Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

LOL My extended family is devout Missionary Baptist. Hellfire, spartan churches, no fun at all.

In reply to:

---

"It follows that a necessary condition for fundamental rights is a distinction between what the government -- in the wide sense of the term -- says is so and what is true. That is, in order for me to understand that I have fundamental rights, it must be possible for me to have the following thought: that even though everyone else in my community thinks that, for example, same-sex marriages should be outlawed, people of the same sex still have a right to be married.

---

So, we could extrapolate that even though everyone else in my community thinks that drunk people peeing on on other peoples' front lawns while walking home from the bar at 2AM should be outlawed, drunk people still have the right to relieve themselves anywhere they can.

OR

Even though everyone else in my community thinks that people breaking into other people's homes to steal for food, or anything else, poor people still have the right to some of the "public wealth".

OR

Even though everyone else in my community thinks that car jacking is wrong, poeple who don't have cars deserve to ride in one once in a while.

The author is simply trying to blur the distinction between right and wrong. He obviously feels that society is doomed to continue degrading at it's current rate, and is trying to justify why we shouldn't make any attempts to correct it. It's a clear case of fear of success.

Michael,

I think that the one thing that you are missing is that all of the things that you referenced involve actions that infringe on the rights of others. This is not the case with gay marriage.

I think that this is a line that the majority of people in the conservative side of these issues don't understand. The point of government is to secure our borders, guarantee our freedom, and to defend our personal liberties. When someone endangers our personal liberties, government and the law are there to defend us. However, the government is not there to infringe on our personal liberties because the majority disagrees with our actions. This is a simple core concept of our democracy that the bulk of our society doesn't get.....otherwise, there would be a thriving Libertarian party.

In reply to:

---

Help establish a nation for the Palestinians, and Pack up and get the hell out of the Middle East?

---

Palestine is NOT where Israel as we know it today, is. They really belong somewhere in (or mostly in) Jordan. Their beloved Arab bretheren said, "No way Habib. And don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." So now they wander around looking for a homeland. Guess what they can't do? Attack another Arab nation. Hmmm... That leaves just one target for them, Israel.

If you think Iraq was a bad idea, are missing one thing. Saddam was the sole military "power" in the region that prevented the Israelis from actually defending themselves. He was the hammer waiting to drop on them if they stepped over the line. The result was a stalemate, a constant string of bombings and retaliations.

The removal of Saddam simply cleared the way for a little payback.

Ask yourself just one question. Is there any doubt that if the suicide bombings were to stop, that Israel would also cease military operations? No. You'd have peace. The Arabs need to straighten up, and help locate the Palestinians locate themselves where they really belong, and leave Israel alone.

Until then. Israel has only one option. Peace through superior firepower. It works. Cold war?

In reply to:

---

I'm genuinely curious to hear that you think.

---

"Ilias Akhmadov, foreign minister in the self-styled but unrecognized government of Chechen separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov, said that he was informed this week that he has been officially granted political asylum by authorities in Boston."

OK. #1. - "authorities in Boston" - enough said - look at the other crud coming out of Massachusettes.

#2 - Nowhere does it say that President Bush ever weighed in on the matter. For all we know, the Russians never got past the State Department. I guess it depends on who in Moscow called...

Michael, your extrapolations don't work at all. Peeing on someone else's property, breaking and entering, and car jacking all violate the rights of others. Gay marriage does not infringe on anyone else's rights (beat me to it, Turbodog). And frankly, comparing gay marriage to such criminal activities as car jacking and breaking and entering is more than a little offensive.

Definition of marriage: "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." This is from the American Heritage Dictionary. The same dictionary may also be forced to add: " A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same sex marriage". This can be looked up, and American Dictionary just reacts to what they are "told" things mean. For those who are not paying attention, I will be blunt. "THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE TODAY THAT INCLUDES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE... PERIOD".

The irony, to me, is marriage was always a religious-based institution from which governments (recently, in the overall scheme of things) decided THEY should profit. So they started Charging a fee to issue marriage licenses.

To all those demanding a separation of church and state, the government has no business being NEAR marriage. But, the government IS involved in marriage as a profitable business.

AdamP88, I agree that comparing Gay Marriage to Car Jacking is not a "fair" comparison. But I disagree with the assertion that it will not affect other's rights.

For example, as a business owner, I provide, to the spouse/children of employees, health insurance. Under the concept of Gay Marriage, I would be forced, by law, to pay for "His Husband's" health insurance. Note the word FORCED, that is an infringement on my rights TO RUN MY BUSINESS. And anyone will be able, under gay marriage, to head to the local magistrate, get married, and show up at my door with a demand that I add his "new husband" to "his" benefits package.

Should my state adopt "same sex" marriage, I would immediately eliminate all employee benefit programs. Not because I have a problem with the so called "gay lifestyle", but because I know what the outcome would be: I, and many other small business owners, would be placed in a position of paying for more scams than you can imagine.

The cost to the Social Security system would be enormous, as surviving SPOUSES receive benefits based on the earnings of the deceased spouse. There are other examples... but enough for now.

NOW ... Let us look at the current laws which DO affect my rights...

An employer can be sued for firing someone. It is called discrimination, but there is no "right" to have a job, so nobody's "rights" were eliminated. Since someone else was hired to take the fired person's place, the net effect on society is NIL... SO, based on the assertion that my hiring decisions do NOT infringe on anybody's "rights", There should be NO discrimination laws in the US.

I know several have already agreed with this, but for a reminder, drug use and prostitution should be legal. And ALL drug use, not just "naturally grown" drugs... afterall, noone's "rights" are being eliminated here, either, by someone smoking "crack"

Public Nudity laws also have to go... while peeing on property is trespassing, walking the streets naked is not.

If we are going to base legal decisions on "whether or not something infringes on someone else's rights" ... there will be a LOT of laws tossed out.

craigsub, you are very frequently correct about a good many things - and it is true that recognizing gay marriages or gay civil unions would drive costs up for businesses - but I don't think there would be any more scams than there are now. Are you suggesting that all the single guys you employ are going to "marry" their buddies to get them benefits? LOL

If the gov't stopped issuing marriage licenses and left that to the churches, then any church that married same sex couples would immediately be put in one category by the public, and those that deny same sex marriages in another category. The illegitimate churches would certainly feel some fallout from the public.

I personally don't care where anyone wants to stick their pecker, and I have no opposition to the civil union concept or in leaving the decision to individual churches, but it seems silly for gay Christians to want "holy matrimony" when the Bible seems to condemn homosexuality (just judging by all the Biblical citations I see in the paper, haven't actually read much of the book myself ).

BigWill... Based on what I have seen in worker's comp cases, the answer is a resounding YES ... there would be a lot of people, (men and women) who would use this new law to gain financially. I just got done fighting (and winning) a worker's comp claim from an employee who was hurt on his motorcycle, and tried to scam that he was actually hurt on the job... and there are thousands of investigators across the country who have to work diligently to prevent fraud. Anyone who does NOT think these laws would be abused is extremely naive.

As far as "religion-only" marriages, if the government was not in the marriage license business, there would BE no controversy. It the "Lower East Side Baptist Church" wants to marry two guys in a church ceremony, they can do that today. The difference is this: When the government starts saying that gays (and those claiming to be gay) can marry and automatically receive all the benefits of a spouse, watch out... right now that "Lower East Side Church" marriage carries no weight financially, these new laws change all that.

As far as the Bible goes, yes, it condemns ALL sex outside marriage, and also states marrieage IS between a man and a woman. For clarity though, the Bible is just as tough on someone cheating on a spouse as it is someone practicing gay sex. Note, I am not making a religious statement here, just pointing out what is actually in print.

Craig - Like BigWill, I have to agree that you make many good points. However, on this issue, I think that you are pretty far off base.

First of all, your original argument boils down to the standard conservative bible in one hand and dictionary on the other rhetoric. To really have this dialog, you have to toss the former out of the argument, because we are talking about legal rights, which are not subject to religious influence (supposedly). The latter, as you have said, only states what is appropriate for the times. I'm pretty sure that earlier dictionaries had racist and anti-semitic definitions, which have been pruned and/or modified over time as we have evolved. So, now that we have pruned out those two components of the argument, we are left with the law (ie government). After all, we are talking about rights to be upheld and protected by the rule of law and government. In this context, are you suggesting that this legal union in the eyes of the law (not the church) should be granted to one group and not another? Are you suggesting that it is ok for the US government to discriminate against segments of the society that it is sworn to protect?

In the end, you are using arguments that were used to oppress and discriminate against both women and blacks in the past. Should blacks be allowed to get married?....it costs us more if they do. Should women be allowed to work?....it dillutes the potential wealth for us men. Bigots and sexists throughout history have used these arguments to support their fight to oppress others. It's nothing but fear-based hatred and ignorance.

Will it cost us more if gays are allowed to get married?....potentially. SO WHAT!!! It's their right that has been denied for so long by all the religous quacks out there. Plus, this may be a stereotype, but I've found that gay men and women tend to make a good living for themselves, so I think they've put enough into the pot to deserve something back.

As to your abuse argument, I don't buy it. Think about what an utter pain in the a$$ it is to get a divorce in our society. We are talking about a legally binding commitment here.....a marriage/union. Regardless of what you call it, I don't think that the average person will step into the legal quagmire associated w/ marriage just to get some extra benefits.

This is not directed at Craig.....I have to say that I have never yet heard one sound argument against gay marriage, yet I think we have a long way to go before we break down that barrier. It's a sad reflection on our society.