AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no prohibition of interracial marriage.

but there was at one time. until.........

0 Replies

Foox, there were, however, laws prohibiting interracial marriages. Until as recently, I believe, as 1967. Well within my lifetime, and , I suspect, yours as well. The Supreme Court declared those laws unconstitutional. Those laws violated people's rights. There was no vote on the matter. Equal protection of the law is equal protection. Same for gays as for blacks.

There are four states where gay marriage is legal AND constitutional. The NH state legislature and governor today agreed on language for a bill the governor will sign making that state number five. Looks like Iowa will be six. None of those states has experienced any breakdown in civil order. None has experienced any threat to the institution of marriage . Indeed no one has even been able to come up with a convincing reason as to why marriage would be threatened.

Basically all you guys are doing is reinforcing the image of you as the party of "No".

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MJ, this is not 1967. But even back then only a very few states prohibited interracial marriage and many of us did see that the prohibition was discriminatory and wrong which is why it was changed. And this is 2009 where interracial marriage is legal everywhere and the defnition of marriage discriminates against nobody. Try to keep up dear.

Yes there are four states that recognize gay marriage. But the states that do not will not recognize or honor those marriages nor, I believe, will the USA. It will eventually probably be decided by SCOTUS.

Meanwhile, the marriage laws now continue to treat everybody exactly alike, and you'll just have to continue demonizing those of us who don't think the traditional definition of marriage should be changed.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no prohibition of interracial marriage.

There was. And what it did was prevent two people of different races to get married to each other. Following your statement that not allowing homosexual partners to get married to each other is not discriminating against them, it would follow that not allowing two people of different races to get married wouldn't be discrimination either, as it would still allow them to get married to a partner of their own race.

If you're saying that a prohibition of interracial marriage is discrimination, the same argument would be valid for a prohibition of gay marriage.

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no prohibition for anybody marrying anybody so long as they 1) are marrying somebody willing to marry them 2) are marrying somebody who isn't already married 3) are marrying somebody of legal age 4) are marrying somebody who is not a close blood relative 5) (in some states) have been advised of certain communicable diseases the intended spouse has 6) are not marrying just to qualify somebody for citizenship and 7) are marrying one other person of the opposite sex.

So? There was also no prohibition for anybody marrying anybody as long as they didn't want to marry somebody of a different race. It seems that "that's the way we've always done it" isn't always a good enough justification not to review any of those prohibitions. If you find allowing e.g. forced marriage or underage marriage would violate somebody else's rights, then that's at least a valid reason to keep the prohibition in place.

However, if ending a prohibition would not be found to violate anybody else's rights, it's only reasonable to ask why else you might want to deny a government service to an entire group of people.

Foxfyre wrote:

These exact same rules apply to every man, woman, and child in the USA regardless of race, color, nationality, ethnicity, gender, age, IQ, political affiliations, financial circumstances, or sexual orientation.

So did the prohibition of interracial marriage. No matter whether you were black or white, you could marry anybody you wanted to marry, just as long your partner was of the same race as you. The exact same rule applied to everybody.

Foxfyre wrote:

There is absolutely nothing in the marriage contract requiring the parties entering into the contract to love each other, respect each other, support each other, or like or dislike the same music or food.

Right. So why require the two parties entering into a contract to be of a different sex?

Foxfyre wrote:

There are few legal contracts out there that are more equitable and non discriminatory as the modern marriage contract.

Except maybe for marriage contracts that don't require the two contracting parties to be of different sex.

Foxfyre wrote:

There are laws within each state that do confer particular rights and protections upon those married that are not available to anybody, straight or gay, who are not married. A legal process by which those who do not marry can receive those rights and protections is what I think needs to happen and that is also the position of the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State and.....oh yes....Miss California.

If you want to give them the exact same rights and the exact same status, then why insist on a specific term for it? If your belief system or your theology or whatever tells you that a union between two partners of the same sex does not constitute a marriage, then why insist on forcing that belief unto the government?

There are denominations that don't allow you to get divorced and married again. There are denominations that allow polygamy. And then there are denominations that not only allow homosexuals to get married, but also make them ministers. Why force one specific belief system on all the rest of the population?

0 Replies

Fox, dear, I AM the one who is keeping up. You are not. Do try to live in the 21st century. If you don't believe in gay marriages, by all means don't have one. But that doesn't mean you can impose that on others.

Were 30 of the then-48 states "only a handeful"? That's what wikipedia says was the number that had anti-miscegenation laws in the 20th century. adn those laws were unconstitutional because the laws did NOT treat everyone the same (very much as yourr claim that the law treats everyone the same is just not true, as OE so clearly shows).

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
Virtually all cultures, including primitive and native American cultures, have never sanctioned homosexual behavior as a santioned behavior

Two-Spirit

I read your link, most of it, and saw where the "homophobia" was due to Europeans. I had to laugh at that one. oe, that is so typical of a liberal writing this stuff. I don't think the article is very accurate and is obviously slanted and filled with inaccuracies. I have read a bit about Indians as well, and no expert here, I do think such a thing existed, yes, but they would not grant the same roles in their society, no way. If they had granted marriage licenses, the same would not be accorded to all of their tribal members to marry the same sex, that is baloney in my opinion.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Earlier you said you find Homosexuality to be 'strange and repulsive.' This is the same as saying you fear it; being repulsed by something is based in fear of that thing. You ought to be honest about the fact that you are a homophobe.

Cycloptichorn

Nonsense, I have no fear of it whatsoever. I just think its strange and repulsive, if flaunted. It is the flaunting of it, the acting out, the practice of it, the behavior, not the nature of it. There are lots of things I think are out of whack, and that I don't enjoy witnessing or being around, but I have no fear of it, none. Where you guys come up with this reasoning, is a mystery, but it is just wrong. I don't enjoy watching two guys or two gals in acts of sexual affection. It strikes me as haywire and very unbecoming, unnatural. I think God made us to know its haywire. Fear of it, no, thats baloney.

2 Replies

okie, you might read a littlle about the Greeks and the Romans. And if you read the article in wikipedia that was cited, yes, it's accurate. Because you don't know anything about it does not mean it wasn't so.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Earlier you said you find Homosexuality to be 'strange and repulsive.' This is the same as saying you fear it; being repulsed by something is based in fear of that thing. You ought to be honest about the fact that you are a homophobe.

Cycloptichorn

Nonsense, I have no fear of it whatsoever. I just think its strange and repulsive, if flaunted.

Explain your revulsion. What about it do you find revolting and in what way? See, revulsion is nothing more than a fear of some effect of coming in contact with something, or fearing the negative effects of an action. Or perhaps you can explain to me what it is based on.

Quote:

It is the flaunting of it, the acting out, the practice of it, the behavior, not the nature of it. There are lots of things I think are out of whack, and that I don't enjoy witnessing or being around, but I have no fear of it, none.

Keep telling yourself that. Who are you trying to convince, me or you?

Quote:

Where you guys come up with this reasoning, is a mystery, but it is just wrong. I don't enjoy watching two guys or two gals in acts of sexual affection. It strikes me as haywire and very unbecoming, unnatural. I think God made us to know its haywire. Fear of it, no, thats baloney.

You sound almost convinced that you aren't afraid of it. Almost. I bet if you affirm it some more, that will help.

I however am unconvinced, because your rhetoric does not indicate that you do not fear homosexuality. It indicates that you do. If you didn't, you wouldn't give two shits whether it was legal or not.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
Virtually all cultures, including primitive and native American cultures, have never sanctioned homosexual behavior as a santioned behavior

Two-Spirit

I read your link, most of it, and saw where the "homophobia" was due to Europeans. I had to laugh at that one. oe, that is so typical of a liberal writing this stuff. I don't think the article is very accurate and is obviously slanted and filled with inaccuracies. I have read a bit about Indians as well, and no expert here, I do think such a thing existed, yes, but they would not grant the same roles in their society, no way. If they had granted marriage licenses, the same would not be accorded to all of their tribal members to marry the same sex, that is baloney in my opinion.

The Greeks, who invented Democracy and Philosophy for the most part, practiced homosexuality on a regular basis; it was expected in society, celebrated.

So, yeah. You are completely wrong.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I read your link, most of it, and saw where the "homophobia" was due to Europeans. I had to laugh at that one. oe, that is so typical of a liberal writing this stuff.

Why would you think so? Because liberals like to blame Europe for everything?

Look, it's not exactly a secret that the prevailing Christian belief system had a lot to do with the things people came to see as moral or immoral.

Homosexual relationships and marriages are known to have existed in the Roman Empire, but the perception changed a lot with the rise of Christianity. The Victorians, even though they saw themselves in the tradition of the Romans, were the polar opposite of the former when it came to questions of moral and sexuality. Cities in the Roman Empire would also openly advertise the quality and prices of the local prostitutes, have unambiguous sexual depictions lead the way to the brothel (there was also a tax on sexual services) or have artistic renditions of sexual acts adorn luxurious villas. Caused a whole lot of problems for the Victorians when they ran into those during the excavation of Pompeii. They ended locking those unsuitable artifacts away in a Secret Museum as well as in secret rooms of the British Museum.

Without doubt, homosexuality or homophobia has existed in many cultures across the centuries, but I don't find it particularly ridiculous to notice that the colonisation of a continent by people from a culture and a continent that was very homophobic at that time would stick to those values even in their new country of choice.

okie wrote:

I don't think the article is very accurate and is obviously slanted and filled with inaccuracies. I have read a bit about Indians as well, and no expert here, I do think such a thing existed, yes, but they would not grant the same roles in their society, no way.

Well, the article noted that while mixed gender roles were common in many indigenous groups, the exact customs would vary from group to group. You're welcome to come up with a better source. However, it seems to at least contradict your statement that "native American cultures have never sanctioned homosexual behavior".

okie wrote:

If they had granted marriage licenses, the same would not be accorded to all of their tribal members to marry the same sex, that is baloney in my opinion.

Well, then why not back up your opinion with some evidence? And why would you find it so difficult to accept that other cultures just never had this kind of distinction between "normal" and "abnormal" behaviour that our culture has or had when it comes to homosexuality?

0 Replies

I will remind OE that in no US state does religion play any part in a marriage contract, there is no requirement to adhere to any religious rules or doctrines in order to get married, and there is no requirement to be married in a church, synagogue, mosque, temple or whatever or by a clergy person. So that is a totally different issue unrelated to any considerations of the equality of the marriage contract.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Nonsense, I have no fear of it whatsoever. I just think its strange and repulsive, if flaunted.

What do you mean when you say "flaunted"?

okie wrote:

It is the flaunting of it, the acting out, the practice of it, the behavior, not the nature of it.

If you don't find the nature of it repulsive, then what exactly are you objecting to? I mean, there are a lot of sexual practices that I'm just not into either, but nobody forces me to partake in them or even witness them. That doesn't mean that they should be outlawed. Sodomy laws outlawing sexual practices even between consenting partners of legal age and opposite sex existed in many places once. Doesn't seem to make sense to me. If nobody's rights are being violated, why have laws prohibiting it?

okie wrote:

There are lots of things I think are out of whack, and that I don't enjoy witnessing or being around, but I have no fear of it, none. Where you guys come up with this reasoning, is a mystery, but it is just wrong.

Well, then I don't really see the problem, I have to say.

okie wrote:

I don't enjoy watching two guys or two gals in acts of sexual affection.

Don't know exactly what you mean by that, but an obvious idea would be to stay away from gay or lesbian porn. If you mean two women or men kissing in public, or something like that... well, I think it's not something that infringes on anybody's rights so much that he couldn't tolerate it. And it's not like you have to watch other people.

okie wrote:

It strikes me as haywire and very unbecoming, unnatural. I think God made us to know its haywire. Fear of it, no, thats baloney.

Alright then.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I will remind OE that in no US state does religion play any part in a marriage contract, there is no requirement to adhere to any religious rules or doctrines in order to get married, and there is no requirement to be married in a church, synagogue, mosque, temple or whatever or by a clergy person.

I know. So why should the state adopt the definition of marriage as defined by one or several specific denominations? And, talking about separation of state and chuch: why should the service provided by the state be called a "marriage" in the first place? Why should not every government sanctioned contract between two people that confers identical rights be called a "civil union"? Of course, if people insist on calling it a marriage, then why not call all of them "marriage"?

Distinguishing between two identical services and insisting that one group of people only get to use the service called this term, and the other group of people get to use this other service called that term doesn't seem to make any sense at all to me.

Look, I have no problem with somebody objecting to calling a union between two people of the same sex a "marriage" on religious grounds. He just shouldn't force his religious conviction on everybody else via the government.

Foxfyre wrote:

So that is a totally different issue unrelated to any considerations of the equality of the marriage contract.

It is. I just noted that you didn't seem to object to the idea of providing the exact same service to everyone, regardless of whether it's two partners of the same or of opposite sex.

If that's the case, I don't see the point in insisting on using different terms for what would be the exactly same service.

1 Reply

@old europe,

Because it wouldn't be 'exactly the same'. Marriage is between a man and a woman and assumes the possibility of children being born.

A gay union, no matter how loving, makes no such presumption nor would any other civil union, gay or straight, make such a presumption. There would need to be no restrictions on age, blood relationships, or number of persons involved in a civil union that nevertheless could provide a vehicle for shared insurance, shared inheritance, hospital visitations, and other protections/rights that are needed. Those who chose to do so could add a religious ceremony or whatever they wished to the process.

3 Replies

so far, the only argument that's being put forward as the reason to disallow gays the same right to love, marry and live happily ever after as straight people is;

that some people just don't like it?

so a bunch of people who are each day working just like straight people, pay taxes just like straight people, fight and die in the military just like straight people... aren't good enough to marry the person they love because people like okie just don't like it ? that's it?

wow. that's some real unconventional "all men are created equal" democracy you guys believe in.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

so far, the only argument that's being put forward as the reason to disallow gays the same right to love, marry and live happily ever after as straight people is;

that some people just don't like it?

so a bunch of people who are each day working just like straight people, pay taxes just like straight people, fight and die in the military just like straight people... aren't good enough to marry the person they love because people like okie just don't like it ? that's it?

wow. that's some real unconventional "all men are created equal" democracy you guys believe in.

They believe in equality for all, without a doubt.

They also believe, however, that some are more equal than others.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Because it wouldn't be 'exactly the same'. Marriage is between a man and a woman and assumes the possibility of children being born.

A gay union, no matter how loving, makes no such presumption nor would any other civil union, gay or straight, make such a presumption. There would need to be no restrictions on age, blood relationships, or number of persons involved in a civil union that nevertheless could provide a vehicle for shared insurance, shared inheritance, hospital visitations, and other protections/rights that are needed. Those who chose to do so could add a religious ceremony or whatever they wished to the process.

For the record, I would be fine if this were the case for everyone, and 'marriage' was relegated to a strictly religious terminology with no legal standing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Because it wouldn't be 'exactly the same'.

As far as the government is involved, I just don't see any difference at all.

Foxfyre wrote:

Marriage is between a man and a woman and assumes the possibility of children being born.

Yes.

So?

If the government would regulate marriages only to further procreation, then couples where one or both partners are infertile shouldn't be allowed to get all kinds of benefits without ever being able to have children either. Polygamy, on the other hand, should arguably be permitted.

Foxfyre wrote:

A gay union, no matter how loving, makes no such presumption nor would any other civil union, gay or straight, make such a presumption.

Gay or lesbian partners would not have children together, but just like a couple where one or both partners are infertile, they could still adopt children. From the perspective of the government, regulating those kinds of issues seems to make very much sense.

If you're only talking about some kind of mutual agreement that takes the form of a government sanctioned contract without allowing the partners to also adopt children, then I don't see the point of having the government involved at all. After all, the government doesn't get involved in prenuptial agreements either.

Foxfyre wrote:

There would need to be no restrictions on age, blood relationships, or number of persons involved in a civil union that nevertheless could provide a vehicle for shared insurance, shared inheritance, hospital visitations, and other protections/rights that are needed.

I would argue that the state at least has an interest in prohibiting same sex relationships where one or both partners are not of legal age, or where one partner is forced into the relationship.

Foxfyre wrote:

Those who chose to do so could add a religious ceremony or whatever they wished to the process.

Exactly.

2 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Those who chose to do so could add a religious ceremony or whatever they wished to the process.

Exactly.

hiyaaa! my head is going to explode.

that is exactly the same as straight marriage. try going to a legitimate church and getting married without a marriage license.

ain't gonna happen.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know