Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Solly]

"Perhaps if they grow up seeing it, it won't be treated as the taboo subject it is and it will make being honest about sexuality a damn sight easier."

More likely that they'd become interested in perversions themselves?

[DeathByTheSword]

since when do i say somebody is a facist...?

and yes better is subjective...

but PA first of all over generalizes and fails to answer the question if it is also wrong if a guy and a girl kisses in public or holds hands.

if that is ok to do what is wrong with 2 guys doing it?

heck my sister is gay and is in a relationship for a long time and will get marriage next year...and i still get embarrased if i see 2 women holding hands in public...nothing wrong with getting embarresed...but i do not have a problem with them doing that.
ofcourse I would object to certain things to be done in public. sex public nudity and pissing in the street is something that should not happen. first of all because sex in a public place is unheigenic (my english is failing me now) public nudity 80% from the time is stupid because it is to cold or to hot and well it creates separate problems about people driving cars that wont pay attetion to the road . and pissing in the street is a direct menace to the public.
NOW 2 people kissing...2 guys. 2 girls. a guy and a girl. or anyother combination is no problem to the public at large. If you dont want to see it...i could say: well look away...but then everbody will say: well i dont want to need to look away!...well tough luck sometimes...there a lot of things you dont want to see in a life time and you do....DEAL WITH IT AND LEARN FROM IT!

[DeathByTheSword]

ok now i do want to say PA is a facsist....why is it a perversion? open your eyes and find out church, your parents and your friends arent always right!

[Monk]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
'better' is extremely subjective. I am sure there are plenty of things which you would object to people doing in public. Why do you and Monk label PA as a facist for having a different opinion from you?

Well, I don't think I've called PA a fascist yet, although we'll probably get there eventually. Actually, my main problem with PA doesn't have anything to do with his political opinions, it's mostly due to the fact he's deliberately posting his hateful remarks not to discuss but instead with the intent of hurting and/or insulting people. Just why this feels so great I fail to understand fully, but it's obvious by now he's getting some kind of twisted kick out of it.

[Solly]

This isn't hateful, it's more like a sort of pity I think.

[DeathByTheSword]

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
More likely that they'd become interested in perversions themselves?

Arsehole.

[Solly]

[Japher]

"Perhaps if they grow up seeing it, it won't be treated as the taboo subject it is and it will make being honest about sexuality a damn sight easier."

That's don't make it right PH.

And, PA's response is correct IMO

For many sexuality is a private issue, and with the gay pride day coming up (now just called Pride Day), it makes many of realize why it should be kept private. Exposing someone to something, anything, will make them more comfortable with the subject. However, is that what needs or should happen?

War happens, should we expose ppl to it? Will they except it more? Do they warm up to it?

[Solly]

War happens, should we expose ppl to it? Will they except it more? Do they warm up to it?

Then people will be more comfortable around war. Good solution

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
"The people" have no say in amending the Constitution. The process is set up that way.

But what exactly is being dictated? One state allows gay marriage, per it's prerogative as a sovereign state. 38 states explicitly forbid gay marriage, and 11 states don't allow it, but don't expressly forbid it either. So how is "the minority" doing anything to "the majority?"

Given that there has only been one act of "superlegislation" in the 217 year history of the Constitution, why should there now be another? Especially when it looks absolutely absurd to read the 21st amendment's repeal of the 18th amendment.

The ERA was an act of superlegislation, even though it failed ratification. The people do have a say, in the form of accountable state legislatures in the ratification process, and that is why the ERA failed.

How would the ERA qualify as superlegislation? "Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex" isn't particularly inconsistent with other rights statements in the Constitution, and sure as hell is in a whole different category from deciding whether people can consume alcoholic beverages.

Each state is required to hold legal contracts and marriages made in any other state as enforcible in its own jurisdiction. That is how the minority dictates to the majority in this case.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to abide by and enforce judgments of other states, but that's a pretty limited "imposition" on the majority. Gee, two fudgepackers are technically "married." Most states don't allow 14 year olds to marry, even with parental consent, but three do, and the others must recognize those marriages. Is that an "imposition?" Especially when two people who aren't married can accomplish the same things with respect to property ownership through contracts and trusts and wills, which states are obligated to abide by and enforce in any event, regardless of marriage or sexual status of the individuals. Should the state even have a right to interfere in such private property arrangements if there is no compelling state interest?

One state can't say to another, "You can't do that" except by Federal intervention. Furthermore, any simple Federal legislation will be challenged in the skewed arena of an activist judiciary. Many would prefer the route of "superlegislation" where there is at least public debate and accountability involved.

States are sovereign, and the "activist judiciary" label is a little bit of a tough sell, since the substantial majority of the Federal judiciary are Republican appointees.

Who is entitled to what state or private benefits is still a legislative matter, not one of executive or judicial judgment. Gay married partners entitlement to future benefits is uncertain if they move to a state where their marriage is not legally sanctioned, and is only merely recognized under the Full Faith and Credit clause. The only effect of the Full Faith and Credit clause is that prior acts (the marriage itself, any wills or codicils, property ownership, etc.), under any other state's authority must be recognized as valid. So how is this an imposition in any substantial way? Gee, two more people in a divorce court engaged in a property dispute?

From a taxation standpoint, married couples pay more in most income scenarios, and never pay less than two "single" people in identical income and residency situations, so that's not an imposition.

The fact that some people "don't like it" doesn't rise to imposition. However, the Yankee government attempting to usurp yet another matter of state's rights is. Marriage is not a Federal issue, and it sure as hell shouldn't be in the Constitution.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Japher
"Perhaps if they grow up seeing it, it won't be treated as the taboo subject it is and it will make being honest about sexuality a damn sight easier."

That's don't make it right PH.

And, PA's response is correct IMO

For many sexuality is a private issue, and with the gay pride day coming up (now just called Pride Day), it makes many of realize why it should be kept private. Exposing someone to something, anything, will make them more comfortable with the subject. However, is that what needs or should happen?

So seeing "****s on Bikes" or a bunch of queens gets you all hot and tingly? Seeing more of it is going to turn you?

War happens, should we expose ppl to it? Will they except it more? Do they warm up to it?

Remember "Hell no, we won't go?" If anything, public exposure to war reduces acceptance to such a degree that we won't see another meatgrinder war like the War of Yankee Agression, the two World Wars, Korea or Viet Nam. Politicians have a real tough time selling the idea of tens of thousands of KIA's in a foreign war.

[DeathByTheSword]

For many sexuality is a private issue, and with the gay pride day coming up (now just called Pride Day), it makes many of realize why it should be kept private. Exposing someone to something, anything, will make them more comfortable with the subject. However, is that what needs or should happen?

if this is true then you would find it a perversion if a guy and a girl walk around in public kissing and holding hands...if that is true well then ok you are a prude (not in a negative sense but you just are) if you find a boy and a girl can walk around doing that a 2 guys cant...well then in PA`s case i would say facsist...and thinking of other cases i can not find anything that i would argee with so that 2 guys cant walk around holding hands and kissing...

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
ofcourse I would object to certain things to be done in public. sex public nudity and pissing in the street is something that should not happen. first of all because sex in a public place is unheigenic (my english is failing me now) public nudity 80% from the time is stupid because it is to cold or to hot and well it creates separate problems about people driving cars that wont pay attetion to the road . and pissing in the street is a direct menace to the public.

So you disapprove of sex in public because it is unhygenic?

So what if a guy next to you on a bus unzips his pants and starts jerking off? Would you object to that? (Give your reason why.)

[Whaleboy]

The fact is, Whaleboy, any sex or touching/kissing in public between man and man is a perversion.

Fact?

Considering that homosexuality is relatively commonplace among some higher mammals like chimps and possibly even dolphins, I'm inclined to disagree. One could use the perversion argument against mankind using tools or using our intellects for anything other than hunting zebras and scaring away lions. No dice.

Note "public", I don't mind them hiding themselves away and perverting themselves, that is their choice, but in public NO WAY. And I am in the majority.

I don't know where you're from but down here, you certainly wouldn't be in the majority, not that that is in anyway relevant to the ethical question pertaining to this situation.

1+1 is not a matter of public decency and order.

When it comes to a proposition that law should be used to limit people's freedoms because of the sensibilities of a decreasing number of bigoted, narrow minded fools, one of whom consider an activity he disagrees with a "perversion", I'm inclined to think instead that the law should respect individual freedoms where that does not harm another. If you consider the sight of two people of same gender benignly expressing their love somehow harmful, like an assault to observers who can simply turn their eyes in another direction, like turning off the radio when a song you dislike comes on, then you should find a good counsellor.

It's not right. People don't want their children seeing that sort of behaviour either.

Bull. An increasing number of parents are becoming as accepting of homosexuality in their children as they would be of their exploring their heterosexuality as they overcome their own prejudices and fears.

More likely that they'd become interested in perversions themselves?

Would I rather someone recognise their homosexuality/bisexuality than be unhappily chained to heterosexuality when that does not become them, then I would rather they are open about it. If you mean to create an atmosphere where homosexuals are fearful about accepting that side to themselves, then all you are doing is making a lot of people very miserable so you aren't challenged by your fear of something going in through the out door .

Just why this feels so great I fail to understand fully, but it's obvious by now he's getting some kind of twisted kick out of it.

Some people find being entrenched in dogma comforting. When these types of people achieve power, innocent people invariably suffer.

This isn't hateful, it's more like a sort of pity I think.

You pity me because I am bisexual? . Really no need, I'm rather happy about myself.

Then people will be more comfortable around war. Good solution

Heil zu unserem Führer, das neue Fez

Most people dislike the idea of other people suffering for the sake of some prejudiced politic, so try again .