Senate officially opens debate on Gay Marriage Amendment.

[Whaleboy]

So you'd let gays kiss, touch and hold each other in public?

[Solly]

Well I wouldn't ban it. But I also wouldn't ban any vigilantism

[Whaleboy]

I'd ban anyone forcing their views on other people (sic Mill Limit). Since that covers most/all incidents of vigilantism, we're not going to agree here.

[IoT]

The state should get out of the regulation of marriage completely. Marriage should be reserved as a church/religous joining and the state should recognize and manage civil unions. Civil unions should be allowed bewtween any two consenting adults of the requisite age.

Marriage should be regulated by the religous authorities of your personal faith.

Would keep the religous folks happy whilst offering equal rights, protections and responsibilities to all citizens.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Well I wouldn't ban it. But I also wouldn't ban any vigilantism

What does that mean? A vigilante enforces the law, so if it's not banned (i.e., if there isn't a law against it), then there wouldn't be any vigilantism against it.

Do you instead mean to say that you wouldn't enforce the laws against assault/murder when a homosexual is the victim of said crimes?

[Agathon]

PA - are you advocating public beatings of gays who hold hands?

[Whaleboy]

What does that mean? A vigilante enforces the law, so if it's not banned (i.e., if there isn't a law against it), then there wouldn't be any vigilantism against it.

Vigilante = mob

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Vigilante = mob

The Guardian Angels are probably the best-known vigilante group, and are certainly not a "mob." A vigilante is just somebody who enforces the law himself/herself -- vigilantes may take the form of a posse or lynch mob or whatever, but when they do it's always a case of hanging a suspected murderer or horse rustler or whatever, not a case of hanging a suspected black or homosexual or whatever.

[Whaleboy]

Hmmm ok but a vigilante in that case is enforcing and not breaking the law. Too often they don't take the law into their own hands (bad enough when they do what the police would not... see mob "justice") but their own indignation instead. That is why one needs protection from vigilantes and human corruption and arrogance.

Case of hanging a suspected murderer? Call me old fashioned but I still stick with critical theory and the presumption of innocence before guilt.

[loinburger]

Don't tell me, tell the vigilantes. I'm just wondering what the hell PA was talking about in his post, because it sure didn't sound like he was advocating vigilantism, but was instead advocating something else. "I wouldn't ban it, and I'd let vigilantes do their thing" is either a contradiction or a non sequitur.

[Whaleboy]

Agreed. The guy scares me at time. Never before have I seen such intelligence wasted on one so void of wisdom .

[mrmitchell]

PA, would you stop taking dumps in everyone's threads?

( but since 3/4 of the states must ratify an amendment, it won't go far.)

[Ramo]

It doesn't have a chance of passing the Senate.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by loinburger
Don't tell me, tell the vigilantes. I'm just wondering what the hell PA was talking about in his post, because it sure didn't sound like he was advocating vigilantism, but was instead advocating something else.

I'm wondering about this, too.

[Elok]

Hmm, to cover all bases you shoulda had, "yes, and it should," and "yes, sadly" options as well. But don't worry, Thorn. I'm pretty sure the GOP is shooting itself directly in the foot. They're only doing this as a rally for their voting bases. Like fat-free Pork. Problem is, gay marriage only scared conservatives because of the fear of society collapsing, polyamory, bestiality, riots, plagues of locusts and whatnot. But gays have been getting married for months now and nothing's happened. Nobody cares, and the media had effectively forgotten about it. This probably comes across as hatemonger politics, or divisive at best.