Skip to main content

View Diary: Pure and Simple: Equal Rights (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not Bad, Except... (none)
    Blacks fought for equal rights. They did not fight to be able to call themselves white, nor did women fight to call themselves men.

    No, they fought for the right to call themselves 'people'.

    Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and not simply who they are?

    Just trying to clarify your position before I 'troll you to death'... ;)

    "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I find the puppet on the left more to my liking." "Hey, there's one guy holding both puppets... SMACK!"

    by Anton Sirius on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 01:13:12 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  There isn't a single word (none)
      Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice

      There isn't a single word in my comment that would imply that. Unless you somehow construe that being black or a woman is a lifestyle choice.

      In fact, I don't mention the nature of homosexuality at all. I happen to believe it is not a lifestyle choice, at least in most cases.

      Still for Dean, after the scream.

      by M Aurelius on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 01:29:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then How Is It Not a Civil Rights Issue? (none)
        A group of people are being disciminated against on the basis of who they are. Why would you then say that's a cultural issue, and not a civil rights one? That's the part I don't get.

        Replace "homosexual" with, let's say, "interracial" in this debate. Interracial couples are just a cultural thing, right? So...

        I'm a Democrat and I don't believe that, and I'm not alone. I just don't think it's a civil right issue. I think it's trying to impose a cultural idea by law. Interracial marriage may one day be a part of the broad cultural landscape, but it is not so today.

        Etc. etc.

        The children thing is irrelevant. The point of marriage is not to have kids. If it is -- which this (A gay union is physically different from a heterosexual union because a gay couple cannot have children between them.) implies, then couples without children shouldn't be allowed to call their union a marriage either. QED.

        "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I find the puppet on the left more to my liking." "Hey, there's one guy holding both puppets... SMACK!"

        by Anton Sirius on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 01:52:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I address this just above here (none)
          Replace "homosexual" with, let's say, "interracial" in this debate. Interracial couples are just a cultural thing, right? So...

          I explain in detail why I consider these issues to be intrinsically different in nature. The comment tittle is "Those were clear violations of civil rights".

          I'm not going to write the same thing again.

          Still for Dean, after the scream.

          by M Aurelius on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 01:59:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  OK Then (none)
          Let's replace it with, just to be difficult, 'open'.

          I'm a Democrat and I don't believe that, and I'm not alone. I just don't think it's a civil right issue. I think it's trying to impose a cultural idea by law. Open marriage may one day be a part of the broad cultural landscape, but it is not so today.

          So people whose definition of love is different from yours shouldn't be allowed to marry? Is that what you believe?

          The key is that 'trying to impose a cultural idea by law' fallacy. The Constitution prevents discrimination. The 14th Amendment, Section One:

          All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

          Nobody is proposing 'new law' by allowing gay marriage. That's a fallacy. Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. That's the new law.

          "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I find the puppet on the left more to my liking." "Hey, there's one guy holding both puppets... SMACK!"

          by Anton Sirius on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 02:21:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK (none)
            Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

            It wouln't be if it was done via constitutional ammendment. But I think it would be wrong.

            In any case, a gay man is not forbidden from marrying a woman. So, strictly speaking he can do the same thing as a straight man.

            I'm saying a same-sex relationship is not the same as a different sex relationship, at least in so far as how it should be called. I don't see how nomenclature is a civil right.

            Still for Dean, after the scream.

            by M Aurelius on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 02:30:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Begging the Premise (none)
              It wouln't be if it was done via constitutional ammendment. But I think it would be wrong.

              A constitutional amendment rigidly defining marriage would be on the books about as long as Prohibition. Maybe less.

              In any case, a gay man is not forbidden from marrying a woman. So, strictly speaking he can do the same thing as a straight man.

              That pre-supposes that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. It's a circular argument.

              I'm saying a same-sex relationship is not the same as a different sex relationship, at least in so far as how it should be called. I don't see how nomenclature is a civil right.

              So we're back to semantics, are we? Why should anyone have the right to impose their definition of a word on anyone else? Here we have a large community who define 'marriage' as 'the union of two people'. They aren't trying to force you to conform to their definition; why should you force them to conform to yours?

              "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I find the puppet on the left more to my liking." "Hey, there's one guy holding both puppets... SMACK!"

              by Anton Sirius on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 03:30:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Interesting (none)
                A constitutional amendment rigidly defining marriage would be on the books about as long as Prohibition. Maybe less.

                This is an interesting statement.  Do you really think that within a decade public opinion will shift so strongly in favor of gay marriage that people would then vote to repeal the amendment?  If you really think that people will feel that strongly that gay marriage is the right thing in that short a period of time I am surpised you would push the issue so strongly now.

                I feel that you probably know that if there were an amendment banning gay marriage it would not be repealed for several decades and given the difficulty in passing an amendment probably even longer.  

                Or perhaps I just misunderstood your statement.

                •  Nope, You Understood Correctly (none)
                  If you really think that people will feel that strongly that gay marriage is the right thing in that short a period of time I am surpised you would push the issue so strongly now.

                  Right now if gay people try to get married and the courts (incorrectly, in my view) nullify it, that's about the worst that'll happen.

                  Passing an amendment won't stop gay people from trying to claim their rights -- it'll just polarize opinion, and make it more dangerous for them when they 'break the law'.

                  I worry that the backlash against the 'perverts' would be very bad... which will then of course push the moderates over to the other side, and get the amendment repealed. (Which is what happened with Prohibition -- the zealots won, people broke the law anyway, and the movement to ban booze collapsed.)

                  I'd rather not see the backlash though, thanks. Too many people could be needlessly hurt.

                  Keep in mind I don't believe the amendment will ever pass. This is just a very bleak, worst-case scenario rattling around in my head.

                  "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I find the puppet on the left more to my liking." "Hey, there's one guy holding both puppets... SMACK!"

                  by Anton Sirius on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 06:13:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site