Gay marriage ban

[Bill Roy]

My first thoughts on logging on and reading the replies this morning are actually quite positive, this is a pleasant surprise.

To try and carry the discussion forward I would like to make the following observations though.

tld, people are not 'born killers', what I think you mean is that some people have a genetic/hormonal/pysiological/psychological adaptation or trait that means there is a statistically significant chance whereby given a situation they may react in a violent way that is outside the statistical norm of a heterogenious group of society. This in itself is very true and is documented extensively in modern medical and scientific peer reviewed research papers.

However, your term 'born killers' immediately uses a choice of emotive language that by its very choice impedes the discussion. Here by the use of such an emotive term already implies that such people are outside the rule of society but in actual fact society does utilize such people in many and varied forms both to the betterment and quite often for the protection of the society as a whole. When anybody crosses the line and commits a crime against society we of course do not condone it and neither should we, whether that person be in the main stream or extremity of society.

I agree that middle ground should be sought in this debate. My own personal feelings are that 'Church' should be seperate from 'State', that does not mean that the 'Church' cannot discuss politics, such would change milleniums of actuall practise. But, the 'Church' should not be allowed to dictate to the 'State' its own set of moral standards no matter what those standards are.

I would argue that marriage between two people, whether they be of the same or opposite sex, same or different ancestral race, same or different religions, same or different blood groups, same or different economic or social groups, etc., is of no concern of the 'State', for marriage between two people is their choice and their common right, and a right that should always be defended. Now if a 'Church' (of whatever religion) decides that it will not permit such marriages that is that 'Church's' right not to marry such couples, and the 'State' should not have the power to force the 'Church' to do otherwise. But a marriage between two consenting people, entering freely and willingly into a legal union between themselves, is neither amoral nor illegal, for it harms no one by the act.

tld, you use the form 'reformed homosexual men', this clearly demonstrates that you disagree with me as you use the term 'reformed' as if it were being used for a drug addict or gambler or alcoholic, as if homosexuality were a psychological disease or a physiological dependancy, which it clearly is not, and if such is the philosophical standing of your church then this is a clearest example possible in support of my argument that a 'Church' must not be allowed to dictate to the 'State'.

Taz, you make a good point, homosexuality is not the norm (thank goodness for the human race - as you clearly state if it were we would not exist). It is unfortunate that we seperate Human Rights into categories, in this case into a 'Gay Rights' section, I am sure the situation would be seen clearer and discussed with less venom if we just discussed the subject as part of the simple Human Rights agenda.

Name, I actually wonder which political party would be the first. I agree that of either party the Democrats would likely be the first to nominate an openly Gay candidate for President, but remember that the Republicans have elected Senators who are Gay but the Senators just were not open about their homosexuality!

For the record, the preferred sexual orientation of a candidate should not be a deciding factor in who one should vote for, but I have to admit that even I would I am sure include it even subconciously in any decision making. You see even I have to admit that I am a product to a greater or lesser extent of my life environment, but 30 years ago I doubt I would have supported a non-white candidate for POTUS, now I find it totally abhorant that anyone should consider race as a factor in choosing whom to support.

[tas38]

BILLBO the thing is gays never had the right to get married, it would take new laws to let that happen, that means the gov't making the new laws.

And there is the problem, as do they then make new laws letting adults have 2,3,4,5 or more wifes. As you can see it is the real problem here, as they never had the right to being with, so a new law would have to be made to give it to them.

[Bill Roy]

Hi Taz, same sex marriages are permitted in some States, California being one I believe, and Proposition 8 is trying to enter into the States constitution a definition of marriage as only between two people of opposite sex.

As I pointed out in my post above the permissability of same sex marriage should be looked on as a Human Right and not as a Gay Right. The difference is that marriage should be the legal union between 2 willing people and in my view should not be restricted to 2 people of the opposite sex. The discussion is not about multi-party marriages, this is specifically dealt with in the laws, indeed the Utah had to drop its Mormon principles on multi-party marriages before it was allowed to transform from a Territory to Statehood. Here though the question is whether the legal union between 2 persons should be restricted to solely those of opposite sex, which is an entirely different issue than multi-party marriages, the two subjects are not in any way linked. What is more just because a 'right' had previously not existed does not in itself mean that to give such 'rights' is wrong on this premiss. If it were otherwise women would still not have the right to vote and slavery would still exist. The fact that a 'right' is not enshrined in law is plainly thus no excuse for that right not to exist.

As for governments making new laws that is exactly what the government is there to do, to govern by the creation of new and updating of existing laws.

[tldrental]

Billbo,
Wow..very impressed and articulately written. I cant say that I agree with everything, but I am impressed in how you carried your thoughts.

Thanks for the feedback, I will give it some thought. I am just waking up so my brain is popping kind of slow.

[Bill Roy]

Firstly, thank you tld, I really appreciate your comment and understand that our opinions may well differ but that we respect each others reasoned opinion.

Now I have just come across this video statement from the Mayor of San Diego concerning this very matter under discussion. Please take a few minutes to view it if you would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rfea8iEGNw

In this thread we may not agree with one another, in fact it is healthy for society that our opinions should vary, but I would ask that on such an important issue affecting perhaps millions of innocent people we all question our own beliefs and prejudices and accept that even after we all have done so accept that we may still disagree, but that such disagreement be not a conflict between us.

[tas38]

But first the new law had to be made to give them the right, surely you would agree the people have a right to vote on it. And as you see in CA, they surely have the right to test that law as they are now.

As you said it's a law now but it's still a untested law, but states will not be the end of the law. When a new right is giving and tested in a state, it must pass the state test then the highest fed court test. Once it has done that, others states will need to follow when the people of said states demand they be giving the rights as well.


They not got to the fed level yet, but if CA votes to not make a law to counter the new marriage law. They it will have passed the state test, if they pass it then the state high court must take a look at it. And could well through it out as stepping on gays rights, the highest fed gov't will have to confirm that right, one way or the other this is how our court system works.

But once the confirm it as a right of gays, then other state will have to follow suit and pass on the same rights. This is not a clear cut as it looks, even CA law don't have to be respected in other states. So in the end they are better off, to let it works it's way into the highest court.

The fed court can throw out any law a state passes as well, so the end goal is to gain supporter from the fed court system. Or it's not really going to give them to real rights, I would think they high court would draw a clear line at some point. Like they did on a womens right to have a abortion, so it's now just being tested at this point.

[tldrental]

.....

Absolutely, again well said and articulated. I am glad you pointed this out and and wish others here in the forum who have been battling it out over tough politics the last fee months understood the point you just made. Well put!

Wow, I am thrown back by thin video. Here I live in San Diego and this conference with reports never got any airtime here in San Diego by the media.

Our mayor was pretty choked up about this almost in tears, something must have really hit him close to home for him, possibly a child being honest with him or other family member about there gender preference....!WOW! I didn't watch the whole video so maybe I missed the exact reason of the change of heart.

Thanks I found that insightful, but I will admit I am still astonished that this got next to nothing in air time by our media, wonder why that is?

For all of you who don't know a whole lot about San Diego we have a very large gay community and a largely accept gay as just a person with brown hair, blond hair, blue eyes, short, tall, just normal people. Pretty sure the second largest gay community in California below San Francisco. Some of the best night life in San Diego is "Downtown", and then "HillCrest". Although the gay community is spread out throughout San Diego, the majority of gays live in HillCrest.

Hillcrest was part of my stomping ground growing up after high school as was mexico becuase of all the partying and fun things to do.

I have always had great acceptance and respect for the homosexual comminuty.

For me something changed though once I was married and shortly after gave birth to my son Richard III.

Thoughts of how tough this will be for my son's (my wife is about to give birth any day now to Giovanni Giammarinaro) as they grow up in an already confusing world with out including sexual preference in the picture. I am fearful I freely admit.

I understand the argument of how being gay is inherent or being born with the feelings of liking the same sex, thus they are gay.

At some point I feel it will trickle down to the conversion of being gay by the mainstream and peers.

We were kids once playing on the block with our friends not always doing the right thing and giving in to peer pressure or what everyone else was doing for fear of not being accepted.

So you can see where this is going to make it even harder to parent in the future as parents have less and less rights as to what there children are exposed to as well as loss of control to what they are exposed to when not around.