This is America

[Eidolon Faer]

I'm not going to voice an opinion on who won the 2000 Presidential debate other than to state that "Who won on substance" is a function of whose views you more agree with, not some cosmic absolute.

That is the difference between FACT and OPINION.

And that is what is at the heart of this debate. It is a FACT that Al Qaeda, Hamas, et. al. are overtly Muslim organizations. It is a FACT that these groups have traditionally used Mosques as gathering points, drop spots, and recruiting centers both here and in other countries.

If you have eyewitness reports that a black woman was seen fleeing the scene of a murder holding a bloody kitchen knife, do you stop white men on the street "just to be fair"?

No.

Likewise, you investigate these terrorist groups as well as you can, and when the trail of breadcrumbs leads you to a Mosque, you investigate the Mosque to see if you can pick up more trails of breadcrumbs than just the one that led you there.

That's not bigotry.

What about if an individual applies for a student visa and happens to be muslim? Well, several of the Al Qaeda highjackers studied in the US on exactly that same type of visa, and learned how to fly planes but not land them. Maybe it makes a bit more sense to check out all out visa applicants more thoroughly. Maybe having all visa holders to register current addresses as part of the visa is a good idea, most countries already require that.

Not bigotry either.

And maybe it even makes sense to check out muslims a bit more carefully than nonmuslims. Ideally you want to check out everyone completely, but you do not have unlimited resources. It's not a question of bigotry, it's a question of priorities. It's not that you're assuming all muslims are guilty (which IS bigotry) but you're trying to focus your efforts where experience tells you you have the worst problem.

Bigotry is based on opinion. Criminal Profiling is based on fact. If 92-year-old Swedish Lutheran grandmothers start blowing up airplanes, we start searching THEM too, no matter how harmless we think they are.


Oh, and Partha...

one word: Lutefisk.

[Torakus]

No one has quoted any grounds to DENY gays the right to be married by the state besides religious ones

In thread after thread several people have brought up reasons other than religious and you continue ignore them. You don't even bother arguing their points. No Im not going to list their reasons because I personally don't agree with them and don't feel like arguing them, just pointing out that you are once again being a jackass.

Wende,

My wife, daughter and oldest son are all citizens of a foreign nation. For reasons of their own they have decided to remain citizens of that other nation. We lived in that nation when we were married and when the first two kids were born. Every day since February of 1992, when we returned to the States, the US government has has valid addresses, phone numbers, etc for my wife and kids. This is what the law currently states for ALL resident aliens and people on work/student/tourist visas. It does not discriminate by race or religion. Unfortunately the terrorists used the fact that the Immigration service can hardly be expected to verify each of the millions of resident alien and tourist/student/work visa addresses individually. I think Eidlon is 100% correct in his assertion that it is fine to profile for this purpose. Certainly there will always be sleepers that come active after a number of years to tie knots in any plan, but phone or domestic bill or some sort of verification of location should be conducted on all immigrants/visitor at least bi-annually if not quarterly for the first couple years, then trailing off to once per decade or so after the first 5 years or so. Speaking as someone affected by those laws I would have no problem whatever if they were stricter.

Tora

[SicTimMitchell]

I favor gay marriage.

Except for Muslims.

[Eidolon Faer]

Aleister Crowley would disagree with you, Bangzoom.

[Relbeek Einre]

I can think of several...no, MANY laws that take away rights, reasonably so or not.

Do you believe that in your perfect society laws can create rights that did not previously exist? Or do you feel that all rights are absolute, with law merely striving to shape itself around them? What about legal obligations? Can those be created or taken away? [/quote]

I beleive rights are absolute. However, that's not quite what I was getting at. I was referring to the system of law created by the Founders of this country. They had a different idea of what rights are, but also believed that rights cannot be taken away either.

I'd like to know what laws you feel remove one's rights. You said you could think of many but cited none. I'd like to know.

Eid: A little note - when I say Gore won, I was referring to the polls that came out following the debate concerning public opinion of who won. When it comes to debates, the opinions of the observers are the only real measure of victory.

[SicTimMitchell]

Eidolon:

Crowley was a hack who just wanted to do drugs and get laid. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[Beestyall]

Perhaps, but now we face the problem of the full faith and credit clause, where arguably states must respect the laws of other states, and thus respect marriages recognized by other states. For example, some states recognize common law marriages. Other states do not. But a common law marrige which emerged in a state recognizing such marriages must also be recognized by a state which does not recognize them should the couple move there.

I suppose we are just going to have to suck it up. States which fail to recognize same sex marriages are going to have to recognize them if they are performed in states that do. And that is that.

Actually the Defense of Marriage Act (96??) allows states to ignore the FF&C in regards to marriage. So the states WON'T have to suck it up, until someone challenges the law and at this point I don't know of a successful challenge (or unsuccessful, for that matter).

However you spin it, the secular version of marriage and the religious version of marriage are the exact same thing, which is the root of this problem. It is against the law to marry someone of the same sex, which gives one set of people freedom and denies another set of people freedom. The freedom is to marry a person that is compatible not only mentally, physically but also sexually. However the problem is bigger then the selective restriction of freedoms, it's that the government continues to dabble in religion, even though in doing so it compremises the very foundation that the government is suppose to errect.

The government has told it's people that they can't follow through with the same freedoms afforded other people, expressly because of religious beliefs. No matter the spin, that's what it boils down to, because if you take the religious crap away, you can't argue that breeders are directly harmed by the marriage of same sex couples that is recognized by the secular government.

That being said, there is only one fix for this, considering that the world we live in. That is the complete abolishment of secular marriage, replaced only with civil unions. This would allow the government to save face and designate a tag of CU on any couple wed in a valid church or by other means (common law marriage). This would allow those religions to continue joining only the couples they deem fit and would allow other religions the ability to join other couples as they see fit and the government remains blind to the religious implications. As a point, it would also solve that ugly little bit about Poligamy too, but that's neither here nor there.

[Alannia_Raindancer]

Ok, I have a question that totally popped into my head. This isn't an entrapment of any kind, it's simply a question that had me curious.

To the people who do -not- think that gays should be allowed to marry:

If a man gets a sex change operation and becomes female, are they allowed to marry a man? Legally, I think so, but the laws don't currently have provisions for this that I'm aware of.

I'm just curious what folks have to say on this count...

[Narith]

No one has quoted any grounds to DENY gays the right to be married by the state besides religious ones

In thread after thread several people have brought up reasons other than religious and you continue ignore them. You don't even bother arguing their points. No Im not going to list their reasons because I personally don't agree with them and don't feel like arguing them, just pointing out that you are once again being a jackass.

I have only seen 2 other arguements other than religion that have been applied to this, one is just religion hiding behind a metaphoric curtain. The other being the economy, by allowing gays to marry the economy will take on an extra burden. Well in that case those same couples are paying taxes and buying goods and services that support the same economy so why are they not allowed to take back a few of the amenaties that are afforded straight couples? If you change it to a racial question would you deny black, mexican, jewish, asian couples the right to marry in the eyes of the state in order to avoid having the economic burden though they already help support the economy? You can not deny a citizen economic rights based simply on race religion or such why would you be allowed to do it based on sexual preference? That itself is intollerance at best.

The other arguement I have seen was that they did not want the idea of marriage being between a man and a woman to be messed with, this argument brings us back to relgious ideals, many states the entire vote was to define marriage legally as between a man and a woman which was "messing with the idea" as before it had never been legally defined. So this arguement is severly flawed due to the fact that they had "messed with the idea of marriage" in order to change it to fit thier views.

Alannia
To my knowledge if a man or woman gets a sex change then marries someone oppisite of the sex they became it is legal, also if a man and woman get married then the woman becomes a man or man a woman they are legally still married as a same sex couple. However how many men or women out there would agree to this being fair if they were told they had to have thier genitals removed in order to marry the person they wish to marry, I can tell you now many men at least are cringing at this thought.

Everyone seems to have forgotten one important thing, any religion that choses can marry same sex couples and they will be married in the eyes of that religion. The biggotry comes in because people of certain religions want to deny these couples the legal rights that come with the marriage of a heterosexual couple. Never at any time will homosexual couples be denied to marry if they look hard enough to find a religion willing to marry them. What they are being denied is a cival union because biggots (and yes they are biggots for denying cival rights based on religious reasoning) chose to make laws based on thier religious ideals.

[Eidolon Faer]

Ok, I have a question that totally popped into my head. This isn't an entrapment of any kind, it's simply a question that had me curious.

To the people who do -not- think that gays should be allowed to marry:

If a man gets a sex change operation and becomes female, are they allowed to marry a man? Legally, I think so, but the laws don't currently have provisions for this that I'm aware of.

I'm just curious what folks have to say on this count...

Umm, according to the two transsexuals I have talked to (an admittedly unscientific sample) most men who undergo surgery to become women are straight and become lesbians. And yes, Dana DID mention the old joke about being a lesbian trapped in a man's body...

It all sounded very complicated.

My opposition to gay "marriage" is based on avoiding exactly the kinds of headaches you describe, and I'm probably not the stereotype you have of "someone who is against gay marriage" you were aiming the question at, but here goes:

I am opposed to gay "marriage" but strongly favor creation of a "civil union" sort of relationship which duplicates the property entailment, power of attorney, etc... rights that are rolled into a traditional marriage contract. It gives gays (and transgendered, and you name it consenting adults...) all of the practical benefits regarding hospital visitation, death benefits, household accounting, estate management without having to answer all of the complicated questions entailed in the religious aspect of the sacrament of marriage.

The religious sacrament of marriage evolved as a social construct aimed at protecting women and children. I'm not convinced it's a bad thing or that it's outlived its' usefulness...in fact I think attempting to secularize away many of the social mores bound up in traditional marriage would be incredibly bad for society. But there are more aspects to this than just the economics of child-rearing and the taboos against rape, child molestation, and incest, and I would like to see the two halves of the issue separated so we can address them both rationally.

Now that I think of it, the reason I'm irritated about this gay marriage issue is very similar to the reason I'm irritated by the Merry Christmas flap. Idiot liberals are trying to forcibly secularize the institution of marriage, just like they're trying to forcibly secularize dinner parties held during the month of December, when in both cases there are simpler solutions that perserve the traditions for those who care about them, and still provide all the practical benefits the PC solution would.

What irritates me is that the Left is going OUT OF ITS' WAY to piss off religious types, when it's explicitly not necessary.

[Beestyall]

Now that I think of it, the reason I'm irritated about this gay marriage issue is very similar to the reason I'm irritated by the Merry Christmas flap. Idiot liberals are trying to forcibly secularize the institution of marriage, just like they're trying to forcibly secularize dinner parties held during the month of December, when in both cases there are simpler solutions that perserve the traditions for those who care about them, and still provide all the practical benefits the PC solution would.

Could easily be religious zealots are trying to forcibly insert religious dogma into secular ideals. The underlying issue is that government must remind blind to religion and allow recognized unions between all willing parties.

An no, no matter how much certain farmers want it, sheep (or other animals) aren't willing parties.

[McBash]

Thats the whole problem. How can you call yourself tolerant, and then turn around and label people as bigots for following their religious beliefs? The ENTIRE problem is the governmentalization of marriage and these votes are crossing political lines into religious ones. Im telling you straight up, among the people I agrued vehemently about this issue on, they voted for the ban based soley on religious belief and in no way were trying to make any sort of political statement. Also all of the people I debated with who voted for the ban, supported civil unions(tho it took a while for my brother to come around).

That's exactly the point. They wanted to institutionalize their religion opinion in public law. When your religious faith becomes about trying to make other people live their lives according to your rules, that's bigotry.

Tolerance ends when someone attempts to force others to follow their faith.

Cart, your missing everything I say it seems. Im saying that wether your a religious person, gay person, or neither, Government consideration of marriage screws you. If your religious, and believe and want to defend the principle that marriage is strictly defined by religious confines, any attempt to go outside of those sacred confines you will fight.

People were not voting anti-gay when they voted for gay marriage ban, not in the sense so many here want to make it seem. The people who voted for the ban were not given a choice that reflected their philosophy, but rather one that attacked thier religious beliefs. Its a fucked deal for them as well, and not a single person who I know that voted for it, opposses civil unions.

Realize these propositions for what they were. They were calculated manipulation vehicles that the people who pushed them through knew would polarize a vital portion of the voting populous. You make people choose between god and government, and most everyone will choose god everytime, and infact, the bible teaches as much.

If you want to make the problem worse, continue to missunderstand what has happened here, and go a step further, as Relbeek has, and label the 10's of millions whom youve never met as bigots, simply because you cant respect/understand an opposing point of view.

I doubt marriage will ever be removed from Government language, so its really up to the people to create a movement for civil unions that mirror marriage status in the Governments eye. If thats going to have a chance to succeed, we cant go around labeling people as bigots, and sending their fur up, and going against us for no other reason than that.

McB

[Chants Evensong]

Beatyall sagely stated:

That being said, there is only one fix for this, considering that the world we live in. That is the complete abolishment of secular marriage, replaced only with civil unions. This would allow the government to save face and designate a tag of CU on any couple wed in a valid church or by other means (common law marriage).

You are probably right.

[McBash]

Beatyall sagely stated:

That being said, there is only one fix for this, considering that the world we live in. That is the complete abolishment of secular marriage, replaced only with civil unions. This would allow the government to save face and designate a tag of CU on any couple wed in a valid church or by other means (common law marriage).

You are probably right.

A comment that made in this very forum maybe a month ago or more.

McB

[vaulos]

Absolutely wrong, folks.

Laws, when the system works as intended, -cannot- take away your rights.

You do not have the "right" to commit murder, rob someone, drive recklessly, or embezzle. Laws barring those things protect rights, they do not remove them.

Likewise, by breaking those laws, you are relinquishing your rights.

Laws which are not criminal but deal with taxation are also not about rights. Taxes are a duty, the price of citizenship.

Et cetera.

Equality under the law is a RIGHT. It's being denied by these laws. It is unjust.

Don't I have the right to commit those acts in the state of nature? My intuition certainly says that I would. And I'll put my intuition against your's any day of the week. If you mean that we do not define these things as legal rights, then I certainly agree. But that is because we are attempting to maximize our freedoms by limiting each other's rights.

[Cartumandua]

[
Cart, your missing everything I say it seems. Im saying that wether your a religious person, gay person, or neither, Government consideration of marriage screws you. If your religious, and believe and want to defend the principle that marriage is strictly defined by religious confines, any attempt to go outside of those sacred confines you will fight.

People were not voting anti-gay when they voted for gay marriage ban, not in the sense so many here want to make it seem. The people who voted for the ban were not given a choice that reflected their philosophy, but rather one that attacked thier religious beliefs. Its a fucked deal for them as well, and not a single person who I know that voted for it, opposses civil unions.
McB

I disagree. It may well be that these people have not deeply considered the issues, but is a hindu marriage marriage? a buddhist marriage? What about the muslim with 6 wives?

Is it attacking their religious beliefs to allow these people to marry in heathen ways? The "sacrament" of marriage is completely different for these people, and yet it isn't an attack on their religious beliefs to permit these people to marry. I know of no laws forbidden various heathen marriages.

As an aside, I think the gay rights movement made a mistake in pushing for the word marriage. Take the civil union, make sure it really is equal, then just start calling yourselves married. People who think you can legislate language usage are idiots. They would have won the whole enchilada sooner than they will now.

[Eidolon Faer]

Cartumandua,

I've been saying that for months...

Get the civil unions that they were being offered and wait ten years for the idea to sink in and the culture to adapt. Then if they still care about the word "married" they can get it later. But noooooo. They have to make the grand, stupid demand of all or nothing, just like Yasir Arafat did when Israel came to the table with 90% of everything he wanted.

Not only did their little stunt in San Francisco get them ZERO (all the 'marriages' were annulled and declared invalid) but it generated a totally predictable backlash.

But hey, it did achieve one significant goal: Narith's ego got a needed boost as he begins to call everyone who disagrees with him a hatemongering bigot and make references to the Holocaust and misguided notions of eugenics.

Well, Narith, chew on this quote from a particularly loathsome hatemongering bigot:

The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges. But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. we must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
--Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Riggen]

Damn, so much that I wanted to say has already been said.

That's just it though, no one wants to change the way marriage works simply they want to be recognized in the same way the relationships that hetero couples have are.

The traditional nature of the institution of marriage in our culture is a relationship between a man and a woman. That's not bigotry, just reality. That its nature serves heterosexuals more appropriately than homosexuals is unfortunate happenstance. Gays have a right to marriage pretty much in the same way that men have a right to an abortion--it's their right but it's not very useful to them. There've been a lot of posts since my last but I believe Eidolon said much the same thing, and I strongly agree with him.

By Relbeek's definition, disapproval of nearly anything can be termed bigotry. When everyone's a bigot, the word loses its power. What I find particularly fascinating is that he argues that the intent of law (protection of rights) renders meaningless certain consequences of law (limitation of freedoms). Yet he makes the opposite case for his definition of bigotry where he and many others contend that consequences (limitation on gay's freedom to marry each other) and not intent (protection of marriage traditions/religion/etc versus intolerance of gays) determine bigotry.

In direct reply to Relbeek, I originally included a paragraph's worth of examples in my post but decided I wanted brevity, since I'm sure you can think of some examples yourself simply for the sake of argument. Since you asked, I'll go into a little more detail for you this time. Let me start with a quote, a definition, and my interpretation thereof. I'm sure everyone will recognize the quote. It's probably been cited here uncounted times:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Next a definition:

Unalienable: Not to be separated, given away, or taken away

Now for my interpretation. Some rights are absolute--they cannot be given up or taken away under any circumstances. These absolute rights include but are not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Right off the bat, any law which specifies the death penalty is limiting the right to life. If the right to life is truly inalienable and absolute, then there is no way--no possible action that can be taken including the commission of the most heinous crimes imaginable--for that right to be given up or taken away. Yet there have been many executions throughout our history.

It's my perception that you believe that laws cannot change natural rights--that when the two are in conflict it's the law that's wrong. In idealistic terms I agree. But I also perceive that not all rights are the same. Some are absolute, some aren't. Human rights aren't necessarily the same thing as legal rights. You may in idealistic terms have an inalienable right to life, but that's not a very practical notion when you're getting pentathol and potassium squirted into your veins because you murdered your pregnant wife.

I went and got overly wordy again...I'm deleting paragraphs because I think the provided example is sufficient. To cover some other examples, consider smoker's rights and business owners' rights concerning the permission of smoking in their establishment, patent exclusivity/IP rights, the right for certain age groups to consume alcohol, the right to sell adult novelties, and the right to sue certain parties.

[Partha]

The traditional nature of the institution of slavery in our culture is a relationship between whites (owners) and blacks (slaves). That's not bigotry, just reality. That its nature serves whites more appropriately than blacks is unfortunate happenstance.

Fixed it for ya, sorta.

[Relbeek Einre]

Again, Riggen... I don't consider those things 'rights'. The concept of 'smoker's rights' is truly laughable to me.

BTW, I forgot to mention before, your example of self-marriage is ludicrous. All of the benefits of marriage are physically impossible in such a scenario - inheritance, visitation, taxes, etc. So there's no purpose for such a legal status.