Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 299
  1. #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I apologize for not being clear enough. Homosexuals can marry, just not same sex, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they desire per our laws.
    Legally, perhaps. Not ethically. A homosexual cannot ethically make the commitments to a member of the opposite sex that "marriage" requires. (No less an authority than the Roman Catholic Church says that homosexual orientation is an impediment to marriage.) One might ethically make such a commitment to a member of the same gender but be forbidden to do so legally. I think that is called a dilemma, not a choice.


    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I agree that discrimination (work place, housing, etc) due to sexual orientation happens, but I was specifically speaking to not being allowed to marry, since by legal definition that is one man one woman.
    Arguably. Some panderers (used advisedly) in the US Congress would like to end the argument with a Constitutional Amendment. We can all take comfort in the fact that the Founders made it very difficult for temporary majorities to change the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I am really trying to look at this from a scientific point of view which I admit is hard when you deal with feelings, love, lust, etc.
    Are you, indeed? I will grant you sincerity.

    I ask you to take a more personal, not to say humane, view. Ask yourself whether or not you could "marry," that is, commit, to another man.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    II also understand that there are privileges provide to married couples that homosexual couples do not receive, however a homosexual couple is not expected to reproduce to continue repopulation (not using thta as an argument against homosexuality, just pointing out difference), so expectaions are also different.
    Perhaps. I acknowledge that a homosexual couple are not able, expected, to reproduce (though some committed lesbian couples find a way). They are, however, able, though often forbidden, to nurture. (It should be obvious that in our society many are allowed, indeed encouraged, to reproduce who are unable or unwilling to nurture.) Mere reproduction, in lust, is cheap when compared to the commitment to nurture.
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/13/2006 at 07:28 PM.
  2. #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Ah, well, that is an advantage of having modern prophets.

    What was the position of the LDS Church? How essential to the practice of polygamy to the practice of the faith? Was it that only those with more than one wife could be a member or a bishop, or was it simply that multiple wives were encouraged? Were single people excommunicated?
    The church began teaching plural marriage in the 1850's a few years after Joseph Smith claimed to have been visited by an angel who told him to take more wives like Solomon, Abraham, etc. The thought was that Joseph Smith was to restore the ancient church the way it used to be--including having multiple wives. I believe the teaching was that it was superior to monogamous marriage but not a command for everyone. In fact, in many communities only the elders would have multiple wives. However, after the LDS church abandon the teaching, Mormon groups splintered off (Fundamentalist Church LDS, Apostolic United Bretheren, etc) and, as splinter groups are sometimes wont to do, placed even more emphasis on the teaching of plural marriage. Some groups even considered plural marriage mandatory to get to the highest level of heaven, the "third degree of glory".
  3. #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I must be in the last pew.
    At least half way back.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    This is all sounds good and would be a great rallying cry if sexual orientation were a seperate class designation. It is not, so as of now there is no legal discrimination going on.
    Legal or illegal, there is clearly discrimination going on. That is, citizens, who are similar in all other respects, are treated differently opon only the basis of their affectionate choices.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I understand that individuals feel they are being discriminated against, but not being allowed to do something because you choose...
    I will not repeat the arguments that it is not a choice except to observe that you could not commit to a member of the same gender.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    .....a certain lifestyle is not disrcimination.
    When the state treats citizens differently, that is called discrimination.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Homosexuals are not being told they can not marry, it is just they must follow the rules set forth.
    I will not repeat the argument made above that what is legal is not ethical and that what is ethical is not legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    The courts have looked at the laws and determined that everything is in order.
    Perhaps you and I have read different reports. I was not aware that the courts were in such a condition of unanimous agreement as you suggest.
  4. #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Look out.
    Do you really believe for one minute that I reached this age careless.
  5. #145  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    If s/he strongly desires 'X' the options are:

    1. Leave the group
    I was here when you were still in the mind of God. If that is a problem, you leave.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    2. Seek to change the group's law
    I was born into a segregated culture. I do not claim any credit for the change but I was here. This too shall pass.


    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    3. Endure the consequences
    (I will ignore the implied threat; have been threatened by bigger and uglier.) I can live with it until I cannot live with it anymore. I have time, yet.
  6. #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    ...........With that backdrop, maybe it is easier to see why I've stated before, laws are discriminatory by design.......
    The state may discriminate. Only a fool would argue otherwise. However, under the Rule of Law, it may not do so arbitrarily. It may not do so on the basis of status. It may not permit itself to be used by a majority to dominate a minority. Must I repeat this argument?
  7. #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    The state may discriminate. Only a fool would argue otherwise. However, under the Rule of Law, it may not do so arbitrarily. It may not do so on the basis of status. It may not permit itself to be used by a majority to dominate a minority. Must I repeat this argument?
    Unfortunately I think you are wrong here. Laws can be capricious and unjust, and often are.

    Surur
  8. #148  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I was here when you were still in the mind of God. If that is a problem, you leave.



    I was born into a segregated culture. I do not claim any credit for the change but I was here. This too shall pass.


    (I will ignore the implied threat; have been threatened by bigger and uglier.) I can live with it until I cannot live with it anymore. I have time, yet.


    Did I come across as giving an ultimatum?

    The three options are all that one has when one disagrees with the present state.

    I don't like that the state mandates I maintain auto insurance. What are my options?

    1. Go live somewhere where no such requirement exists
    2. Work to have the law changed
    3. Live with it, by either getting insurance, or driving without it and having my privilege to drive revoked

    I don't like that the state mandates i wear a seat belt. What are my options?

    1-2-3

    I don't like that the SCOTUS ruled on eminent domain as was recently decided. What are my options?

    1-2-3

    If one doesn't like current law regarding marriage, what are the otpions?

    1-2-3
  9. #149  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    The state may discriminate. Only a fool would argue otherwise. However, under the Rule of Law, it may not do so arbitrarily. It may not do so on the basis of status. It may not permit itself to be used by a majority to dominate a minority. Must I repeat this argument?
    We are probably closer in view on this matter than the context of the discussion demonstrates.

    Perhaps it is a semantic matter. What do you mean by the term "status"?
  10. #150  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Unfortunately I think you are wrong here. Laws can be capricious and unjust, and often are.

    Surur
    Indeed. At its root, that is what this discussion is all about. At the extremes we have only the rule of law or the rule of men which always degrades to tyranny. Such laws undermine the legitimacy of law itself. We have an obligation, in the name of justice and the Rule of Law, to resist such laws.

    That is why we cherish Magna Carta. It established the principle of limited government and a limited governing class. "Not even the King is above the law." It established the principle that there are limits to majority rule. Since Magna Carta we have been engaged in a millenial dialog as to which laws are arbitrary and capricious and what the king may and may not do, all in the endless pursuit of justice.

    The laws against homosexuality are particularly pernicious because they can never be equitably enforced. Secret homosexual Nazis imprisoned and executed identified homosexuals, and heterosexuals, in the name of eradicating something that cannot be eradicated. Homosexuals do not reproduce but heterosexuals seem to produce homosexual children in a fairly constant proportion.

    Those who support such laws do so in part because they think that they keep others in "their place." Not true. Since your children are homosexual, they punish you. Because they are arbitrary and capricious, they can be used against the innocent. Because they are arbitrary and capricious they create an atmosphere of fear. Because they undermine the rule of law, they corrode social order.

    You err if you believe that the governing class supports such laws only because they believe that their constituency does. Not true. They understand that arbitrary and capricious laws empower them. They do not much care what such laws provide as long as they get to apply them. We have an obligation to resist them.

    Perhaps this is as good a point as any at which to end this thread.
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/14/2006 at 09:13 AM.
  11. #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    We are probably closer in view on this matter than the context of the discussion demonstrates.

    Perhaps it is a semantic matter. What do you mean by the term "status"?
    Well, obvious examples are the states of being young, old, female, or "previous condition of servitude:" state as contrasted to behavior, things over which the individual has limited to no control.
  12. #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim


    Did I come across as giving an ultimatum?
    No. You came across as hostile and threatening. As a life-long victim of hostility and threat, perhaps I am hyper-sensitive.
  13. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    At least half way back.



    Legal or illegal, there is clearly discrimination going on. That is, citizens, who are similar in all other respects, are treated differently opon only the basis of their affectionate choices.



    I will not repeat the arguments that it is not a choice except to observe that you could not commit to a member of the same gender.



    When the state treats citizens differently, that is called discrimination.



    I will not repeat the argument made above that what is legal is not ethical and that what is ethical is not legal.



    Perhaps you and I have read different reports. I was not aware that the courts were in such a condition of unanimous agreement as you suggest.

    I also have no desire to rehash the arguments. We are speaking of legal issues when we speak of discrimination. A unanimous agreement is highly unlikely on issue, would you require an unanimous agreement before the laws get changed or would you agree to a majority? If you wait for a unanimous agreement, you will wait a long time.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  14. #154  
    I've spent a lot of time lately trying to tell folks what *hasn't* been ok on the boards, so just wanted to put in a post here saying I think this discussion is going very well. Some posts get confrontational, and the affected users ask for clarification, and there's apologies all around.

    I told somebody in an email that I'm a sap and I have warm fuzzy feelings for all you users - it's threads like this, that start to move in a bad direction and then get corrected, that gives me them warm fuzzies.
  15. #155  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I also have no desire to rehash the arguments. We are speaking of legal issues when we speak of discrimination. A unanimous agreement is highly unlikely on issue, would you require an unanimous agreement before the laws get changed or would you agree to a majority? If you wait for a unanimous agreement, you will wait a long time.
    Thanks for your question.

    It is a fundamental principle of the Rule of Law that while a majority may be necessary it it not always suffiicient, that there are limits to what a majority can do.

    Majorities are often ill-informed. For example, polls consistently report that a majority of Americans would vote to repeal the First Amendment; it is not sufficient.

    Many majorities are temporary. For example, a majority of Americans were in favor of invading Iraq. Majorities favored Prohibition and opposed universal suffrage.

    Many majorities are local. Protestants are a majority in Ulster but a minority in Ireland. A majority in the South supported slavery while a majority in the North supported abolition.

    Some legislators propose popular things that they know to be destructive, confident that they cannot be enacted. Hate is often popular but it is rarely good public policy, much less good law.

    We require persistent and super majorities to amend the Constitution. Nice people resist the attempts of majorities to arrogate to themselves benefits and privileges they would deny to minorities.
  16. #156  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Well, obvious examples are the states of being young, old, female, or "previous condition of servitude:" state as contrasted to behavior, things over which the individual has limited to no control.
    Got it.

    We agreed that all law is by definition discriminatory.

    As it relates to discrimination by status, I am under the impression that it is always about status -- in the sense of meeting or having met the criteria (behavior). I do agree that there are some states that are uncontrollable, and as such are not justifiable as basis of discrimination.

    I am not sure that sexual orientation/practices is one of those uncontrollables.

    And, for the record, whether it is or is not, is not, in my view a reason for us to grant or withhold the right to marry.

    I think they are two separate discussions. I've tried maintain that distinction in the related threads. But as Bheuss (I think) said, it is one thing to be philosophical and theoretical, and it is quite another to deal with real life circumstances.
    Last edited by shopharim; 07/14/2006 at 10:26 AM.
  17. #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    -- in the sense of meeting or having met the criteria (behavior)......
    The criteria are not always behavior.

    Take for example the discredited law called "Don't ask, Don't tell," discredited because, by any objective measure, it has aggravated the problem it was supposed to solve. While one might assert that it is about, behavior, "asking" and "telling," it is really about homosexuality. It only applies to homosexuals. One may brag about one's heterosexual conquests all one wants to but one cannot even admit to a preference for one's own gender. Incidentally, telling is punished but asking is not.
  18. #158  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    ........
    And, for the record, whether it is or is not, (it) is not, in my view a reason for us to grant or withhold the right to marry.......
    I have already admitted that, whatever the discrimination, the only thing to recommend "gay marriage" as a solution is its simplicity. That said, it is a matter for the states, not the federal government, and it certainly does not rise to the level of a Constitutional issue.

    The demagogues and panderers believe that it is safe to pretend that it is a constitutional issue because they are confident that it cannot pass. It is popular but not that popular. On the other hand, the pretense is divisive and destructive.
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/14/2006 at 10:51 AM.
  19. #159  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    ........I think they are two separate discussions. I've tried maintain that distinction in the related threads. But as Bheuss (I think) said, it is one thing to be philosophical and theoretical, and it is quite another to deal with real life circumstances.
    Of course it helps when it is the other guy's "circumstance" and one does not really have to "deal."
  20. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    The criteria are not always behavior.

    Take for example the discredited law called "Don't ask, Don't tell," discredited because, by any objective measure, it has aggravated the problem it was supposed to solve. While one might assert that it is about, behavior, "asking" and "telling," it is really about homosexuality. It only applies to homosexuals. One may brag about one's heterosexual conquests all one wants to but one cannot even admit to a preference for one's own gender. Incidentally, telling is punished but asking is not.
    I have to disagree with your statement that telling is not punished. I had a young airman that worked in my section that questioned another members sexual prreference in a department meeting. The young airman was punished through non-judicial punishment. His rank was reduced 2 paygrades and he performed extra duties for 15 days. Also, bragging of ones heterosexual conquests is dealt with because it is unprofessional and conduct unbecoming an airman.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions