Same sex marriage compromise

shrubnose said:

Congress passed a law, the Supreme Court approves of it, and that's good enough for me.

If you want to find an argument more compelling than combating racism, get after it.

Click to expand...

So if I am reading this correctly, you are of the opinion that one only has a right if it is codified and defined by law. Otherwise that right doesn't exist. Is this correct. If not, please explain what your belief on rights is.

shrubnose said:

Here's an idea: Open up a public restaurant and put a sign on the door saying: NO (Pick your least favorite ethnic or religious group.) ALLOWED, and you will learn some very compelling reasons to obey the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Try it and tell us how it works out.

Click to expand...

You argument works on the premise of what the law is. However you are arguing against the wrong premise. If the law states that the media shall only print what the government tells it or allows it to, do you then agree that freedom of press is not a right? The principle holds true across the board. The argument here is not what the law says, but what the right is. Either the law defines rights or rights are and the law may indeed restrict or deny that right.

captainawesome said:

You sure are a one trick pony in favor of discrimination.

Click to expand...

One does not have to favor discrimination to support the freedom to discriminate. It's very similar to the way that there are people who do not support abortion (and in fact abhor it) but still support the freedom for a woman to choose whether or not to get one. We accept that with free speech comes the requirement to allow people to say things that we will find abhorrent. This is another example of where the principle need to remain consistent across the board.

shrubnose said:

It might have been this guy:

<Jesus pic>

Do you believe that Jesus Christ would approve of these signs:

<No Colored signs pic>

Think about it.

Click to expand...

At any point did you ever find Jesus trying to get the law changed? In all my reading and studying, the only thing I saw him try to do was to get people to change. Think about it.

Yes we should be trying to stop things like racism, sexism, homophobia, abortion and all kinds of other ills, but not at the expense of freedom and liberty. It is better to change them socially, not legally.

Edit add on: Think on this: Why are you willing to force a person to sell/provide a service for a person even if they don't want to (because of skin color) but you are not willing to force a person to buy/use a service from a person even if they don't want to (because of skin color). And just to prevent the obvious argument of forcing a person to buy when they don't want at all. Use the example of the person who gets a product and gets in line and is standing there through 5 people. Then the cashiers change out and the new cashier is black (the customer white, although feel free to substitute any two different races as the point holds true regardless). The customer now gets out of line rather than conduct a business transaction with a black person. RACISM! Yet you won't combat that by law, will you?

maquiscat said:

Yet you won't combat that by law, will you?

Click to expand...

What I won't do is waste my time responding to your incoherent drivel point by point.

You and a few others who 'think' like you are the ones who are wasting their time, shoveling sand against the overwhelming tide. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was approved by the U.S. Congress, signed by President Johnson and tested and approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. You are out of touch with the vast majority of Americans on the left and right.

Anyone who, like you, doesn't like this law, can try to change it through the ballot box, and ultimately by amending the U.S. Constitution. I see very little chance of that ever happening. Only a small minority of Americans are opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so I choose to ignore them.

I don't see a bit of difference between a person who supports racism because of their Libertarian personal property beliefs and a full-blown racist.

The effect is the same.

You and those on your side lost this argument back in 1964. The USA will not be going back to Jim Crow laws, no matter how much those in your small minority scream and moan.

Believe what you want to believe. That's your 1st Amendment right (Which I support.), but no one is required to buy into your, or anyone's, minority beliefs.



"At the heart of racism is the religious assertion that God made a creative mistake when He brought some people into being." ~ Friedrich Otto Hertz

shrubnose said:

What I won't do is waste my time responding to your incoherent drivel point by point.

You and a few others who 'think' like you are the ones who are wasting their time, shoveling sand against the overwhelming tide. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was approved by the U.S. Congress, signed by President Johnson and tested and approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. You are out of touch with the vast majority of Americans on the left and right.

Anyone who, like you, doesn't like this law, can try to change it through the ballot box, and ultimately by amending the U.S. Constitution. I see very little chance of that ever happening. Only a small minority of Americans are opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so I choose to ignore them.

I don't see a bit of difference between a person who supports racism because of their Libertarian personal property beliefs and a full-blown racist.

The effect is the same.

You and those on your side lost this argument back in 1964. The USA will not be going back to Jim Crow laws, no matter how much those in your small minority scream and moan.

Believe what you want to believe. That's your 1st Amendment right (Which I support.), but no one is required to buy into your, or anyone's, minority beliefs.

Click to expand...

Time for some education, again.

Jim Crow Laws where laws by the state that discriminated against people, which has nothing to do with conversion we are having here. No one in this conversion is opposed to the entire 1964 Civil rights bill, but only the parts that infringe on the peoples right to control access and use of their property. If we are indeed to protect property we must understand that the foundation of property, be it your body, your home, your business, your land, etc is the right to control access and use of such property. This has nothing to do with supporting racism or being racist, but fighting for the right to control access and use of your property from the arm of the government. I don't happen to find your fallacies worth my time to deal with again, so I will end there.

Smeagol said:

The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?

Click to expand...

It is an essential role of government to recognize and uphold contracts. I think the nature of marriage is that of a civil contract of sorts, and because the legitimate powers of government reach only actions which injure others either physically or financially, same-sex marriage between consenting adults could not constitutionally be restricted. Of course the other side of this is that marriage is widely accepted as religious, and there should be no laws which respect religious doctrine or morality in this area, but government also has no constitutional authority to require churches to accept or perform such marriages. The government should only be compelled to recognize marriages as legitimate, and not establish the rules for which a marriage may be made.

Henrin said:

Time for some education, again.

Click to expand...

When you and your extremely small minority manage to change well established law we'll have something to have 'conversions' :lamo. about.

Until then, I have no more time to waste on those who want to return to the dark ages in the USA.

Have a nice millisecond.

shrubnose said:

When you and your small minority manage to change well established law we'll have something to talk about.

Until then, I have no more time to waste on those who want to return to the dark ages in the USA.

Have a nice millisecond.

Click to expand...

Is respect for property honestly something you consider similar to the state of affairs in the dark ages?

Henrin said:

Is respect for property honestly something you consider similar to the state of affairs in the dark ages?

Click to expand...

Did you repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act already?

How did you do that?

maquiscat said:

Your historical re-writing is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Your projection is what's irrelevant.

I simply told the historical truth.

Your revisionism, that also is irrelevant.

maquiscat said:

Simply because you do not wish to recognize what people in the past have done, does not mean it has not happened.

Click to expand...

Simply because you want to call a cat a dog and enter it in a dog show does not make the cat a dog .. or the dog show a cat show.

Since before the agricultural revolution, over 12,000 years ago, marriage has been between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Simply because some people might have engaged in a completely different civil union domestic partnership does not make them a man and a woman .. or the partnership a marriage.

Playing ludicrous oxymoronic brainwashing games also has no effect in changing reality, even if it might seduce the lower IQ/EQ or synonymous ideologues among us.

Henrin said:

With marriage falling off and with most gay individuals also not interested in marriage assuming the trend in interest continues to go down towards marriage this line of argument will over time mean less and less towards SS.

Click to expand...

Marriage and SS aren't really big together now. Each individual adult earns their own SS. The majority of US adults have held a job sometime in their lives. With divorce and a decline in marriage, it means that spousal SS is so insignificant of an issue it should not even come up in the same sex marriage debate at all.

TML said:

It is an essential role of government to recognize and uphold contracts. I think the nature of marriage is that of a civil contract of sorts, and because the legitimate powers of government reach only actions which injure others either physically or financially, same-sex marriage between consenting adults could not constitutionally be restricted. Of course the other side of this is that marriage is widely accepted as religious, and there should be no laws which respect religious doctrine or morality in this area, but government also has no constitutional authority to require churches to accept or perform such marriages. The government should only be compelled to recognize marriages as legitimate, and not establish the rules for which a marriage may be made.

Click to expand...

Really? I thought it was the role of the parties to a contract to recognize and uphold their contractual agreements. To my understanding the government only gets involved usually if a party to a contract breaches their obligations and courts are asked to compell the party who has not upheld their agreement either through force of law of order some other adequate remedy. That is unless the government is itself a party to the contract then the government must recognize and uphold their obligations. I could be wrong. I always learn new things here.

shrubnose said:

What I won't do is waste my time responding to your incoherent drivel point by point.

Click to expand...

Translation: All my arguments here have failed so I will change the goal posts and claim a win.

We are talking about RIGHTS not LAW. When you cite what the LAW is you are not addressing the argument. You essentially say that you have no argument, no logical rebuttal.

You and a few others who 'think' like you are the ones who are wasting their time, shoveling sand against the overwhelming tide. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was approved by the U.S. Congress, signed by President Johnson and tested and approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. You are out of touch with the vast majority of Americans on the left and right.

Anyone who, like you, doesn't like this law, can try to change it through the ballot box, and ultimately by amending the U.S. Constitution. I see very little chance of that ever happening. Only a small minority of Americans are opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so I choose to ignore them.

Click to expand...

So again I ask. Did the blacks have no rights until the 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted? Your arguments seem to be based around the concept that rights are defined by law. If indeed blacks actually had the right to vote prior to the CRA and the 15th amendment, then you cannot argue that we don't have the right to deny people to shop our privately held stores for whatever reason. The argument is that a right exists even if the law doesn't support or allow it. Counter the argument! If you can.

You and those on your side lost this argument back in 1964. The USA will not be going back to Jim Crow laws, no matter how much those in your small minority scream and moan.

Click to expand...

There you go shifting the goal post again. Jim Crow laws REQUIRED discrimination. No one had a choice to not discriminate under Jim Crow laws. CRA laws REQUIRE non-discrimination. No one has a choice to discriminate under CRA laws. We are advocating for the freedom to choose. I guess you are against such freedoms.

maquiscat said:

So again I ask. Did the blacks have no rights until the 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted? Your arguments seem to be based around the concept that rights are defined by law. If indeed blacks actually had the right to vote prior to the CRA and the 15th amendment, then you cannot argue that we don't have the right to deny people to shop our privately held stores for whatever reason. The argument is that a right exists even if the law doesn't support or allow it. Counter the argument! If you can.

Click to expand...

No, rights are defined by society and they are codified by law. Blacks who were slaves back before the Civil War were not free, no matter how much you wish they were. They had very few rights, no matter how much you wish they did. It's not an argument that rights are these ethereal things that just float around and exist whether anyone recognizes them or not, that's absurd. That's a wholly unsupported claim.

maquiscat said:

I guess you are against such freedoms.

Click to expand...

I support the law.

Those who don't are members of a small minority.

Get back to me when you change the law.

shrubnose said:

I support the law.

Those who don't are members of a small minority.

Get back to me when you change the law.

Click to expand...

I support laws that take away your rights. We will all be slaves together.

shrubnose said:

I support the law.

Those who don't are members of a small minority.

Get back to me when you change the law.

Click to expand...

Actually no. Most people have at least some laws they do not support and they work to change those laws by whatever means are available, this includes going through the court systems where available to have laws struck down. They may obey the laws, but supporting a law and obeying the law are two completely different things.

Cephus said:

No, rights are defined by society and they are codified by law. Blacks who were slaves back before the Civil War were not free, no matter how much you wish they were. They had very few rights, no matter how much you wish they did. It's not an argument that rights are these ethereal things that just float around and exist whether anyone recognizes them or not, that's absurd. That's a wholly unsupported claim.

Click to expand...

So then you disagree with the part of the Declaration of Independence that people "...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."?

shrubnose said:

I support the law.

Those who don't are members of a small minority.

Get back to me when you change the law.

Click to expand...

So then when/if SSM becomes law you will then support SSM?

I have a compromise.

Tell the government to 'f' off.

It is none of their business if I want to marry a woman, a man or an attractive table lamp.

DA60 said:

I have a compromise.

Tell the government to 'f' off.

It is none of their business if I want to marry a woman, a man or an attractive table lamp.

Click to expand...

It is if you want one of them to have certain recognition as a legal family member. The woman has the right to be considered your legal family, just as all humans can be someone's family, either by choice or by birth. Inanimate objects on the other hand do not have such rights, or any for that matter.

roguenuke said:

It is if you want one of them to have certain recognition as a legal family member. The woman has the right to be considered your legal family, just as all humans can be someone's family, either by choice or by birth. Inanimate objects on the other hand do not have such rights, or any for that matter.

Click to expand...

Jeez...obviously it's a joke.

The point is I should be able to legally marry anyone and get full benefits under the law. and so should my spouse - providing it is human.

captainawesome said:

I support laws that take away your rights. We will all be slaves together.

Click to expand...

When and if those laws are ever passed.

Smeagol said:

Really? I thought it was the role of the parties to a contract to recognize and uphold their contractual agreements. To my understanding the government only gets involved usually if a party to a contract breaches their obligations and courts are asked to compell the party who has not upheld their agreement either through force of law of order some other adequate remedy. That is unless the government is itself a party to the contract then the government must recognize and uphold their obligations. I could be wrong. I always learn new things here.

Click to expand...

I agree with that, but because marriage becomes a legal issue (tax benefits ect.) and also in the course of getting a divorce, it seems that the government should simply recognize such a legal agreement between consenting parties, and only get involved in disputes, rather than creating or defining subjective rules for who may enter into marriage.

maquiscat said:

So then you disagree with the part of the Declaration of Independence that people "...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."?

Click to expand...

What Creator?

roguenuke said:

Actually no. Most people have at least some laws they do not support and they work to change those laws by whatever means are available, this includes going through the court systems where available to have laws struck down. They may obey the laws, but supporting a law and obeying the law are two completely different things.

Click to expand...

"Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time."

shrubnose said:

"Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time."

Click to expand...

What crime? We are discussing civil marriage, not a criminal statute.

Was Rosa Parks wrong? What about the Lovings? They not only did the crime and the time, but their breaking the laws led to many positive changes in the advancement of civil rights and struck down the laws they broke because they were wrong.

shrubnose said:

What Creator?

Click to expand...

Not worried about you on that question. You've already established that you don't believe a right exists unless it's written as a law.