me to smoke pot. I can HONESTLY say I have never smoked it but I know some who have. The reason I say "sorta" is that I question if I would feel the same way about harsher drugs. I'm not sure I agree with saying all drugs should be legal....

Gun Control.... The Second Amendment says,

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In each and every other Amendment where the term "people" is used it is refering to individual people and not any type of group or "militia".

I would say that anyone who is convicted of some violent felony should have this right taken away from them. We take the rights of felons away all the time.

But ... As a LAW ABIDING citizen the Second Amendment says I have a right to keep and BEAR arms. This would include having a concealed weapon.
 
  2007-04-03 01:03:22 AM
Several articles were recently posted on fark regarding education in the Bible and free speech in American schools. This is a very tricky area of the law and education, and I am quite interested in it.

I was wondering what you all thought about the subject - particularly concerning using the Bible (or Tanakch [forgive me if that is transliterated incorrectly], or Koran, or whatever other religious text) in classrooms in the United States. What is the approach that other education systems take to this issue?
 
  2007-04-03 02:09:24 AM
dottedmint: The Feds have no authority to say we must have gay marriage

The best argument I've heard is that same-sex marriage is protected under the 14th Amendment.

You cannot disallow American citizens to marry. And by that, I mean adults who legally consent in a contract of marriage.

There's also a ruling, Loving V. Virginia that paved the way for interracial marriage, and would be cited if and when this reaches the Supreme Court.

So, dottedmint, it's not an issue up to vote, much in the way that previous civil rights concerns weren't up to a vote, either.

And if the concept of a civil union is an acceptable compromise, fine. But to me, it's the principle. I'm not gay, but I simply cannot insult the couples I know that married by telling them they don't have the right. They very much were married, and deserve the same treatment as straight couples.

I'm not sure I agree with saying all drugs should be legal...

Pot's fine, but I am divided as to whether it's a good idea to flood the market with something like heroin or cocaine.

I'm guessing it's got to be pretty hard to find either unless you're really connected. They are dangerous drugs, far more so than pot or alcohol. I believe the whole thing should be a health/addiction issue and not police-related. Why should you go to jail for years for possession? It doesn't solve anything.

I would say that anyone who is convicted of some violent felony should have this right taken away from them. We take the rights of felons away all the time.

I'm all right with this, but I think we need to be careful as to what we're calling "felonies." Keep in mind that they can also take away your gun if you're convicted of possessing certain drugs, or embezzlement, for that matter...

As a LAW ABIDING citizen the Second Amendment says I have a right to keep and BEAR arms. This would include having a concealed weapon.

I don't have a problem with this, surprise. I'm extremely liberal, but I don't the idea of the government trying to regulate firearms too much, and I hate it when people say the 2nd Amendment is a "non-issue." They're ALL big issues. OK, maybe not the 3rd. Not right now, anyway...;)

And Zoso6881?

As long as a religious text isn't required as part of a course of study. There are plenty of elective religion classes across America.

I don't know about the public school system, though. I'm guessing that since it's completely funded, no, you can't teach religion in class. Anyone is welcome to set me straight on this.
 
  2007-04-03 08:31:59 AM
whidbey,

Well, my viewpoint is a common argument - can we teach the valuable knowledge about the ancient and medieval worlds which can be discovered vis-a-vis these holy texts in public school? I know that biases can't be avoided, but if the main point is to translmit knowledge, does that violate anyone's rights?

Also, insofar as drugs are concerned, my stance might be pro-legalization (of marijuana). But, if it is legalized the market would be flooded and prices would instantaneously drop, despite the high demand. In the wake of this the feds would realize what a cash cow it could be and would tax it out the wazoo for both revenue and regulatory purposes. Is this aspect of freedom worth forfeiting more money to the government?
 
  2007-04-03 01:46:05 PM
There should be a very solid line between teaching and preaching, and many are trying to blur this line, which causes an opposite reaction from another element of society who then say: "Wait, you're trying to do what?! That's it, we're striking the word 'bible' from all textbooks!"

In summation: Many people are stupid.
 
  2007-04-03 02:11:08 PM
Ziso6881

Religion in schools, at least before college when people start to choose their focus, should be the study of comparative religion, i.e. different religions presented in a single class with the focus on comparing and contrasting them all. In college this is also a great area of study but by then it becomes easier to justify allowing entire classes to be devoted to studying one religion, as you're dealing with more responsible and autonomous students. (Usually)

I think high school is the right time to start teaching this. I've been public schooled all of my life, and I enjoyed the comparative religious study I received in high school and college. Neither of my parents are religious so I really didn't have any exposure to the bible or anything else, but I'm grateful that I read and studied parts of the Bible, Koran, Torah, (as well as the Hindu, Buddhist and Zen texts which I can't remember the names of now) in high school and college. From an educational standpoint, reading and critically analyzing these texts is a great tool and is very useful. Also just from a common sense perspective, people are less likely to harbor prejudice or delusional fear about another religion when they've learned a little bit about it. (Hint hint).

Also, do you want some crackpot nut on TV telling your kids about the bible? Or do you want a respected religious studies professor who has been studying the bible for 50 years?
 
  2007-04-03 02:23:13 PM
dottedmint: In each and every other Amendment where the term "people" is used it is refering to individual people and not any type of group or "militia".

I think you can take a non-originalist approach to the 2nd amendment and come out with the same result (i.e. individual right to bear arms) without being intellectually dishonest and saying the first clause has no bearing on the second. I just cannot read that sentence without thinking that the first clause is prefatory to the second.

Before every Farker lynches me for saying that, I just think it's more honest to say the constitution was written a long time ago and some of the intents of the founding fathers are incongruous with modern society, and we should be comfortable interpreting the document to fit modern America as long as we don't go too far astray from what it says. And, in modern America personal gun ownership is a highly valued right and a part of our culture of individuality and it should therefore be respected. What's wrong with that? It's the same result, individual right to bear arms, without arguing about grammar which is silly anyways.
 
  2007-04-03 03:25:20 PM
Zoso6881: In the wake of this the feds would realize what a cash cow [legal marijuana] could be and would tax it out the wazoo for both revenue and regulatory purposes. Is this aspect of freedom worth forfeiting more money to the government?

That's a great point I keep forgetting when it comes to legalization: government would insist on taxing it and some of your smoking pleasure would then go to funding the "War" on "Terror" and Iraq and Iran and whoever they decide to attack next.

No. I take it back, and I'd rather just wait it out while marijuana usage becomes more and more decriminalized. Right now, we don't have the kind of government that would use that tax money on something really needed, like medical research or intensive study how to get us unhooked off oil.

Cleveland-Steamer: I think high school is the right time to start teaching [comparative religion]

As long as it's an elective class and not required. I believe that the public school system should teach basic education, and religion/philosophy courses of study are what we learn in college, but that's my old-skool take. It would definitely be up to the school district, voicing concerns from parents.
 
  2007-04-03 04:30:54 PM
whidbey

I gotta totally disagree with you on that last point about philosophy. I've been thinking for a while now about how that is probably THE major weakpoint in the North-American educational systems. Our kids are taught math and english to a level many will NEVER use depending on their chosen career path and will probably forget as soon as the semester is over anyways. Yet somehow this is seen as more important that teaching kids about how to reason, think critically, and tackle the deeper social, spiritual, and epistemological issues that EVERYBODY ends up having to deal with whether they realize it or not. Alot of the rediculous political flamewars would be simply VANISH if people were properly educated.
 
  2007-04-03 04:47:10 PM
"...would be simply VANISH..."

Why do I suddenly feel my post should read with a think indian accent?
 
  2007-04-03 04:48:32 PM
AAAAARGH! preview dammit!
 
  2007-04-03 05:45:27 PM
whidbey:
about the taxing thing (and I suspect this argument might be farked up, did no research on it): if pot were regulated at the state level, as it should be, then the federal government would get none of that tax money, except for the amount that was exported to other states. So the larger amount of the tax money would be going to roads, healthcare, etc.

I think there might be some interstate clause hocus-pocus precedent that makes this invalid though.
 
  2007-04-03 09:52:46 PM
Whidbey: The best argument I've heard is that same-sex marriage is protected under the 14th Amendment.

You cannot disallow American citizens to marry. And by that, I mean adults who legally consent in a contract of marriage.


Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Different states have diffferent standards for who can or cannot get married.

In some states you can get married at one age while in a different state you can get married at a different age. In some states you can still marry a cousin or even sister while in others you can't.

Also does this mean that one man should be able to marry 10 women?

Is there ANY standard that can be placed on marriage?


Cleveland-Steamer: I think you can take a non-originalist approach to the 2nd amendment and come out with the same result (i.e. individual right to bear arms) without being intellectually dishonest and saying the first clause has no bearing on the second. I just cannot read that sentence without thinking that the first clause is prefatory to the second.

I think you might be a bit dishonest in suggesting the first clause has any major impact on the rest.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Let see how a different wording would look....

A well educated populace, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

This doesn't mean that only well educated people can keep and read books.

The first part does not affect the second part.

It is basically saying you will have the first part IF you have the second part.

It is not saying that you can have the second part ONLY if you have the first.

Cleveland-Steamer: and we should be comfortable interpreting the document to fit modern America as long as we don't go too far astray from what it says.

I think that is a very dangerous stance to take.

IF we feel something in The Constitution no longer fits modern time we can amend it. We shouldn't simply try to adjust it to fit todays world.
 
  2007-04-04 12:15:08 AM
dottedmint

I think you are making a couple of errors that should be pointed out.

regarding gay marriage: The argument you are making about different states having different standards isn't quite validating unequal treatment the way you seem to think it is, because while states may have different laws between them, within each of these states the law is applied equally. The 14th is saying that a state can make its own laws (you can only get married at age 'X')but it MUST apply them equally and not discriminate (it can't say "only these citizens can get married at age 'X' but not these citizens")
That's what the "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." part is all about.

As long as marriage is a "legal status" granted by the state to consenting citizens that enter into this contract the state has an obligation to be fair in it's granting of that status and the privileges/recognition/obligations that come with it. Meaning that if the law states that it allows an adult of 16 to get married it can't say yes to one 16 year old taking advantage of that law and then say no to another 16 year old who wants to take advantage of that law based only on the fact that they differ in sexual orientation or even race.

Another mistake relates to the other subject of the right to bear arms.

Here the problem is actually a grammar issue.

In the phrase "A well educated populace, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." the first half is included as the reason for the second part. Otherwise there would be no use for that first part and it would be unimportant, though you would be hard pressed to find ant legal professional willing to argue that parts of the constitution are just fluff. Anyway, If the goal or reason for the second part is removed or simply is rendered obsolete then the statement that is meant to ensure the acheivement of it is no longer valid either.

Let's see how another wording would look:

The right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed in order to ensure a well educated populace which is necessary to the security of a free state.

If you stopped wanting/needing a well educated populace (i.e., well regulated militia) then you wouldn't need that first part which is supposed to lead to it.
 
  2007-04-04 07:09:10 AM
Thorndyke Barnhard

The 14th is saying that a state can make its own laws (you can only get married at age 'X')but it MUST apply them equally and not discriminate (it can't say "only these citizens can get married at age 'X' but not these citizens")
That's what the "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." part is all about.


Actually....

IF the law says "any person who is a certain age can get married to anyone of a different gender" then YES the 14th would allow that because while a straight man could get married to any woman at the age of (say) 16 a gay man could ALSO get married to any woman at the age of 16.

They would both have "equal protection of the law".

In my state I am able to marry anyone of the opposite gender.

A gay person is ALSO able to marry anyone of the opposite gender.

The law is applied equally.

"In the phrase "A well educated populace, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." the first half is included as the reason for the second part. Otherwise there would be no use for that first part and it would be unimportant, though you would be hard pressed to find ant legal professional willing to argue that parts of the constitution are just fluff. Anyway, If the goal or reason for the second part is removed or simply is rendered obsolete then the statement that is meant to ensure the acheivement of it is no longer valid either."

Right.

The first part

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"


Is why the second part is needed.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Also the text of The Constitution does NOT become obsolete until it is Amended.

And I'm not so sure the first part of The 2nd is really obsolete.

In either case the first part of the Amendment does NOT limit the right to keep and bear arms to only the militia.

The first part says WHY I have a right to keep and bear arms.
 
  2007-04-04 09:53:35 AM
I think we need more Kissing in the Oval Office. This is a guy I know who wants to be president. FYI he is looking for a running mate, Drew, want to throw your hat in the ring?

http://www.kissing4prez.org/
 
  2007-04-04 12:19:59 PM
dottedmind

Part of legal analysis involves acknowledging the effects of the law. When legislation is impugned, if it can be shown that the actual effect of the law is an unequal application, regardless of whether or not this was the intention, than this law may be found to be unconstitutional.

To say that a gay man is just as free to marry a woman is either ignorant or dishonest. Sexual orientation is not a choice or a lifestyle, it is a hardwired aspect of a human. I don't know how many scientific studies exclusively demonstrating this to be the case have to be presented before everybody realizes this. This being the case and knowing full well that no gay man WILL actually marry a woman in a free and sincere manner and coupled with the fact that I already pointed out that the result is that homosexual individuals sipmly do not have access to the status of married unless they do something just as alien/uncharastic as, say, you having to marry a man in order to get married status, this all comes together to make it quite plain that a law saying you can only have married legal status if you marry the opposite sex has unequal effect. If homosexuals did't exist, that would be a different story, but they do so a law invalidating them is unconstitutional.
 
  2007-04-04 04:39:05 PM
dottedmint:

I think that is a very dangerous stance to take.

IF we feel something in The Constitution no longer fits modern time we can amend it. We shouldn't simply try to adjust it to fit todays world.


Non-originalism is a widely accepted and well known model of constitutional interpretation. I think a mixture between originalism and non-originalism is possible as well as necessary - you simply would not have many of the rights we enjoy today without non-originalism. In fact, the Constitution kind of implies it: the 9th amendment specifically says that just because a right isn't mentioned, doesn't mean you don't enjoy it.

In fact, to a large extent originalism is dead when we are talking about the SCOTUS' injection of "fundamental rights" into the constitution. Here's the short list of rights you officially enjoy thanks to non-originalism:

Private protection of Civil Rights (first applied via the commerce clause interestingly enough)
Right to privacy
Womens right to vote
Freedom of association with your desired political party
Right to work where you wish
Right to own property regardless of your race
Rights of family autonomy
Right to marry who you want (except gays, so far)
Right to married couples to have custody of their children
Right of parents to control upbringing of children
Rights of reproductive autonomy
Protection for medical decision making
Protection for sexual orientation and sexual activity

None of those rights are in the constitution. Thanks to non-originalism, the government is now restricted from impinging on all of these rights. Just to take an example, less than 60 years ago some states were sterilizing repeat felons. STERILIZING them. People who were "feeble minded" (whatever that meant) were also being sterilized until the late 20's. [Insert obligatory Godwin here]. The constitution didn't have a right to procreation in it, but thankfully the court found one.

Non-originalism definitely has its dangers. When it comes to EXPANDING government power, I am more of an originalist. The abuse of the commerce clause is a problem for instance, but I fault congress for that more than the Court. Our President also has a rather expansive idea of the power of the executive branch, but that was an old topic and we shouldn't rehash all of that.

Nonetheless, the track record of the Court has, IMHO, been pretty good as the above list shows.

dottedmint:
A gay person is ALSO able to marry anyone of the opposite gender.

The law is applied equally.


That's actually the opposite; the law's purpose and effect is the restriction of same sex marriages, which is discriminatory because it restricts who gays can marry, but not who straight people can marry. It treats people differently based on an inherent characteristic which has classically been the subject of prejudice and discrimination. You're not saying that people should stop being gay, are you?

The above discussion about interpretation is relevant here too. IF (and this is a big if) the SCOTUS finds same sex marriage to be a fundamental right, then it gets the same rigorous protection that other fundamental rights get, such as the right to inter-racial marriage or the right to privacy in the bedroom. If they don't, the court implies basically a rubber stamp test to whatever the state law is, and it is usually upheld.

That's what it boils down to really; is same sex marriage a fundamental right? I think so. For many people, being gay is as much a choice for them as being black is a choice for black people. It's who they are. Should we discriminate against them because of this? Is the structure and maintenance of our democracy maintained by restricting gay marriage? Is there even a rational government purpose or is it simply because many people are "uncomfortable" with it morally?
 
  2007-04-04 05:28:28 PM
Gay marriage:

Cleveland Steamer: "That's actually the opposite; the law's purpose and effect is the restriction of same sex marriages, which is discriminatory because it restricts who gays can marry, but not who straight people can marry.

Actually the law restricts who I can marry as well. The law says that I can ONLY marry someone who is of the opposite gender.

The 14TH Amendment only says that the law must be applied equally.

Marriage laws that restrict marriage to only different genders are applied equally.

IF you want to say that they are wrong....

FINE.

IF you want to say that they are Unconstitutional.....

Find something other than the 14TH to point to because they do not violate that Amendment.

Thorndyke Barnhard: When legislation is impugned, if it can be shown that the actual effect of the law is an unequal application, regardless of whether or not this was the intention, than this law may be found to be unconstitutional.

As I pointed out before the law is applied EQUALLY.

A law that defines "marriage" as a union between one man and one woman is "EQUAL".

Thorndyke Barnhard: If homosexuals did't exist, that would be a different story, but they do so a law invalidating them is unconstitutional.

Pedophiles also exist...

So do Polygamists...

And what about Kissin' Cousins?

Or for that matter Brothers and Sisters?

Or heck Fathers and Daughters?

And what about those who are into Bestiality?

Can you give me a group of people who should NOT be allowed to marry???
 
  2007-04-04 05:44:03 PM
This is where you are deficient:
You don't seem to be aware of the inherent difference between all of these and homosexuality. Aside from the fact that it's so ignorant it's offensive, this comparison is wrong becasue homosexuality is not a choice, all of these others are. You are not born a childsexual, polysexual, cousinsexual, incestasexual you choose them or become them later on, homosexuals however are hardwired this way.
 
  2007-04-04 05:49:11 PM
dottedmint: Find something other than the 14TH to point to because they do not violate that Amendment.

The 14th Amendment guarantees the rights of US citizens, and the same exact protections enacted to persons of color apply to homosexuals, including the right to marry.

And as I've stated, Loving vs. Virginia will be cited when this finally reaches the Supreme Court.

Pedophiles also exist...So do Polygamists...
And what about Kissin' Cousins?Or for that matter Brothers and Sisters?Or heck Fathers and Daughters?


We are talking about consenting adults who enter into a contract of marriage between two people. I don't know or care about polygamy, it isn't the issue same-sex marriage is by any stretch.

Denying same-sex marriage is denying civil rights, and this cannot be voted on or legislated at the state level.
 
fj
  2007-04-04 07:14:06 PM
Thorndyke Barnhard

You are not born a childsexual, polysexual, cousinsexual, incestasexual you choose them or become them later on, homosexuals however are hardwired this way.


Out of curiosity, what makes homosexuality different? I'm sure that the pedophiles and the rest would disagree with you.
 
  2007-04-04 10:39:58 PM
Whidbey: "The 14th Amendment guarantees the rights of US citizens, and the same exact protections enacted to persons of color apply to homosexuals, including the right to marry. "

It really is very simple.

IF the law says marriage is one man and one woman it does NOT violate the 14TH Amendment.

A straight man can legally marry any woman he wants.

A gay man can also legally marry any woman he wants.

The law doesn't say that you can marry the one you love or the one you want to have sex with.

The law ONLY says that ONE MAN can "MARRY" ONE WOMAN.

In NO WAY does this violate The Constitution.

You keep saying that the law must be applied "EQUALLY".

It is.

Like I said before if you think the law is "wrong" or "not fair".

Fine...change the law.

T B: You are not born a childsexual, polysexual, cousinsexual, incestasexual you choose them or become them later on, homosexuals however are hardwired this way.

That's nice in theory but ultimately nobody knows.

Some people believe that pedophiles are created by actions they experience as a child themselves.

This would mean that they did NOT chooose to be a pedophile.

There are also those who speculate that the other people I listed are hardwired the way they are.

So because YOU say gays are hardwired that way they have a right but if YOU don't think others are hardwired they don't have the same right you are fighting for gays to have?????

Hmmm
 
  2007-04-04 11:08:07 PM
fj: "I'm sure that the pedophiles and the rest would disagree with you.

Are you? Really? That's strange, cuz I think that, quite contrarily, none of these other types of people would claim they were born "man-boy lovers" or "cousin lovers".

Regardless of what you or I think they would do here's some data that makes either of our intuitions irrelevant:

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/health/060625/x062512.html
(sorry no html skills, needs cut and paste)

I have not been able to find any such evidence of biological causes for any of those other types of people.
 
  2007-04-04 11:36:33 PM
So because YOU say gays are hardwired that way they have a right but if YOU don't think others are hardwired they don't have the same right you are fighting for gays to have?????

You know I'd love to be able to say you've had me reconsider my position, but as ridiculous as it sounds the biological nature of these types of people DOES affect the status of their rights, just like the fact blacks didn't choose to black is significant for the guarantee of their rights. But in addition, the idea of consenting adults that whidbey mentionned is another significant difference and the other particulars about each of these are also significant and render any attempt at claiming any analogy between these and homosexuality faulty.
 
  2007-04-05 01:08:17 AM
dottedmint: A gay man can also legally marry any woman he wants.

But that's not the issue. The issue is that the citizens' right to MARRY is being denied. They are being discriminated under the 14th Amendment, and they really no right to make a law that says that marriage is strictly between man and woman.

That's what whole this thing is about--challenging those who deny that the 14th Amendment is not protecting those rights.

And for that matter, comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is disrespectful and irrelevant to the argument.

We are ONLY talking about the rights of two consenting adults to enter into a contract and they have the RIGHT to call it marriage.

I don't see reason to keep arguing about this. The law is not protecting a group of American citizens.

You keep saying that the law must be applied "EQUALLY".

It is not equal. It is denying a group of citizens their civil rights. It discriminates against homosexuals. This should be obvious.

Fine...change the law.

It will eventually be changed, and for the reasons we've brought up here. Basically, the same kind of reasoning that adopted the Civil Rights Act will apply here, and will be based on Supreme Court decisions.
 
  2007-04-05 01:35:51 AM
dottedmint:

The law ONLY says that ONE MAN can "MARRY" ONE WOMAN.

In NO WAY does this violate The Constitution.

You keep saying that the law must be applied "EQUALLY".


Yeah they tried that, it was called "separate but equal" and it didn't work. Remember white and colored bathrooms? White and colored water fountains? Schools?

Hey, the white guy can't go in the black guy's bathroom right? So the law is applied equally right?

No. Equal protection means you don't get treated differently than the next person because of an inherent quality. You keep saying "but they gay guy can marry a woman." This is ridiculous not to mention offensive. This law has no effect on a straight person. The only person it effects is the gay person. This is worse than separate but equal: one class of people aren't even effected by the law. Why would I care that a law says I can only marry a woman? I'm straight. It has no effect on me. If I am gay, the law does effect me because I cannot marry another man. The law effects the gay guy but not me, because I am straight. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

Read the Loving case which whidbey linked for you. Just because a black guy was free to only marry a black woman, and a white man was only free to marry a white woman, doesn't make it equal. It was still a violation of the 14th amendment. "Equal" does not mean the law can equally discriminate.
 
  2007-04-05 07:10:17 AM
WOW!!!!

Cleveland-Steamer Yeah they tried that, it was called "separate but equal" and it didn't work. Remember white and colored bathrooms? White and colored water fountains? Schools?

Marriage isn't even close to "s b e"

There are not two diffferent definitions to marriage.

There is ONLY ONE definition to marriage and it is equally applied to ALL people.

"The law effects the gay guy but not me, because I am straight. This is not a difficult concept to understand."

Obviously it is difficult to understand.

I'm sorry you find it offensive but as I said the law effects both the same.

It says only ONE MAN can marry ONE WOMAN.
whidbey

"The issue is that the citizens' right to MARRY is being denied. They are being discriminated under the 14th Amendment, and they really no right to make a law that says that marriage is strictly between man and woman."

This assumes there is a "right to MARRY". The States already regulate marriage. They have for ages.

And for that matter, comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is disrespectful and irrelevant to the argument.

Actually it is relevant because as I pointed out there is some studies that suggest pedophiles don't CHOOSE to be pedophiles just like gays don't choose to be gay.

We are ONLY talking about the rights of two consenting adults to enter into a contract and they have the RIGHT to call it marriage.

That's right and the law doesn't dictate that love or sex is in anyway required.

I don't see reason to keep arguing about this. The law is not protecting a group of American citizens.

This can then also be said about all the other groups that I mentioned


Thorndyke Barnhard You know I'd love to be able to say you've had me reconsider my position, but as ridiculous as it sounds the biological nature of these types of people DOES affect the status of their rights, just like the fact blacks didn't choose to black is significant for the guarantee of their rights.

Can you prove that any of the groups I mentioned actually choose to be the way they are?

BTW if a bisexual man was "hardwired" that way should he be able to marry a man AND woman?

IF homosexuality is "hardwired" why isn't bisexuality?

And if it IS they obviously this man should be able to marry both a man and a woman.

You wouldn't want to discriminate against this man now would you?

But in addition, the idea of consenting adults that whidbey mentionned is another significant difference and the other particulars about each of these are also significant and render any attempt at claiming any analogy between these and homosexuality faulty.

As I said before can you prove that pedophiles are not "hardwired"?
 
  2007-04-05 11:36:11 AM
"But in addition, the idea of consenting adults that whidbey mentionned is another significant difference and the other particulars about each of these are also significant and render any attempt at claiming any analogy between these and homosexuality faulty."

As I said before can you prove that pedophiles are not "hardwired"?


here youve just completely ignored my point about the compounded particularities (which means the hardwiredness PLUS everything else) which make the differences between homosexuality and those other behaviours significant.

It's so freaky that you do not see the unequal effect of a law that states you cannot get the legal status of married and all the tax benefits or whatnot that come with it unless you marry a woman. To you there is no difference here it's like the fact that heterosexuals are affected obviously adversely while we are not affected adversely is not a real phenomenon.

Your phrase "the law affects both the same" is only acknowledging certain kinds of effects. You are basically putting your fingers in your ears to deny the different effects this law has on a person's ability to exercise his civil rights equally depending on your sexual orientation.

By your logic it would be fine for a law to exist saying that marriage is between two poeple of opposite sex AND of different race. Would you be fine with a law that would only privilege interacial couples with marital status???

You know what, don't even answer that.
I'm done.
Next subject.
 
  2007-04-05 01:41:02 PM
dottedmint: And for that matter, comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is disrespectful and irrelevant to the argument.

Actually it is relevant because as I pointed out there is some studies that suggest pedophiles don't CHOOSE to be pedophiles just like gays don't choose to be gay.


No, man, completely irrelevant. This isn't about choice or the lack of. This is about a respected group of citizens whose civil rights are not being recognized, and lumping them in with pedophiles and inbreds is dishonest and offensive.

This assumes there is a "right to MARRY". The States already regulate marriage. They have for ages.

There is no assumption. Straight couples' right to marry are recognized, and there are court decisions (pops) that champion that right among interracial couples, setting the precedent for same-sex couples.

The states are in violation of the 14th Amendment if they refuse to acknowledge that right under the Equal Protection clause.

This can then also be said about all the other groups that I mentioned.

I'm sorry, but that's absurd, and it sounds like you do not recognize the validity of homosexuals wishing to marry by the way you cloud the issue. That really is the bottom line, isn't it?
 
  2007-04-05 02:57:28 PM
dottedmint

All I can say is you are misunderstanding the definition of equal protection under the 14th amendment. A law defining marriage as between a man and a woman DOES NOT EFFECT PEOPLE the same way. Your sexual orientation defines the laws effect upon you. It has no effect on a straight person. By definition this is a per se equal protection issue. Your argument simply has no weight and would be laughed out of court.

The reason I mentioned separate but equal is because its foundation was the same twisted logic you seem to be spinning here: equal discrimination of two different classes of people. The problem with it is also the same problem with your argument: the law effects one group negatively but not the other. It's just way more obvious here why gays are affected unequally because on its face the law discriminates. Separate but equal cases needed actual evidence of why blacks were negatively affected by their separation from the more privileged white class.

This assumes there is a "right to MARRY". The States already regulate marriage.

First of all: if the SCOTUS defines something as a constitutional right and applies it to the states via the 14th amendment, the states are constricted by the constitution in their regulation of whatever that right may be. The fundamental rights of marriage is one of those things: states cannot outlaw marriage between two people of different races, for instance. States can regulate marriage but they are limited by the bounds of the constitution and SCOTUS precedent. So saying states can do whatever they want with it is incorrect.

Secondly, whether there is a fundamental right to same sex marriage is a DIFFERENT question as to whether a law defining marriage between a man and a woman offends equal protection. There is a QUESTION of equal application under the law when two classes of people are affected differently by a discriminatory law. This is undeniable.
 
  2007-04-05 10:51:08 PM
14TH Amendment: (least the key part)

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

1. As I have pointed out many times IF a law says that anyone can legally do "X" the "rights" of those who want to do "Y" are not violated by that law because the law only applies to "X".

2. I didn't see anyone answer this.... IF homosexuality is hardwired and gays should be able to marry because they didn't choose to be gay would bisexuality also be hardwired and should bisexual men be able to marry both a man and a woman?

IF they were hardwired to be bisexual and did not choose to be bisexual should they not have a "right" to marry both a man and woman?

And of course if a bisexual man has a "right" to marry both a man and a woman should a straight man be able to marry two women?

After all if a bisexual man is able to marry two people (since he was hardwired to be bisexual and we would never take away a right of someone to live the way they were hardwired) it would be a violation of the 14th Amendment if you did not allow a straight man to marry two women.
 
  2007-04-06 02:25:53 AM
dottedmint:

As I have pointed out many times IF a law says that anyone can legally do "X" the "rights" of those who want to do "Y" are not violated by that law because the law only applies to "X".

Your analogy is faulty because it is missing critical variables: people. All you are talking about is law X and law Y; how does the law "apply" to itself?

X in your analogy is "marriage between a man and a woman" correct? So X is the law. The end of your analogy says "the law only applies to X." So what you just said was that the law only applies to the law.

That doesn't make any sense.

The law doesn't apply to the rule it makes, the law applies to the people who are supposed to follow that rule.

A better analogy would be this: A wants to do X. B wants to do Y. B never does X, B does not want to do X, B never will do X. A law is passed that says anyone can only do X. The law doesn't affect A but it affects B, because B cannot do Y anymore. A and B are treated differently. That is an equal protection question, plain and simple.


You're arguing against gay marriage backwards: no one who is against gay marriage disputes whether a law restricting it is discriminatory. That's the point of passing the law. The dispute is whether there is a right to gay marriage at all, such that the government can restrict it and discriminate without running afoul of the constitution.
 
  2007-04-06 09:45:56 AM
C S: "X" in your analogy is "marriage between a man and a woman" correct? So X is the law. The end of your analogy says "the law only applies to X." So what you just said was that the law only applies to the law.

No. You are not reading what I posted.

I repeat:

14TH Amendment: (least the key part)

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

1. As I have pointed out many times IF a law says that anyone can legally do "X" the "rights" of those who want to do "Y" are not violated by that law because the law only applies to "X".



"X" is not the "LAW".

"X" is what the law says a person can do. The 'ACT'.

The amendment ONLY ensures the "equal protection of the laws". Not the 'ACT'

The "LAW" says ANYONE (applied equally) can do "X".

The "LAW" does NOT say ANYONE can do "X" or "Y".

The Amendment ONLY says the "LAW" must be applied equally.

==========================================================

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me IF a bisexual man (who was 'hardwired' being attracted to BOTH a man AND a woman) should be able to marry BOTH a man AND a woman.

After all he did NOT "choose" to be bisexual and it would be a 'violation of his civil rights' IF he was not allowed to marry BOTH a man AND a woman... (isn't that what I'm being told about a gay man?)

And IF a bisexual man can legally marry a man AND a woman (two people) should a straight man also be able to marry (two people)?
 
  2007-04-06 11:59:00 AM
dottedmint

The Amendment ONLY says the "LAW" must be applied equally.

Except the law isn't being applied equally. On one hand you have the fact that men can not marry men (which women can do) and women can not marry women (which men can do), and on the other you have the government arbitrarily allowing heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice while not permitting homosexuals to do the same.

In either case the law is not being applied equally to either both sexs, or both sexual orientations for reasons that make no logical sense.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me IF a bisexual man (who was 'hardwired' being attracted to BOTH a man AND a woman) should be able to marry BOTH a man AND a woman.

Yes they should, but right now we're just trying to make sure people are able to marry the adult person of their choice (as is their right already). Babysteps and all that.

After all he did NOT "choose" to be bisexual and it would be a 'violation of his civil rights' IF he was not allowed to marry BOTH a man AND a woman... (isn't that what I'm being told about a gay man?)

You're making the assumption that all bisexuals want to have a long lasting relationship with both sexes at the same time, this is patently false.

And IF a bisexual man can legally marry a man AND a woman (two people) should a straight man also be able to marry (two people)?

Why shouldn't he be able to if it is something his other wife wants as well? I know a number of very happy open-relationship and polyamourous couples, some straight, some bi, and some homosexual in nature. The important factor in this sort of situation is that everyone involved in the relationship is happy. The only difficult factor would be coming up with the tax and marriage law to compensate for multi-spouse relationships, but I'm sure the IRS would be able to handle the tax part of it.
 
  2007-04-06 12:01:25 PM
dottedmint

Marriage isn't even close to "s b e"

There are not two diffferent definitions to marriage.

There is ONLY ONE definition to marriage and it is equally applied to ALL people.


That's funny, I know four definitions off the top of my head, and I'm fairly sure if you give me a few minutes with a decent sized dictionary I can find another 3 or 4 more.
 
  2007-04-06 12:29:28 PM
Murkanen: Except the law isn't being applied equally. On one hand you have the fact that men can not marry men (which women can do) and women can not marry women (which men can do), and on the other you have the government arbitrarily allowing heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice while not permitting homosexuals to do the same.

The law says that ANY one man can marry ANY one woman.

That is COMPLETELY "equal".

It doesn't say that ANYONE can marry ANYONE.


1. As I have pointed out many times IF a law says that anyone can legally do "X" the "rights" of those who want to do "Y" are not violated by that law because the law only applies to "X".

The Amendment say that the LAW must be applied EQUALLY.

And so you think that not only should a man be able to marry a man but ANYONE should be able to marry AS MANY other people that they want?

Do you think there is ANY group that should NOT be covered by marriage?

Earlier I brought up some other groups that might want to marry....

Brother....Sister?

Father....Daughter?

Mother....Son?

Father....Son?

Mother....Daughter?
 
Displayed 50 of 2653 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Remember me Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report