Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Not sure that gay marriage was much of an issue back then so its hard to say how he would feel. Did the Declaration of Independense apply to black slaves?

It is not hard to deduce from his writing how he would have felt. Slaves were considered property so I would imagine it applied to them from the stand point of property by their owners.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by saden1

Given that he is the man who authored the the Declaration of Independence I feel confidant that he would be partial to gay marriage. That is to say if he is a principled man he would side with liberty and not with religious dogma.

interesting to be sure

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

Once you start legislating morality the war is already lost. It's simply a matter of time....like my man Thomas Jefferson said:

Morality is really the only thing you can legislate.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Morality is really the only thing you can legislate.

Wow, I can't tell if you're serious or clowning. If you're serious that's unbecoming. The constitution is what exactly? It deals with what exactly? Statutory law deals with more than issues concerning morality.

Edit: It occurred to me you might be arguing that every issue we deal with has a moral component. In that respect you are right. My comment, however, was with respect to legislating Christian morality which is the bases for anti-gay sentiment.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

Wow, I can't tell if you're serious or clowning. If you're serious that's unbecoming. The constitution is what exactly? It deals with what exactly? Statutory law deals with more than issues concerning morality.

Edit: It occurred to me you might be arguing that every issue we deal with has a moral component. In that respect you are right. My comment, however, was with respect to legislating Christian morality which is the bases for anti-gay sentiment.

Morality is not the same thing as sexuality. When people say "You can't legislate morality" what they really mean is "You shouldn't legislate sexuality". But even that is unavoidable. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Change should be organic. The people simply aren't ready. Homosexuals should concentrate on passing laws that don't seem like such a frontal assault on traditions that have been developed over many centuries. Revolutions that don't proceed from a strong popular consensus often have dangerous results. This is the difference between the American Revolution, for instance, and the one they had in France.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Morality is not the same thing as sexuality. When people say "You can't legislate morality" what they really mean is "You shouldn't legislate sexuality". But even that is unavoidable. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Change should be organic. The people simply aren't ready. Homosexuals should concentrate on passing laws that don't seem like such a frontal assault on traditions that have been developed over many centuries. Revolutions that don't proceed from a strong popular consensus often have dangerous results. This is the difference between the American Revolution, for instance, and the one they had in France.

Most people aren't yet ready to see gay couples getting married. There's no question that the majority of Americans don't want the states to recognize gay marriage.

However, opponents of gay marriage hurt their cause when they advocate the passage of constitutional amendments, propositions, etc. to ban gay marriage. Such laws have brought the "gay marriage debate" to the forefront of national politics and suggest that the issue is so important that legislators should spend time on it during wartime and a deep recession. Think about it, a few short years ago there was no debate over gay marriage outside of academia. Now, it's all over the news and people like us are giving it serious thought.

Moreover, gay marriage bans are powerful and highly visible symbols of inequality. It's not the same as seeing dogs bite at people peacefully marching in Birmingham, but it will lead to the same result. U.S. history shows that visible symbols of inequality tend to spur debate and typically result in the extension of civil rights.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Morality is not the same thing as sexuality. When people say "You can't legislate morality" what they really mean is "You shouldn't legislate sexuality". But even that is unavoidable. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Change should be organic. The people simply aren't ready. Homosexuals should concentrate on passing laws that don't seem like such a frontal assault on traditions that have been developed over many centuries. Revolutions that don't proceed from a strong popular consensus often have dangerous results. This is the difference between the American Revolution, for instance, and the one they had in France.

While I understand the resistance of the mob I will not accept the notion that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has to be scheduled. Yes, you have to draw the line somewhere but where the line is drawn has to be based on sound rational and fairness. One should avoid drawing lines with Tom Delay's pencil.

It is desirable that change be organic but matters of importances shouldn't be sat on. Sometimes issues must be forced (i.e. revolution, civil rights, civil war, etc). You have to confront gay marrige head on instead of tip toeing around it. If you don't the masses will simply assume all is well which is not the case. I am sure when we look back at the gay marriage ban thirty years from now we will wonder how people could favor such blatant injustice.

The French Revolution (a first class clusterfuck) is far too complex to compare to any other revolution let alone the American Revolution. Interestingly one of the contributing factors to the demise of Louis XVI was his financial support of the American Revolution at the expense of his countrymen (bankrupted France).

[FRPLG]

In my opinion the gov't shouldn't be in the business of marriage in the first place. Makes no sense to me for some people to tell everyone else how to live. I don't like homosexuality all that much. So guess what...I don't practice it. What others do? I don't give a flying fart. Sanctioning marriage one way but not another is crap. It is that kind of crapola that kills the Republican party. Why is it ok to call for tax cuts, spending cuts and less gov't in general but socially the gov't is supposed to regulate more? Moronic. Not even remotely logical. I don't like the Cowboys. You don't see me trying to get a job with the NFL so I can get them banished from the league. I just don't cheer for them. Pretty simple in my book.

Eliminate the traditional BS marriage tenants of our laws. Enact some type of civil unions for the purpose of satisfying needed unity issues (medical decisions and so forth) and put this dumb issue to bed. If you want to be "against" gays then be "against" them. Have your idiot rallys but don't try to enact laws to prohibit it. We have plenty of laws that prohibit certain actions that don't work anyways so why does legislating this stuff make any sense?

[saden1]

My homeboy James Dobson weighs in from the future, the year 2012 to be exact. I'm guessing he is hoping Obama will not be reelected in 2012. Very entertaining read...mega bonus points for creativity. It starts out like this to wet your appetite and get you to lick your lips:

Dear friends,

I can hardly sing “The Star Spangled Banner” any more. When I hear the words,

O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

I get tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat. Now in October of 2012, after seeing what has happened in the last four years, I don't think I can still answer, "Yes," to that question. We are not "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by saden1

My homeboy James Dobson weighs in from the future, the year 2012 to be exact. I'm guessing he is hoping Obama will not be reelected in 2012. Very entertaining read...mega bonus points for creativity. It starts out like this to wet your appetite and get you to lick your lips:

I can't even do it.

I'd rather watch the saved by zero Toyota commercial over and over than be subjected to such garbage.

Doesn't he think that homosexuals can be "cured"?

[saden1]

From a literary stand point it's a masterpiece. If it will help look at it as a work of fiction written from the prospective of a deranged man.

He thinks it's psychological problem that can be cured. Homeboy wanted to help Ted Haggard but he just didn't have the time.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I still have yet to hear a persuasive argument as to why homosexuality is wrong or how gay marriage is harmful to society. I've heard, "it's unnatural and so it's wrong" (the very same argument advanced with respect to interracial marriages). Homosexuality is "natural" insofar as people are born gay. Additionally, people do a lot of "unnatural" things which are, by all accounts, not immoral. Flying in a steel object at 30,000 feet at 400 miles per hour isn't "natural," but that doesn't make flying from D.C. to L.A. on US Airlines immoral. So, even if homosexuality is "unnatural," that doesn't make it wrong.

I've also heard that homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong because they accelerate the decay of social values (again, the very same argument advanced with respect to interracial marriage). That's conclusory and circular "logic" at its worst. What values does gay marriage erode, the importance of making a lifelong commitment to your partner?

I've also heard gay marriage is wrong, but it's difficult to articulate why it's wrong. I can articulate why murder, rape, robbery, fraud, etc. are wrong, so why can't opponents of homosexuality/gay marriage do the same? Because they can't.

I've also heard that homosexuality and gay marriage have been deemed immoral for thousands of years, as if that is somehow proof positive of immorality. Slavery existed for thousands of years, and still does in some places. Women were treated as property for thousands of years, and still are in many areas of the globe. Tradition isn't always a good thing. In fact, all too often tradition is used as a hollow justification for denying people access to rights that all people should enjoy.

I've also heard that gay marriage is dangerous because it could, possibly, someday lead to all sorts of crazy relationships (e.g., "If we allow gay marriage, we'll end up allowing people to marry a can of spam!"). Address each issue on the merits. Slippery slope arguments are, in general, pretty weak and this one is no exception.

Basically, opposing gay marriage or homosexuality in general comes down to intolerance and a paternalistic and perverse desire to impose personal sexual preferences on the rest of society.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I still have yet to hear a persuasive argument as to why homosexuality is wrong or how gay marriage is harmful to society. I've heard, "it's unnatural and so it's wrong" (the very same argument advanced with respect to interracial marriages). Homosexuality is "natural" insofar as people are born gay. Additionally, people do a lot of "unnatural" things which are, by all accounts, not immoral. Flying in a steel object at 30,000 feet at 400 miles per hour isn't "natural," but that doesn't make flying from D.C. to L.A. on US Airlines immoral. So, even if homosexuality is "unnatural," that doesn't make it wrong.

I've also heard that homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong because they accelerate the decay of social values (again, the very same argument advanced with respect to interracial marriage). That's conclusory and circular "logic" at its worst. What values does gay marriage erode, the importance of making a lifelong commitment to your partner?

I've also heard gay marriage is wrong, but it's difficult to articulate why it's wrong. I can articulate why murder, rape, robbery, fraud, etc. are wrong, so why can't opponents of homosexuality/gay marriage do the same? Because they can't.

I've also heard that homosexuality and gay marriage have been deemed immoral for thousands of years, as if that is somehow proof positive of immorality. Slavery existed for thousands of years, and still does in some places. Women were treated as property for thousands of years, and still are in many areas of the globe. Tradition isn't always a good thing. In fact, all too often tradition is used as a hollow justification for denying people access to rights that all people should enjoy.

I've also heard that gay marriage is dangerous because it could, possibly, someday lead to all sorts of crazy relationships (e.g., "If we allow gay marriage, we'll end up allowing people to marry a can of spam!"). Address each issue on the merits. Slippery slope arguments are, in general, pretty weak and this one is no exception.

Basically, opposing gay marriage or homosexuality in general comes down to intolerance and a paternalistic and perverse desire to impose personal sexual preferences on the rest of society.

I think you just hit a walk-off. Debate over.

[Daseal]

Very nice post SGG.

[saden1]

A toast to the chewbacca defense.