Med Tech wrote:
A "sizable portion" of the country that is out to get Ian because he's gay? Where?
Well maybe I should've defined sizeable better. When it comes to hate of the kind that engenders (tee-hee) physical assault, for example, I think even a small percentage is significant. But no, it's not a majority. What is truly prevalent is every-day discrimination like Ian talked about.
I see a large portion of the country that doesn't feel that marriage should devolve into something less than a tax-shelter. I see states protecting themselves from being swept along on the tide that has started in MA. These aren't bigots. They're people who think marriage as they understand it shouldn't be messed with.
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. 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.
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.
No, but calling people small-minded bigots won't change hearts or minds.
No, it won't I'm honestly sorry if you felt that was what I was doing. It is not my intent.
Which rights aren't being honored if gay marriage is banned?
Well I could just ask my question again, but that would be pointless. I asked why gay marriage inhibits rights because the post I was responding to seemed to say that it did.
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.
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.
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.
If you want to avoid having marriage be a tax shelter, then keep the government out of it entirely. The important social aspects of marriage, like love and commitment are just as present in homosexual relationships as they are in heterosexual relationships. If the government wants to gives legal support to people in comitted relationships that's fine, but the government should not be in the business of discrimination.
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 don't care that he's Christian, I care that as a president he's applying his religion to everybody. Faith-based initiatives are a prime example. His totally illogical position on stem-cell research, for another.
What president throughout history hasn't applied his ideology to everybody? Who cares whether it's religious or not?
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.
Like it or not, religious organizations do great work in helping the poor and disadvantaged. Why not put money into something that works, instead of another government program that not only doesn't work, but will never die?
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.
If Bush's position on stem cells is so illogical, and the promise of stem cell research so great, why hasn't private money infused enough to carry on the fight?
Research takes time. 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. Even so, Bush's policy isn't based on a belief that stem-cell research is a dead-end. Even if you're pro-life, you can recognize that it's presently legal in this country, and as a result embryonic cell lines are thrown out constantly. Blocking federal grants to make use of otherwise wastes cells is pointless. 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. I've said almost exactly this before, though I wouldn't expect that you'd happened to see it.
And there is private research going on, but government grants are important because they bring research into the public domain. Under the auspices of a private company, if there is a miracle breakthrough it's going to be as expensive as is profitable.
Um, every time I check the news, it's OUR people getting killed over there. And when it IS 'them' getting killed, it's by other 'them's.
There's no question that we've killed more of them than they have of us.
