Valkenar wrote:
...What is truly prevalent is every-day discrimination like Ian talked about.
Ian views a gay marriage ban as discrimination, so obviously, what you view as discrimination, I might not.
That's just it. Marriage isn't being changed. Two people who are married have the same relationship whether there are gay people married or not. It's no different from someone who studies one martial art getting upset because someone else does something differently.
It is different. A family is not a karate class. Countries are much more impacted by the family ideal than by how a martial art is practiced, wouldn't you agree?
Oh yes, people do get upset about this kind of thing, but generally we seem to agree that it's best to just accept that some people do things differently. If you don't like what someone else does with their life, just ignore it if it doesn't affect you.
It does affect me, and it affects my family. It affects my kids at school, myself at work, and it affects the future of my family, if I ignore or affirm an alternate lifestyle. The only thing necessary for evil to win is for good people to do nothing.
I'd be happy to say that the state should have no stake in marriage. Seperate the legal issues and leave marriage for individiuals and to decide within their own faith. But as long as it's going to set up a legal framework it needs to do it fairly.
It is doing it fairly. Everyone in this country can marry any one person of the opposite sex. That's fair.
No, it won't I'm honestly sorry if you felt that was what I was doing. It is not my intent.
The apology belongs to me. I transferred the message I have recieved from others to your words, and you have been very polite. I appreciate that, and I apologize for misjudging you.
As for your question, the first amendment is somewhat relevant. Some religions want to allow gay marriage, and the consitution says Congress shall make no laws respecting religion or its exercise. This argument isn't very strong, however, but I do think it is worth noting since religious freedom is so important.
You're right, it's not a strong argument. As long as the government isn't affirming a particular religion, and rather reflects the will of the majority, who are informed by their own concience, then there is no violation of that principle of seperation of Church vs State, and certainly no hindrance to the 1rst Amendment.
While I don't have a concise statement at the ready to describe the rights that are violated by the prohibition of marriage between same-sex couples, I would suggest that there certainly is a violation. Something along the lines of the right to pursue one's personal life as one sees fit if it doesn't infringe on anyone else. Think also for a moment about whether you would feel your rights violated if the government wanted to declare your marriage anulled. Whatever that right is, that's the one that applies to gay marriage.
The government has numerous restrictions on the books for personal behavior that does not infringe on anyone else. A man can't marry five women, even though it obviously doesn't infringe on anyone else to do so.
If the government declared every heterosexual marriage anulled, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on, would I? How likely do you think that is? I have a right to equal protection under the law, just like anyone else. Just like Ian.
Prohibitting gays from marriage is fundamentally discriminatory. I don't know how you feel about civil union for gays, but allowing civil union but not marriage when the state recognizes marriage is on par with seperate but equal.
I'm against seperate but equal, and I'm against my state allowing civil unions. What other states do, or even private or public corporations do is not an issue for me.
If all else fails, think of it this way: Congress shouldn't ban something just because it can do so without explicitly violating the bill of rights. It should stay out of people's personal business as much as it possibly can, do you agree?
I do agree that government shouldn't ban something 'just because it can do so without explicitly violating the bill of rights.' But I also think that government shouldn't create or modify something 'just because it can.' But as long as others, through the government, continue to fund abortion, strip parents' rights, put pro-gay propaganda in the schools, and persecute public religious activity, then we on the recieving end have a right to use the government to counteract that.
Obviously the preseident is going to push an ideology, and certainly should do so. It's one thing to push your ideology and another thing to push your religion and I think Bush does too much of the latter.
Oh, so as long as Kerry professes to an atheistic ideology, it's okay to push his agenda, but religious people have to check their agenda at the door? You know, there's a thin line between religious freedom and oppression of religion.
Because there are secular organizations that do the same thing. If the government is funding religions that do any proselytizing, then it is, in effect, funding that proselytizing. That is more than dangerously close to the government endorsing religion, given the circumstances.
I look at it much differently. Religion aside, those organizations proven to do the most good, should get the money. With effectiveness as the sole measure, it doesn't matter whether the organization is religious or not. Thus, no violation of Church vs State.
[Kerry is dead wrong for saying that if Bush had a different policy on stem-cell research we'd have some miracle solution by now.]
Something we agree on.
Even so, Bush's policy isn't based on a belief that stem-cell research is a dead-end.
The Bush policy is based on the results of a bio-ethics panel commissioned by the white house. Bush didn't just put his finger to the wind and decide God didn't like it.
You can question whether the government should fund research at all, but if it's going to, it should do so in the most sensible way.
The most sensible way, yes. Something that shows promise should get the moolah. Those that don't, shouldn't. Adult stem cells, unlike fetal stem cells, have shown promise, and are being funded.
There's no question that we've killed more of them than they have of us.
Let's see. Wrongful murders committed by unlawful combatants; 3,000 on 9/11, 1,000+ over the past year. Wrongful murders committed by unlawful American non-combatants; huh? Yes, we killed a bunch in war, but that's war between countries, and like it or not, an accepted means of projecting public policy.
Anyway, offer still stands... for you AND Ian... so there!