1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

California setting a trend again

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by joseephuss, May 15, 2008.

  1. SuspectCorner

    SuspectCorner Bromo

    7,730 Messages
    108 Likes Received
    And I can only suspect that recognizing the similar capacity to feel love, in all people - regardless of sexual preference, is well beyond your grasp.

    Historically, when I have seen this depth of protestation by a "moral crusader" - I have found that the protester's closet didn't have to be too thoroughly rummaged to locate the skeletons. :D

    And pedophiles don't love their victims - if they did they wouldn't think to do them harm.
  2. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,524 Messages
    182 Likes Received
    It is perfectly logical when seen within the larger historical context where homosexuals have been discriminated against for allegedly being, among other things, "unnatural."
  3. MetalHead

    MetalHead Benched

    6,031 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    This is getting semi-interesting.Considering one of the rules of God,the same God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?
  4. quincyyyyy

    quincyyyyy Benched

    463 Messages
    0 Likes Received

    In America we make laws based on the Constitution not the Bible.
  5. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    Intentionally obtuse or willfull ignorance?

    Come on guys, I can accept this kind of schizophrenic bahavior from quincyyyyy, but you two know better than that.
  6. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    What harm is it to the child, if the child is consenting?

    If the child is consenting, does it then become "natural?"

    If your distinction is that the child "cannot legally consent," then can his parent effect consent for him? Some states allow parents to give consent for their underage children for marriage, abortions, enlistment in the military, etc.

    Then if it's natural, does that relationship deserve recognition and preferred status?


    I realize I'm joining the fray late, but I felt the need. VTA is knocking this one out of the park, and I probably won't be able to state my thoughts as well as he does.

    But IMO, this natural vs. unnatural distinction is spot on.
  7. Bach

    Bach Benched

    7,645 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I wouldn't say all relationships. I'm pretty sure in some of these gay unions that neither wear the pants.
  8. SuspectCorner

    SuspectCorner Bromo

    7,730 Messages
    108 Likes Received
    Both your stances seem weakened when you insist on attempting to prop them up using irrelevant analogies involving pedophilia.

    In case your Falwellian zeal has already caused you to lose sight of it - the issue centers on the rights of two consenting adults. A-D-U-L-T-S. Try to remember that.
  9. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    If you could separate yourself from the acts themselves and acknowledge the nature, i.e. the prediliction for feeling a certain way, which transcends such things as societal restrictions, reason and conscious understandings of right and wrong, you'd understand the point.

    The fact that you'd reference Falwell speaks of a predetermined characteristic that you've conceived of and which is hampering your understanding of the point.

    Recognize that first and separate yourself from the notion that it's a religious concern and read it objectively:

    We all possess a nature. A built in set of characteristics. Does this fact validate privileges and grant legitemacy of our actions?
  10. SuspectCorner

    SuspectCorner Bromo

    7,730 Messages
    108 Likes Received

    Homosexuality is no longer considered a crime in the US. The subject of this thread is the legal issue of "same-sex marriage".

    Laws are, for the individual, an external mechanism that can legally be enforced by society. On the other hand morality, while it may be affected by external influences, is an internal mechanism and are subject to no such enforcement. Gays generally don't appear to have any moral qualms with their sexuality - although it appears to chap you a bit. But this is not about you...

    You seem hung up on viewing this as a moral issue. The priveleges and legitimacy of homosexuals, as with other citizens, are determined by laws and if your hellbent on seeing that certain privileges are not granted to them then please vote accordingly. Otherwise, your attempt to analyze the lifestyle has no bearing on the subject.

    I don't understand homosexuality - nor do I need to. I just don't think the apparently legal sexual orientation of an adult citizen should prevent them from enjoying the same liberties and rights as other citizens.

    The largest part of progress... is moving forward. But, as a society, we can always choose to go back - maybe rethink some of the landmark Constitutional Amendments... as we seem to be doing of late.
  11. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    I was quite clear when I wrote, We all possess a nature. A built in set of characteristics. Does this fact validate privileges and grant legitimacy to our actions?

    That question in no way speaks of morals or whether or not I care if it's legal (I've already answered that one, I believe). It's a logical and relevant question as to whether or not it should be legal. To institute a major change, valid reasons have to be provided. Want is not a valid reason. Since you seem hell bent on championing the cause, by all means, understand the question and provide an answer that would make sense.

    Your constant misguided allusions to what you think I think are not at all a legitimate response. You're typing for the sake of having some sort of response.

    If valid questions as to whether or not a law should be altered bothers you, to the point where you'll insist on assumptions, despite my honest declarations that blatantly contradict these assumptions, your whole end of the discussion holds no water.

    If the fate of this law depended on you and reasoning, it'd be dead in the water.
  12. SuspectCorner

    SuspectCorner Bromo

    7,730 Messages
    108 Likes Received
    The California Chief Justice said the law banning same-sex marriage was counter to the intent of the State Constitution with regard to an individual's right to establish a family with another person, or words to that effect. In my limited understanding state laws should align within the framework provided by a reasonable interpretation of that state's Constitution. I think opponents of the decision suggested changing the wording of the constitution. That's an issue for voters to decide on. But as things stand I don't see the decision as being some horrible miscarriage.

    Questions about peoples "natures" and their affect on lifestyle choices, sexual preferences, etc. just seem like a sidetrack to the issue here. I guess I'm just no fun like that.
  13. Viper

    Viper Active Member

    2,190 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Rights are being violated?

    Does anyone really have a Right to Marry?

    I have never viewed my Marriage as a "Right" granted to me by the State!

    Since Marriage is a Right, can anyone demand the Right to Marry?
  14. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    Yet you felt compelled to engage in the conversation for as long as you could manage to shuffle points, innuendo and motives, which were in fact, sidetracks of the issue being discussed.

    Right. :cool:
  15. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    So you distinguish it because the child is not an adult?? Did I not already address that in my post?

    What if mom or dad effects consent for the child?
  16. SuspectCorner

    SuspectCorner Bromo

    7,730 Messages
    108 Likes Received
    According to the Chief Justice, yes, rights covered by that State Constitution WERE being violated based on gender-classifications. That right may not necessarily be granted by the state - but it is protected by state and federal Constitutions. The right to marry is considered a fundamental one - which requires no specific language addressing that right in particular. But apparently the state's Constitution DOES contain more specific text than the US Constitution prtecting the "inalienable rights" of individuals.

    Under California Constitutional law courts have to apply "strict scrutiny" when evaluating gender-based classifications (just like they would racial-based classifications) - a more stringent form of analysis than the "intermediate scrutiny" by which the federal constitution is applied.


    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20040402.html
  17. SuspectCorner

    SuspectCorner Bromo

    7,730 Messages
    108 Likes Received
    Because I can only speculate on vagaries regarding the "natures" and "feelings" of a group to which I am not a member. The doorway for interpretation of the issue is open wide enough without my amateur attempts to psycho-analyze a lifestyle. What they are actually doing and saying is of a more tangible and quantifiable value to me - because they provide actual evidence.

    Unalienable rights. Maybe it all just boils down to your interpretation of "unalienable".

    Whether you think it means "God-given" - in which case: from a biological standpoint same "equipment" partners don't appear to have any natural mandate from a universally intelligent creator OR random force. Even though the mechanical issues of the situation appear to be a hurdle cleared.

    Or whether you think it means "inherent" and inseparable - in which case: it really doesn't matter what the divine OR random intention of the universe is. It's solely the choice of the individual.

    Right now, I'm inclined to side with the latter interpretation just because it supports my basic views on the importance of personal freedom over group ethos.

    This is a pretty contoversial subject and, by it's very nature, is gonna lead to some heated arguments. I can't see that there is any definitive answer forthcoming. Sorry if it seems i was trying to squelch your thoughts or feelings on the subject - you're as equally deserving to an opinion as anybody.
  18. CanadianCowboysFan

    CanadianCowboysFan Lightning Rod

    15,618 Messages
    408 Likes Received
    assuming for the moment God actually destroyed those two villages, I would hope that society has progressed in the last 8000 or so years and that we no longer looked to kill those who are different.
  19. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,795 Messages
    1,669 Likes Received
    The Taliban and company would seem to be willing to go that way. In Iran they still kill any gays they find (or think they find).
  20. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,795 Messages
    1,669 Likes Received
    Natural as in nature.
    Nature does not seem to favor homosexual activity in any other animal.

Share This Page