How does same gender marriage hurt you?

[coda]

Yes, there is evidence of this bahavior in animals (although in fewer numbers than humans);) But as you said, we have free will and intellect. While animals are driven by in inherent instinct which drives their need to reproduce, we humans have the ability to contemplate, decide and control our behaviors. Surely we don't want to use the "animals do it, so it must be OK" argument.

I'm not sure where you come up with the "fewer numbers than humans" statement. Certainly among the bonobos the incidence approaches 100%, though admittedly I believe few or none of the population is exclusively homosexual. In the case of bonobos performing digital manipulation of members of their own sex (I certainly hope I'm not offending anyone with that rather graphic description) and female dogs 'humping' (again I apologize if I've given offense) other female dogs there doesn't seem to be an linkage between behavior and "instinct which drives their need to reproduce".



Finally, no, I'm not using the "animals do it, so it must be "OK"" argument. I was only responding to the "natural law" aspect of the anti-homosexual position. A response which I've believe I've supported fairly well.

[Spexvet]

But you are not God. Let God pass his/her judgment and take care of it himself.

No matter how you feel about what is right for you, please heed the wisdom of For-Life.

[jediron1]

Again as usuall coda missed the point! Wow could that be coda missed a point?

Ya! We keep going over and over these same points. It's like some people pouring coffee and not watch where they are pouring, they just keep on pouring until it hits the floor. It's the same with your arguments, you figure that if you say and quote them enough that sooner or later people will say " Wow that must be right because coda keeps giving us this diatribe and he would not keep doing it unless he thought he was right" :hammer:

[jediron1]

Spexvet: PLezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!:drop:

[coda]

Again as usuall coda missed the point! Wow could that be coda missed a point?

Ya! We keep going over and over these same points. It's like some people pouring coffee and not watch where they are pouring, they just keep on pouring until it hits the floor. It's the same with your arguments, you figure that if you say and quote them enough that sooner or later people will say " Wow that must be right because coda keeps giving us this diatribe and he would not keep doing it unless he thought he was right" :hammer:

Hmm, Jed, I've missed your point? Since you neglect to tell us what it is I tend to doubt it. You've simply parroted what I said and sent it back, smacks of sour grapes.



Come on Jed you claim to have a point, that I seem to have missed, maybe you'd want to share it with us. Maybe you'd even want to support it this time, you know, with arguments and stuff.

[Pete Hanlin]

This has certainly been an interesting thread...
Your comments reveal a willingness to promote the legal suppression of the activities of persons, of whose choices you do not approve.
We legally suppress the activities of people all the time via laws and statutes- I can choose to drive as fast as I want on the highway, until I'm "suppressed" by the state trooper. Its illegal for me to simply pull my children out of public school with no explanation or accountability to the state. Its also illegal for me to hold a religious service in a federally owned building (re: the Supreme Court's aforementioned interpretation of the Constitution). These are all activities which the society of our country has decided to suppress out of interest for the common good.

We also regulate a lot of activities simply because of the value judgements... For example, in some communities its illegal for me to construct a fence above a certain height or paint my walls neon green. Most public beaches suppress the right of people to sunbathe in the nude. A 15 year old cannot attend an R rated movie by him/herself, and so on...

In other words, as usual, you're 100% correct Robert! The rationale is pretty much exactly in keeping with your statement- people are willing to legally suppress the activities of other people because they do not approve of them or find them distasteful. Its been made relatively clear each time the issue is brought to a popular vote that most people in the country do not favor expanding the definition of marriage to include those between homosexuals.

If you live in a community that restricts your ability to paint your house the color you desire, you can either lobby to change the mind of your fellow citizens (which is what I see going on in this and other forums), or you can move to somewhere where the rules are different. Simply calling everyone that doesn't want a neon green house next to them old-fashioned and close-minded strikes me as poor methodology for accomplishing the former alternative, however.

Point being, making something illegal doesn't require that the activity harms someone else. Sometimes its nothing more than the fact that people disapprove of the activity. You can call them names and disdain them all you wish, but its everyone's perogative to like what they like and dislike what they dislike (sort of the same argument that's made for making homosexual marriages legal).

Personally, if some guy wants to marry another guy that's just fine with me. I choose to be heterosexual (and regarding when this choice was made, I think it corresponded pretty closely to seeing Lynda Carter in her Wonder Woman costume for the first time as a kid ;^). I dunno, maybe other guys are genetically different and had the same feelings when they saw David Hasselhoff in Knight Rider for the first time- I just can't relate to that experience! This brings me to an interesting question. Does a homosexual man recoil at the thought of having sex with a woman to the same degree that I would recoil at the thoughts of having sex with a man? Anyway, while I recoil at the thought of myself engaging in that activity, I'm pretty ambivalent about others doing so (just hopefully not in front of me ;^).

I agree that homosexuality has probably existed to relatively the same degree throughout history- I think its a good sign that people feel more at ease with taking the still traumatic leap of "outing" themselves. Heaven knows the Greeks participated in homosexuality (look at Socrates writings and you'll see lots of references to both relations others have and of mythical homosexual beings). The Romans were pretty enamored with boys as well...

From a theological standpoint, I think anyone wishing to espouse Christianity would have a hard time getting around Romans chapter one. However, if you don't happen to hold to Christianity (or do so but believe the Bible is not divinely inspired), I suppose its not impossible or even improbable that God fully endorses homosexuality.

[shanbaum]

Well, no, Pete, we generally don’t legally suppress activities of which we merely don’t approve, especially when those activities may aptly be described as involving rights. At least, not without a compelling reason – the most common of which arises when one party’s rights conflict with another party’s rights.


That is why the right-wing talking point on gay marriage includes the “attack on traditional marriage” language, when of course, there’s no such thing. Doing so makes it sound as though someone else’s rights would be impaired.


If we’re simply going to have a vote on issues of rights, then let’s be honest about it and forgo the charade of enshrining fundamental rights in a Constitution altogether.


But, if we do that, I’d recommend that everyone under 25 or so take Spanish lessons.


Now, leave me alone, I have work to do.

[Pete Hanlin]

Point being, making something illegal doesn't require that the activity harms someone else. Sometimes its nothing more than the fact that people disapprove of the activity.
Wow, you can call my "Sybil," because I'm responding to my own post. The logical argument against the above would be "but if the disliking involves discriminating against the race, creed, etc. of a person..."

Gotta admit, that's partly compelling. However, I suppose it then comes to this- is homosexuality at a par with race, religion, gender, etc. in defining someone? I suppose that's why the "its a choice/ its genetic" argument comes into play so strongly. To that, I'd note that many consider alcoholism to be genetic as well- but we don't pass laws specifically protecting the rights of alcoholics (I'm not trying to equate homosexuality to alcoholism). Now, if you want to call homosexuality a genetic disability, I think it would be covered. Otherwise, its just another genetic condition (I don't think there's anything specifically protecting redheads from discrimination- and that's genetic).

[Pete Hanlin]

That is why the right-wing talking point on gay marriage includes the “attack on traditional marriage” language, when of course, there’s no such thing. Doing so makes it sound as though someone else’s rights would be impaired.
It amazes me how people who decry "labeling" feel so at ease griping about "right wing attacks." Really, maybe right-wingers are genetically right-wing! In that case, I think it is awfully insensitive of you to be making fun of and scorning their genetic decision, Robert. After all, I was born a Republican- its who I am... I await your apology and wish you would refer to me and my ilk as "pro-conformist" in the future. Since you obviously believe my genetic condition makes me incapable of intelligent thinking, I think I should be afforded special working conditions to enable me to function with my disability (perhaps having a "CNN-free" zone in the airport would be a nice place to start).


Sarcasm aside, I don't recall ever invoking the words "attack," "rights," or "traditional marriage," so let's stick to holding me accountable for my own arguments, alright? Those being, I don't think you've established the fact that being homosexual is a right protected under the Constitution. Perhaps that is your interpretation- and I suppose we will eventually see if the Supreme Court agrees with you- but the status quo is that homosexuality is not a right (in fact, I think there are several states with laws against that activity).

This brings us to the heart of it all- is homosexuality an inherent (some silly people would say God-given) right? Considering the fact that Bush is going to eventually be making an appointment to the Supreme Court (and noting that Congress has shifted further Republican as of the last election), I would suggest it unlikely the Court will be interpreting in a specific right anytime soon (okay, I'll admit "interpreting in" was spurious and blatant spin language on my part).

If we’re simply going to have a vote on issues of rights, then let’s be honest about it and forgo the charade of enshrining fundamental rights in a Constitution altogether.
I'm just asking for the same thing you are, Robert. People in favor of homosexual marriage should drop the charade and simply state that they really enjoy sexual and emotional relations with people of the same sex and would enjoy the opportunity to have legal recognition of their relationships. This involves changing the ideology of the public to view homosexuality as something positive (or at least something not to be disdained), and will be accomplished much quicker with honey than with vinegar.

My impression is, many don't feel as if this change of ideology is going to be possible (anytime soon, anyway), and so they are lobbying for an interpretation of the constitution that provides them with new rights. We'll see...

[shanbaum]

Sarcasm aside, I don't recall ever invoking the words "attack," "rights," or "traditional marriage," so let's stick to holding me accountable for my own arguments, alright?

You didn't; nor did I say you did. Shutterbug did, above. And it's certainly part of standard right-wing doctrine, along with the widespread persecution of Christians in America.

Those being, I don't think you've established the fact that being homosexual is a right protected under the Constitution.

See Lawrence v. Texas. Ship sailed.

With regard to "new rights", refer to Civil Rights movement, circa 1955-1965. Same argument made then; same argument will be made whenever a group that has been deprived of rights seeks to claim them.

[coda]

Gotta admit, that's partly compelling. However, I suppose it then comes to this- is homosexuality at a par with race, religion, gender, etc. in defining someone? I suppose that's why the "its a choice/ its genetic" argument comes into play so strongly. Now, if you want to call homosexuality a genetic disability, I think it would be covered. Otherwise, its just another genetic condition (I don't think there's anything specifically protecting redheads from discrimination- and that's genetic).

I'm not sure that the test would be disability. Certainly we protect against discrimination against Italians, Africans, Hispanics, etc; I don't believe that those would be considered genetic disabilities.

While I think the genetic arguement is fairly compelling I don't think it's the end all either. We protect against discrimination toward Mormons, Taoists and Protestants; this is clearly a protection for groups associated by choice. The arguement from this side becomes one of deciding what choices are acceptable and therefore protectable.

[Jana Lewis]

Yes, there is evidence of this bahavior in animals (although in fewer numbers than humans);) But as you said, we have free will and intellect. While animals are driven by in inherent instinct which drives their need to reproduce, we humans have the ability to contemplate, decide and control our behaviors. Surely we don't want to use the "animals do it, so it must be OK" argument.

Homosexuals are not driven by choice, they do what comes naturally, just like the animals that you speak of.

[Pete Hanlin]

And it's certainly part of standard right-wing doctrine, along with the widespread persecution of Christians in America.
Hmm, last I checked I was right of center and a Christian living in America- yet somehow I've managed to resist the urge to persecute homosexuals. Furthermore, such an urge never occurred to me- perhaps I'm a defective example of a Republican. I think you would find a lot of defective Republicans out there ("defective" meaning not so easy to fit within your negative stereotyping of conservativism). I guess I must currently attend a defective church as well, because in the three years I've been attending there I can't recall a single sermon rallying us to persecute homosexuals- I'll have to bring this to the attention of my minister. I mean, all he does is preach about how God's love extends to all people, and other such obviously defective nonsense.

The above point being, I think we both agree homosexuals shouldn't be stereotyped or villified- I'd appreciate the same consideration be given to conservatives. You may argue that some conservatives do not give this same consideration to homosexuals- but I'd counter that, when you commit the same behavior, you become what you so criticize.

See Lawrence v. Texas. Ship sailed. With regard to "new rights", refer to Civil Rights movement, circa 1955-1965. Same argument made then; same argument will be made whenever a group that has been deprived of rights seeks to claim them.
Just as a summary for those less astute in their knowledge of Supreme Court decisions than you obviously appear to be (myself included), this case arose when a neighbor reported a "weapons disturbance" at the home of John G. Lawrence. When the police arrived, they found two men having sex (but no weapons). Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, were held overnight in jail and later fined $200 each for violating the state’s Homosexual Conduct law. The neighbor was later convicted of filing a false police report.

Based on the fact that the neighbor had no substantied reason for calling in a weapons violation (thus the conviction for the false report), the court found that Mr. Lawrence's privacy had been violated.

Now, being an admitted layman in matters legal, isn't the same argument used whenever the police find contraband or illegal activity after infiltrating a private residence without just cause (or for a just cause that is completely unrelated to the illegal activity)? In other words, if a domestic disturbance is reported at my home by my neighbor and the police bust in to find my wife and I peacefully smoking weed together on the couch, they can't run us in for a drug violation if it can be proven there was no real indication that we were indeed creating a domestic disturbance.

After typing the above paragraph, I ventured on the internet to make sure I wasn't making a complete idiot out of myself. I cannot tell you how gratifying it was to note that Justice Scalia says basically the same thing (albeit much more eloquently) in his- IMHO rather well rationed- dissenting opinion (in which the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas concurred): I do not know what "acting in private" means. Surely consensual sodomy, like heterosexual intercourse, is rarely performed on stage. If all the Court means by "acting in private" is "on private premises, with the doors closed and windows covered," it is entirely unsurprising that evidence of enforcement would be hard to come by. (Imagine the circumstances that would enable a search warrant to be obtained for a residence on the ground that there was probable cause to believe that consensual sodomy was then and there occurring.) Surely that lack of evidence would not sustain the proposition that consensual sodomy on private premises with the doors closed and windows covered was regarded as a "fundamental right," even though all other consensual sodomy was criminalized. There are 203 prosecutions for consensual, adult homo-sexual sodomy reported in the West Reporting system and official state reporters from the years 1880–1995. See W. Eskridge, Gaylaw: Challenging the Apartheid of the Closet 375 (1999) (hereinafter Gaylaw). There are also records of 20 sodomy prosecutions and 4 executions during the colonial period. J. Katz, Gay/Lesbian Almanac 29, 58, 663 (1983). Bowers’ conclusion that homosexual sodomy is not a fundamental right "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" is utterly unassailable.

I further agree with the Justice's comments when he goes on to state:
Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence because some States choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain behavior. Much less do they spring into existence, as the Court seems to believe, because foreign nationsdecriminalize conduct. The Bowers majority opinion never relied on "values we share with a wider civilization," ante, at 16, but rather rejected the claimed right to sodomy on the ground that such a right was not "‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’"

Conversely, while reading the majority opinion, I read the following and find it to be what so many of us "right-wingers" argue to be a problem with the courts. Namely, they blatantly and almost eagerly take it upon themselves to redefine the Constitution by claiming a special knowledge apparently unknown to either its original authors or the majority of Americans today.
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

Therefore, I would argue that the Supreme Court didn't necessarily find in favor of homosexuality as a right- but rather for the right of people to have privacy when in the confines of their own homes. Of course, the majority opinion also suggested that the sodomy law in the state of Texas did not further a "legitmate state interest." Again, I quote Justice Scalia's assessment of the decision (and again, I agree with him):
The Texas statute, it [the majority opinion] says, “furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,” ante, at 18 (emphasis addded). The Court embraces instead JUSTICE STEVENS’ declaration in his Bowers dissent, that “the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,” ante, at 17. This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.

So to sum (and I hate lengthy posts with lots of quotations, so I apologize), I don't believe the court has defined homosexuals as a group with special protections just yet. Again, its not that I'm against homosexuals- but I am for the concept that Justice Scalia invokes- that is, the promotion of the majoritarian morality. I would also note that Justice O'Connor, while agreeing with the fact that the right to privacy was unlawfully invaded (argument noted above), she did not concur with the finding that the anti-sodomy laws of Texas did not further a "legitimate state interest." It was also interesting to note that- in their opinion- the majority used an application of reasoning completely opposite of that used to uphold Roe v. Wade (namely the reliance on recent precendance). In fact, it was interesting to see how many times Roe v. Wade arose in the opinions. I would offer that this is because we are talking about a similar concept- namely, the court's invention and insertion of rights into the interpretation of the Constitution.

[Spexvet]

Pete,(or sybil, or Eve- Whoever you are today),

You deny descriminating against Homosexuals, yet isn't prohibiting them from marrying each other discrimination, by definition? Maybe your minister would serve you better by saying "God loves all his children, so let them marry each other".

Your argument that laws that are made just because "people are willing to legally suppress the activities of other people because they do not approve of them or find them distasteful" are legitimate, and you support their validity. Were laws allowing slavery OK with you? Were German laws restricting the rights of jews, and forcing them to live in ghettos OK with you?

People in favor of homosexual marriage should drop the charade and simply state that they really enjoy sexual and emotional relations with people of the same sex and would enjoy the opportunity to have legal recognition of their relationships.

Pete, I'm no African-American, yet I understand that they should not be treated differently due to the color of their skin. I'm not Catholic, yet I understand that they shouldn't be treated differently due to the way they choose to worship God. I'm also not homosexual, yet I understand that they should not be treated differently due to the gender of the person they want to marry.

I wouldn't try to exploit that right-wing disability yet.;)

[Spexvet]

BTW, the thread is "how does same gender marriage hurt you?" Whether it discusts you, is against your morals, whatever - what harm is there in letting these people marry?

[Shutterbug]

I'm not sure where you come up with the "fewer numbers than humans" statement. Certainly among the bonobos the incidence approaches 100%, though admittedly I believe few or none of the population is exclusively homosexual.

After some research on the bonobos, I found that their [homo]sexual activities are generally a social communication used to avoid fighting and to promote harmony among members vying for power. They are also quite short (18 seconds or less). This makes it akin to a kiss (in some countries men kiss lip to lip as a greeting) or a hand shake. I don't think this is the same as human homosexuality even if it appears the same. And if we are going to "copy" the "natural law" of animals we could possibly kill and eat our weak as well.



The issue is "how are we hurt by homosexual marriage"? The very structure of the family is at stake, and with it the structure of society in general. The strength of any nation can be measured by the strength of the basic family unit within it. Are we weakened when our children do not have both a mother and a father living together? The evidence says yes. They are, so we all are.

Is homosexuality the only deterrent to normal family life? No, our whole moral trend is toward lower standards of conduct. This contributes to STD proliferation, broken families, cohabitation without marriage many other equally troubling trends that we are witnessing all around us.



In a previous reply, it was correctly mentioned that God is the highest court. We are not a Theocracy (as was countered) but this is not to our advantage as was implied. If we tend to digress in our thinking and conduct, isn't it clear that we need direction from a higher source? Whether you believe in the creator or not, you should be able to identify the basics of the internal law we all have inside us within the pages of the Bible. What is right and wrong is stated there and becomes a code for conduct among those who accept its dictates. Easy? No, but nothing worthwhile ever is.



I know this will elicit all kinds of quotes and examples of wrongful conduct on God's part. But remember that he is judge and executioner and holds his law in the highest esteem. He offers no excuses for upholding his law with the most severe penalty, death. This in turn becomes a deterrent, which we sorely lack in our society. No, I'm NOT saying we should execute homosexuals:). But there should be a deterrent (the law) and a penalty for transgressing it. God does not change, WE do. That truth should cause us to have some serious second thoughts about how he views us individually.



Does homosexual marriage hurt us? I think it does. It is a real danger to the basic unit of human society, the family. This takes precedence over the wants of the individual because we NEED strong traditional families to survive.

[chip anderson]

Spexvet:

The word is disgust. Is it any wonder that your icon has a bag over his (her, ?) head?

[For-Life]

After some research on the bonobos, I found that their [homo]sexual activities are generally a social communication used to avoid fighting and to promote harmony among members vying for power. They are also quite short (18 seconds or less). This makes it akin to a kiss (in some countries men kiss lip to lip as a greeting) or a hand shake. I don't think this is the same as human homosexuality even if it appears the same. And if we are going to "copy" the "natural law" of animals we could possibly kill and eat our weak as well.



The issue is "how are we hurt by homosexual marriage"? The very structure of the family is at stake, and with it the structure of society in general. The strength of any nation can be measured by the strength of the basic family unit within it. Are we weakened when our children do not have both a mother and a father living together? The evidence says yes. They are, so we all are.

Is homosexuality the only deterrent to normal family life? No, our whole moral trend is toward lower standards of conduct. This contributes to STD proliferation, broken families, cohabitation without marriage many other equally troubling trends that we are witnessing all around us.



In a previous reply, it was correctly mentioned that God is the highest court. We are not a Theocracy (as was countered) but this is not to our advantage as was implied. If we tend to digress in our thinking and conduct, isn't it clear that we need direction from a higher source? Whether you believe in the creator or not, you should be able to identify the basics of the internal law we all have inside us within the pages of the Bible. What is right and wrong is stated there and becomes a code for conduct among those who accept its dictates. Easy? No, but nothing worthwhile ever is.



I know this will elicit all kinds of quotes and examples of wrongful conduct on God's part. But remember that he is judge and executioner and holds his law in the highest esteem. He offers no excuses for upholding his law with the most severe penalty, death. This in turn becomes a deterrent, which we sorely lack in our society. No, I'm NOT saying we should execute homosexuals:). But there should be a deterrent (the law) and a penalty for transgressing it. God does not change, WE do. That truth should cause us to have some serious second thoughts about how he views us individually.



Does homosexual marriage hurt us? I think it does. It is a real danger to the basic unit of human society, the family. This takes precedence over the wants of the individual because we NEED strong traditional families to survive.

Allowing gay marriages will weaken the family unit?

I find it funny, because a lot of these arguments were used years ago during discussions of interracial marriages. Lets face it, the United States and Canada have high divorce rates, so are we going to crackdown on people who are getting married, because we feel that they are damaging the family unit? No, so why do we assume that gays will do more damage to it. Additionally, gays who adopt have one positive attribute and that is that they want the child. Compare that to the amount of teenagers or deadbeats who do not even want the child when they accidentally become pregnant or get their girlfriend or wife pregnant.

Also, I love this whole Christianity thing. I will point out anyone here, because I do not personally know any of you, but I do find it funny that in the World that so many Christians know absolutely nothing about Christianity. I have been a Christian all of my life and have followed the ways of Jesus. Christianity is about loving they neighbour and doing onto others as you would expect others to do onto you. Christianity can be summed up in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I know in the Old Testament that the Lord was a vengeful Lord, and I know that Moses brought in a lot of new laws, some which incorporated anti-homosexual laws; however, I ask you to look at Jesus, as he offers a different perspective. If homosexuality was such an evil sin then why didn't Jesus speak up against it? Christianity is not about being the right religion, fighting those who oppose it, killing sinners, or being better than everyone else. Christianity is about being riotous, loving everyone no matter what they do, forgiveness, and being a down right good person.

To conclude, I have two verses from the Bible I want you to look at:

Matthew, Chapter 7.1 - Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.

Jon, Chapter 8.7 - Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to cast the stone.

[Spexvet]

Spexvet:

The word is disgust. Is it any wonder that your icon has a bag over his (her, ?) head?

OK, Chip, you're disgusted. That's OK. Does that hurt you? Some people, undoubtedly, are disgusted by something that you do. Do they have the right to stop you from doing it?

[Spexvet]

...The very structure of the family is at stake,...
...
God does not change, WE do. That truth should cause us to have some serious second thoughts about how he views us individually.
...
It is a real danger to the basic unit of human society, the family. This takes precedence over the wants of the individual because we NEED strong traditional families to survive.

What should the structure of the family be? You propose the bible shows the way? Then bigamy should be legal. Jacob had two wives: Leah and Rachel. David's wives were Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam, and Aglah, and he had children with Maacah, Haggaith, and Abital. And God anointed these men, they were his chosen. How is it that these bigamists were God's chosen, yet now he forbids bigamy? Did He change, or did WE?

So what is a family structure? Multiple spouses, monogamy, same sex marriage? Interesting, eh?

[chip anderson]

Spexvet: I didn't say I was disgusted, I was correcting your spelling.

Shutterbug: I hate to correct what is appearently a supporter. But death is no the ultimate penalty. Hell is. I am like the old song, "I don't know if there is a Heaven, but I pray there ain't no Hell."

[1968]

In a previous reply, it was correctly mentioned that God is the highest court. We are not a Theocracy (as was countered) but this is not to our advantage as was implied. If we tend to digress in our thinking and conduct, isn't it clear that we need direction from a higher source? Whether you believe in the creator or not, you should be able to identify the basics of the internal law we all have inside us within the pages of the Bible. What is right and wrong is stated there and becomes a code for conduct among those who accept its dictates. Easy? No, but nothing worthwhile ever is.

Shutterbug: By and large, the Founding Fathers of this country did not agree that a theocracy was to our advantage. Given that not everyone shares your belief that what is right and wrong stems from the Bible, or that “God is the highest court”, the system of checks and balances they set up allows believers of all faiths (and non-believers, too) to live and coexist much more effectively. In my opinion, that is what is ultimately the proper function of government. On the other hand, "saving sinners from hell" (and however that may translate into the language of any other religion) is not a proper function of government.

[With that in mind: Even though I don't agree with you, I did like how you addressed *both* points in your full statement (i.e. how this particular issue may affect society and how it may affect one in the eyes of his or her god).]

[shanbaum]

Now, being an admitted layman in matters legal, isn't the same argument used whenever the police find contraband or illegal activity after infiltrating a private residence without just cause (or for a just cause that is completely unrelated to the illegal activity)?

Pete, I’m really glad that you actually bothered to read Lawrence, but you missed its upshot, as it were; the holding wasn’t that Lawrence’s privacy rights were abrogated by the police being called into his home improperly. The holding was that Texas’ statute against sodomy (Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.06(a)) was unconstitutional in that it violated a right guaranteed under the Constitution. This required that the court overrule a prior holding, in a 1986 case styled Bowers v. Hardwick, which they did. Bowers had upheld a Georgia statute that prohibited oral and anal sex, and not just among persons of the same sex (which is why O’Connor dissented in part – she thought this was an “equal protection” issue as opposed to the “due process” basis on which the majority ruled).



The court decided, and quite correctly so, I think, that the government’s intrusion into the private behavior of adults abrogates a liberty right. That “privacy right” is not that people have a “right to privacy” – it’s that the right to do with your body as you please is a fundamental, natural right, protected as are all such unenumerated rights under the Ninth Amendment (although, as I said, it was the “due process” right on which they ruled – the application of the 9th is simply the way I think it should have been decided. I really like the 9th).



There are always at least two ways to look at things, and another way to talk about this is to couch it in terms of what powers the government should rightly have over people’s actions. For some reason, conservatives seem to be more comfortable talking about the limitation of government power than the extension of human rights – when of course, they’re two sides of the same coin.



The Lawrence decision is in fact itself part of a legal tradition, though Scalia wouldn’t recognize it. He supports tradition when it suits him, and doesn’t when it doesn’t. There’s a thread connecting Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Roe v. Wade (1972), and Lawrence – a thread in which the Court realized first that the governments have no power to prohibit people from using contraceptives, then that the government’s power over what a pregnant woman does with her body is limited, and then, that the government should have no power over the precise ways in which people engage in sex.



Scalia, like you, would say that we really only have those rights, and the government’s power is only limited to the extent, as these were envisioned by the guys who wrote the Constitution.



Because they knew everything.



It’s a shame that conservatives tend to be so afflicted, as they seem to think of themselves as the champions of individual liberty, which is certainly where my interest lies. Why is it so easy to support “freedom on the march” and so hard to support “freedom”?



As you note, Scalia’s comments were in a dissent – that is, there’s a sense in which they are precisely not the law, at least not now. Certainly, dissents from time to time end up ascendant – which, fortunately for you and Scalia, is part of the way the system actually does work, that is: it evolves over time.


By the way, I’m not sure from where your opening paragraph came – I didn’t say that Christians were persecuting homosexuals. I was making a (arguably snide) comment about right-wing doctrine including the belief that Christians are persecuted in America, which, along with my prior comment about the “attack on traditional marriage” gambit, I think is an accurate description of right-wing doctrine. Can we agree that this is true, if not amongst all conservatives, at least amongst the right-wing talking heads?


Or, would you dispute that there is such a thing as “right-wing doctrine”?

[chip anderson]

Shanebaum:

Why am I not supprised that you like the 9th which is appearently all communist except for two members.

Chip

And yes, I ment communist not liberal.

[shanbaum]

Shanebaum:

Why am I not supprised that you like the 9th which is appearently all communist except for two members.

Chip

And yes, I ment communist not liberal.

Read it again, Chip. I was referring to the 9th Amendment. That's the one that protects your right to be a right-wing nut case, and my right to be a liberal wiener.