HMW (gay rights)

[BBJ]

In another thread HMW & I got off on a "tangent" about gay rights and I posed the following question to her, which she avoided, then decided she wanted a separate thread strarted up about it so others could join in well here goes.

We were talking about "political labels" and she informed me again of her being a "moderate", and she wrote: "I side" with left wingers on the idea that gay people deserve equal rights.

and I asked her:

So if your ok with gay rights are you ok if a man wants to have 7 wives or even maybe dare I say marry his sheep?


If he Loves them all the same and just wants to be happy then we should just let it go huh? What about child molestors? Should they have equal rights? I mean since marriage is/should be between a man and a woman, who are we to change the age at which a child necomes an adult. If it''s so easy to give rights to gays then why does the country throw a fit when a high school boy wants to marry his teacher?

Maybe I'll get a straight answer now?

 

[theHiredMansWife]

Equal rights is really simple.


As a heterosexual in America, I have the right to marry the person of my choice (which obviously is a man, according to the definitional of heterosexual). Only one of them at a time and we both have to be of age.
Them's da rules.

"Equal" means a homosexal has the right to marry the person of their choice, also. Only one of them at a time. And they both have to be of age.

Bringing in the rest of your suggestions has nothing to do with "equal".

Pedophilia is still pedophilia, polygamy is still polygamy and beastiality is still beastiality.

Equal rights also refers to more than just marriage, though. There are states in this country where it's perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay.

 

[BBJ]

marriage: n. the legal union of husband and wife;

husband: n. a married MAN

wife: n. a married WOMAN

"Equal" means a homosexal has the right to marry the person of their choice, also. Only one of them at a time. And they both have to be of age.

Only one at a time.... is that a law?

Both have to be of age..... is that a law?

 

[theHiredMansWife]

Only one at a time.... is that a law?
Both have to be of age..... is that a law?

They are in my state. Aren't they in yours?
And if you don't like marriage, fine. Call it a civil union.

The fact still remains that I have all of the legal rights and responsibilities that go along with being married to my best friend. But that is denied to someone who happens to be gay.

Just like a drive-thru marriage that lasts 36 hours in Vegas, you or I might not like it but two adults should have the right to make that choice.

 

[Red Robin]

Equal rights is really simple.


As a heterosexual in America, I have the right to marry the person of my choice (which obviously is a man, according to the definitional of heterosexual). Only one of them at a time and we both have to be of age.
Them's da rules.

"Equal" means a homosexal has the right to marry the person of their choice, also. Only one of them at a time. And they both have to be of age.

Bringing in the rest of your suggestions has nothing to do with "equal".

Pedophilia is still pedophilia, polygamy is still polygamy and beastiality is still beastiality.

Equal rights also refers to more than just marriage, though. There are states in this country where it's perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay.

Why is pediphilia , pologamy, and beastiality wrong? What are you using for your moral standard?

 

[BBJ]

you say "Equal" means a homosexal has the right to marry the person of their choice is that law?

So if you and your "best friend" were not allowed to be married would the two of you part ways to go find someone oyu could legally marry?

2 questions here.

(BTW, before SDSTEVE considers you an anonymous cowsrd, why don't you come out of being hidden while posting here)

 

[theHiredMansWife]

Why is pediphilia , pologamy, and beastiality wrong? What are you using for your moral standard?

A simple criteria; are all parties involved able to make their own decions? In the case of pedophilia, no. A child is involved. Beastiality, no. Unless you want to join PeTA. :wink:
Polygamy is more of a toss-up...

And frankly, I wouldn't choose any of them. Including gay marriage (not gay, so it's an easy choice).
But my Bible is for choosing my own path in life, not beating others into submission.

 

[Red Robin]

Why is pediphilia , pologamy, and beastiality wrong? What are you using for your moral standard?

A simple criteria; are all parties involved able to make their own decions? In the case of pedophilia, no. A child is involved. Beastiality, no. Unless you want to join PeTA. :wink:
Polygamy is more of a toss-up...

And frankly, I wouldn't choose any of them. Including gay marriage (not gay, so it's an easy choice).
But my Bible is for choosing my own path in life, not beating others into submission.

So are you saying that the criteria you put forth then , without any particular standard is what is right and wrong? Kind of narrow minded isn't it? Ridiculious too I might add. If people can make their own decision then it's ok in your book?

 

[BBJ]

don't forget my 2 questions HMW


Red Robin you hit the nail on the head. You know I could probably bring myself to find common ground with these libs, but it's discussions like this that keep me from it.

 

[Disagreeable]

Why is pediphilia , pologamy, and beastiality wrong? What are you using for your moral standard?

A simple criteria; are all parties involved able to make their own decions? In the case of pedophilia, no. A child is involved. Beastiality, no. Unless you want to join PeTA. :wink:
Polygamy is more of a toss-up...

And frankly, I wouldn't choose any of them. Including gay marriage (not gay, so it's an easy choice).
But my Bible is for choosing my own path in life, not beating others into submission.

So are you saying that the criteria you put forth then , without any particular standard is what is right and wrong? Kind of narrow minded isn't it? Ridiculious too I might add. If people can make their own decision then it's ok in your book?

People can make their own decisions, but will go to jail if their decisions are illegal. Pedophilia is illegal. Beastiality is illegal some places; not in others.

"Standards" or laws are made based on the morality of the community. It's only narrow minded to believe everyone in your community believes as you do. Voters in Oregon have twice voted for assisted suicide. The Bush Administration has spent millions trying to overturn the voter's beliefs and choices. So far they're losing.

 

[BBJ]

Why is pediphilia , pologamy, and beastiality wrong? What are you using for your moral standard?

A simple criteria; are all parties involved able to make their own decions? In the case of pedophilia, no. A child is involved. Beastiality, no. Unless you want to join PeTA. :wink:
Polygamy is more of a toss-up...

And frankly, I wouldn't choose any of them. Including gay marriage (not gay, so it's an easy choice).
But my Bible is for choosing my own path in life, not beating others into submission.

So are you saying that the criteria you put forth then , without any particular standard is what is right and wrong? Kind of narrow minded isn't it? Ridiculious too I might add. If people can make their own decision then it's ok in your book?

People can make their own decisions, but will go to jail if their decisions are illegal. Pedophilia is illegal. Beastiality is illegal some places; not in others.

"Standards" or laws are made based on the morality of the community. It's only narrow minded to believe everyone in your community believes as you do. Voters in Oregon have twice voted for assisted suicide. The Bush Administration has spent millions trying to overturn the voter's beliefs and choices. So far they're losing.

So is an 18 year old that much more mature and ready to make this "big decision" as say a 17 year old? (and so on) I mean I know some 20 year olds that have a hard time taking care of themselves, much less make a real life decision. Maybe we should just let the govt. take over and tell us all when, where and what we can do.

 

[theHiredMansWife]

you say "Equal" means a homosexal has the right to marry the person of their choice is that law?

In three or four states so far, yes. Obviously they don't have equal rights everywhere yet, since not only can they not marry who they want, they can still be fired from their job for being gay. Do you really think that's okay?

So if you and your "best friend" were not allowed to be married would the two of you part ways to go find someone oyu could legally marry?

Friend of mine had an aunt in Boston (or was it Baltimore? I can never remember which...).
Her aunt was a lesbian and had been "married" to her partner for about 30 years when her partner developed cancer.
My friend's family had adjusted to the fact that her aunt was gay. The partner's family had not. It was sad more than anything because they cut ties, until the partner was terminal and unconscious more often than not. The partner's family had the legal right (and exercised it) to restrict any non-family member from her room.

Of course because they weren't married, civil union, nothing, my friend's aunt had absolutely no legal right to fight it. Can you imagine not being able to hold your spouse's hand while they're dying because the law says you don't have the right to be there?

Fortunately almost all of their assets were held jointly, which means despite the family trying to fight it, she got to keep their apartment, car, etc.

 

[theHiredMansWife]

So is an 18 year old that much more mature and ready to make this "big decision" as say a 17 year old? (and so on) I mean I know some 20 year olds that have a hard time taking care of themselves, much less make a real life decision. Maybe we should just let the govt. take over and tell us all when, where and what we can do.

:???:
I guess if you have a gripe with your state's legal consent age, you'll probably have to take it up with your local rep.

 

[theHiredMansWife]

So are you saying that the criteria you put forth then , without any particular standard is what is right and wrong? Kind of narrow minded isn't it? Ridiculious too I might add. If people can make their own decision then it's ok in your book?

My standard is simple; who is being hurt? If it's only the parties involved (who usually seem to think neither of them is harmed, btw), then no, I don't have a problem with it.

I don't think the gov't should be butt it's nose into someone's bedroom, myself.

In the not so distant past, inter-race marriage was illegal. Not to mention immoral. Or rather was probably illegal because it was immoral.

Do you think that's how it should still be?

 

[Red Robin]

Why is pediphilia , pologamy, and beastiality wrong? What are you using for your moral standard?

A simple criteria; are all parties involved able to make their own decions? In the case of pedophilia, no. A child is involved. Beastiality, no. Unless you want to join PeTA. :wink:
Polygamy is more of a toss-up...

And frankly, I wouldn't choose any of them. Including gay marriage (not gay, so it's an easy choice).
But my Bible is for choosing my own path in life, not beating others into submission.

So are you saying that the criteria you put forth then , without any particular standard is what is right and wrong? Kind of narrow minded isn't it? Ridiculious too I might add. If people can make their own decision then it's ok in your book?

People can make their own decisions, but will go to jail if their decisions are illegal. Pedophilia is illegal. Beastiality is illegal some places; not in others.

"Standards" or laws are made based on the morality of the community. It's only narrow minded to believe everyone in your community believes as you do. Voters in Oregon have twice voted for assisted suicide. The Bush Administration has spent millions trying to overturn the voter's beliefs and choices. So far they're losing.

Sodomy was/is illegal you goof ball. The majority of americans are opposed to it so make being queer illegal! You can't have morality based on what the majority think anyway. If the majority of the people are for killing Jews or Blacks, should it be legal?

 

[Red Robin]

So are you saying that the criteria you put forth then , without any particular standard is what is right and wrong? Kind of narrow minded isn't it? Ridiculious too I might add. If people can make their own decision then it's ok in your book?

My standard is simple; who is being hurt? If it's only the parties involved (who usually seem to think neither of them is harmed, btw), then no, I don't have a problem with it.

I don't think the gov't should be butt it's nose into someone's bedroom, myself.

In the not so distant past, inter-race marriage was illegal. Not to mention immoral. Or rather was probably illegal because it was immoral.

Do you think that's how it should still be?

Who's being hurt? I am. It raises my health insurance for one. It is also one of the most dangerous lifestyles going which takes years off of your life.

 

[Martin Jr.]

a quote: " If there is no objective standard to help adjudicate between different conceptions of the personal and common good, then democratic politics is reduced to a raw contest for power. If constitutional and statutory law is not held accountable to the objective moral law, the first casualties are justice and equity, for they become matters of personal opinion."

 

[BBJ]

you say "Equal" means a homosexal has the right to marry the person of their choice is that law?

In three or four states so far, yes. Obviously they don't have equal rights everywhere yet, since not only can they not marry who they want, they can still be fired from their job for being gay. Do you really think that's okay?

Yes I do! I think if you employ someone you should have the right to FIRE them a will.

So if you and your "best friend" were not allowed to be married would the two of you part ways to go find someone oyu could legally marry?

Friend of mine had an aunt in Boston (or was it Baltimore? I can never remember which...).
Her aunt was a lesbian and had been "married" to her partner for about 30 years when her partner developed cancer.
My friend's family had adjusted to the fact that her aunt was gay. The partner's family had not. It was sad more than anything because they cut ties, until the partner was terminal and unconscious more often than not. The partner's family had the legal right (and exercised it) to restrict any non-family member from her room.

You didn't answer my question.

Of course because they weren't married, civil union, nothing, my friend's aunt had absolutely no legal right to fight it. Can you imagine not being able to hold your spouse's hand while they're dying because the law says you don't have the right to be there?

Fortunately almost all of their assets were held jointly, which means despite the family trying to fight it, she got to keep their apartment, car, etc.

[/b]

 

[Red Robin]

a quote: " If there is no objective standard to help adjudicate between different conceptions of the personal and common good, then democratic politics is reduced to a raw contest for power. If constitutional and statutory law is not held accountable to the objective moral law, the first casualties are justice and equity, for they become matters of personal opinion."

Good quote Martin Jr. The trouble is these "moderates" just want mamby pamby laws which change every time someone is offended. No standards suits them fine. I just wonder how much worse the actual liberals of this nation are than these moderates? :shock:

 

[theHiredMansWife]

btw, most states have either repealed their sodomy laws, don't enforce them, or they've been struck down.

I'll repeat my question since you missed it:



I don't think the gov't should be butt it's nose into someone's bedroom, myself.

In the not so distant past, inter-race marriage was illegal. Not to mention immoral. Or rather was probably illegal because it was immoral.

Do you think that's how it should still be?