Thread Options 
|
#629634 - 10/30/06 03:29 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Quote:
How could we use morality as a basis for lawmaking?
You can't. Morality can't be legislated.
So none of our laws are based on morality?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629635 - 10/30/06 04:42 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,407
Midwest
|
Quote:
Quote:
There are a lot of things that are immoral that people do on a daily basis. Everyone's level of acceptability of immorality is different based on their beliefs, opinion and (if they are bible readers) their interpretation of the bible.
But if what you say is true, moral/immoral is unique to each person. How could we use morality as a basis for lawmaking?
Ding ding ding! We *shouldn't*!!!!!!!! Let's leave the government OUT of legislating morality and let the government ensure that all people have equal rights under the law, shall we? Hence, the union of a same sex couple MUST have the same rights as the union of an opposite sex couple under the law, according to the constitution, in my humble opinion. Morality judgments, which are so stunningly individual, based upon each person, their religion, beliefs, etc., ought to be left completely out of the law.
_________________________
"Gratitude makes sense of our past, brings peace for today, and creates a vision for tomorrow." - Melody Beattie
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629636 - 10/30/06 03:42 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,350
The he11 of suburbia
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How could we use morality as a basis for lawmaking?
You can't. Morality can't be legislated.
So none of our laws are based on morality?
It's not that none are, but none should be based purely on morality. There is no argument that can be made against same sex marriage that isn't strictly a moral one, is there?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629637 - 10/30/06 04:59 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,476
USA
|
So then there would be no argument for a Father marrying a daughter other than a moral one either? Or how about there would be no argument for an owner to marry their horse other than a moral one?
Where do you draw the line?
What's the argument about murder other than it's immoral? I'm sure that there are those that believe murder is a perfectly acceptable act.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629638 - 10/30/06 03:57 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How could we use morality as a basis for lawmaking?
You can't. Morality can't be legislated.
So none of our laws are based on morality?
Here's another way to look at it:
State Constitutions and our Federal Constitution are descriptions of civil morality, that is, the civil values we hold dear, and which form the bounds within which we write legislation.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629639 - 10/30/06 04:03 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,350
The he11 of suburbia
|
Quote:
So then there would be no argument for a Father marrying a daughter other than a moral one either? Or how about there would be no argument for an owner to marry their horse other than a moral one?
Where do you draw the line?
What's the argument about murder other than it's immoral? I'm sure that there are those that believe murder is a perfectly acceptable act.
Murder hurts another person and violates their right to life. In the father/daughter scenario, a pure libertarian viewpoint would be that if they are both consenting, then it shouldn't be illegal. One cannot marry a horse because marriage is a contract and thereby precludes non-humans.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629640 - 10/30/06 04:05 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,407
Midwest
|
Quote:
So then there would be no argument for a Father marrying a daughter other than a moral one either? Or how about there would be no argument for an owner to marry their horse other than a moral one?
Where do you draw the line?
What's the argument about murder other than it's immoral? I'm sure that there are those that believe murder is a perfectly acceptable act.
Relationships between closely related persons (i.e. family members) can lead to serious medical issues for any resulting children. That's a reason (besides simply someone's idea of morality) to legislate against it. Murder takes away the rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) of the victim. That's a reason (besides simply someone's idea of morality) to legislate against it. Only human beings (not horses) are granted rights and privileges under our laws, so horses cannot marry.
_________________________
"Gratitude makes sense of our past, brings peace for today, and creates a vision for tomorrow." - Melody Beattie
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629643 - 10/30/06 05:34 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,476
USA
|
If relationships between closely related persons can lead to serious medical issues for resulting children then a brother should be able to marry his brother, they would not be able to have (in the traditional way)a child, if gay marriage laws pass? Since animals are not given rights under our laws, then these people that are in jail for animal cruelty should be set free and not be punished as they did not do anything to disrupt any other humans rights?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629644 - 10/30/06 04:25 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
For all the talk that a slippery slope doesn't exist and is just a conservative scare tactic, I'd like to point out that there are at least two regularly liberal posters here who have now gone on the record as having no objection to polygamous marriage. Just for a reminder of where we are headed when we decide that an overwhelming majority of our society does not have the right to define what marriage is.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629646 - 10/30/06 04:46 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
I don't have any objection to polygamous marriage for the same reason I have no objection to same sex marriage. Neither infringes on anyone's rights. I am a Christian and believe that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I personally will not engage in it, however I don't think it the business of government to dictate to people what is right or wrong.
I did not criticize your position - it is at least consistent. I just pointed out where it leads. Many on your side of the debate fudge and obfiscate.
Quote:
What if 25 years from now, the majority of Americans are Muslim? Would you have a problem with elements of Islamic law being legislated into U.S. laws?
Of course I would. But unless they accomplish significant amendments to the Constitution, they would not have much luck. If those in favor of homosexual marriage wanted to amend the Constitution, they could attempt to do so. The most objectionable part of this to me is the fact that it is (a continued) undermining our system of self-government.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629648 - 10/30/06 05:02 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,275
|
Quote:
I don't have any objection to polygamous marriage for the same reason I have no objection to same sex marriage. Neither infringes on anyone's rights. I am a Christian and believe that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I personally will not engage in it, however I don't think it the business of government to dictate to people what is right or wrong.
What if 25 years from now, the majority of Americans are Muslim? Would you have a problem with elements of Islamic law being legislated into U.S. laws?
Talk about slippery slopes -- the notion that we are a Christian nation, built on Christian morals justifying legislation of morality becomes a slippery slope when one thinks of the possibility that our nation may at some point in the future not be predominantly Christian.
I agree that the government in general doesn't have the right to tell me what's right or wrong (as long as I'm not hurting someone else). In this area, however, the government already is telling us what's right or wrong. Those pushing for same sex marriage are asking the government to change its definition of what's right and wrong - for moral reasons. They believe same sex marriage is okay and that sexual orientation creates a class of persons that should be protected just like gender, race, age, etc. They wan the government to give society the moral directive that same sex marriage is the same as opposite sex marriage.
For better or worse (pun intended), the government is currently in the business of telling us what kind of marriage is right. It is a legal arrangement that is currently based on a moral viewpoint, and it still will be if same sex marriage becomes reality.
In some aspects of life, the government is still involved with morals (prohibition of prostitution and recreational drug use, bans/restrictions on consensual adult porn, etc.). This is one of those areas.
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629649 - 10/30/06 05:03 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
It undermines our system of self-government by taking the decision about what marriage is away from the people and deciding it by a group of judges. That is as simple as it gets.
The Constitution doesn't mention it either way, and wouldn't need to, if the judicial branch would leave the definition of marriage - which has been understood perfectly since the founding of this republic - ALONE.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629650 - 10/30/06 06:18 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
|
Quote:
By the same token, if the majority of US society believes for whatever reason that marriage between same sex individuals is wrong, then they have the right to vote to prohibit it.
Certainly they have the right to vote to prohibit it. However, where *that* law conflicts with the state's constitution, or other laws, the citizens who find their rights suddenly curtailed can ask the courts to resolve the inconsistency. The legislature, through their attorney, puts forth their most compelling argument for why they should allow the inequity to stand.
In the New Jersey case, the State's Attorney lacked a sufficiently persuasive argument.
That said, I don't think you really want your civil rights put up for a popularity contest, do you?
Quote:
Neither side has the right to demean the other based on their opinion or their ability to back up that opinion.
Well, actually they do. Free speech guarantees the right, courtesy might dictate its implementation. That said, to the extent that your argument against same-sex marriage involves calling it 'wrong', 'immoral', 'unnatural', or 'an abomination against God', I'm hard pressed to see how that is not demeaning.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629651 - 10/30/06 05:10 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
It undermines our system of self-government by taking the decision about what marriage is away from the people and deciding it by a group of judges. That is as simple as it gets.
The Constitution doesn't mention it either way, and wouldn't need to, if the judicial branch would leave the definition of marriage - which has been understood perfectly since the founding of this republic - ALONE.
The Constitution does not mention separate but equal, but the concept had been understood perfectly since the refounding of the Republic after the Civil War. Should the judicial branch left that definition ALONE?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629652 - 10/30/06 05:15 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,350
The he11 of suburbia
|
Quote:
It undermines our system of self-government by taking the decision about what marriage is away from the people and deciding it by a group of judges. That is as simple as it gets.
The Constitution doesn't mention it either way, and wouldn't need to, if the judicial branch would leave the definition of marriage - which has been understood perfectly since the founding of this republic - ALONE.
As has been discussed before, the courts cannot just take up a matter on their own and decide it. They rule on cases that are brought before them. In the cases for gay marriage, couples are seeking equal treatment under the law. The courts are merely rendering opinions based on the merits of the case and the existing law. Should they instead put the matters to a vote?
Many are already trying to put it before the people in the form of a Defense of Marriage Act -- if this passes, then the people (i.e., the peoples' collective morality) will have spoken. However such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution will never pass. Most Republican politicians know this -- they just push it as another wedge issue (i.e., if you vote Democratic you support homosexuality).
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629653 - 10/30/06 06:25 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
|
Quote:
I agree that the government in general doesn't have the right to tell me what's right or wrong (as long as I'm not hurting someone else).
Really? Do tell!
Quote:
They believe same sex marriage is okay and that sexual orientation creates a class of persons that should be protected just like gender, race, age, etc.
Under New Jersey law, sexual orientation *is* a protected class.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629654 - 10/30/06 05:21 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,350
The he11 of suburbia
|
Quote:
In some aspects of life, the government is still involved with morals (prohibition of prostitution and recreational drug use, bans/restrictions on consensual adult porn, etc.).
Those are other areas where the government should not dictate.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629656 - 10/30/06 06:45 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
The Constitution does not mention separate but equal, but the concept had been understood perfectly since the refounding of the Republic after the Civil War. Should the judicial branch left that definition ALONE?
"No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629657 - 10/30/06 06:52 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
|
Quote:
And also under the laws of some other jurisdictions, but federal law the laws of many jurisdictions do not treat sexual orientation as a protected class. It appears that you want that to change.
That's irrelevant to this discussion, but of course I do! There's no legitimate basis for denying employment, housing, credit, a driver's license, a hunting license, or access to government services or public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index