Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Marraige was created as a religious practice, over time it has moved away from that, but at the heart of it, it is a religious practice. Others have taken it and changed it and modified it to their meaning and purpose because they feel that getting "married" improves their bond to eachother, when infact it doesn't do shit except make the bride get fat and make the husband broke.
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Marraige was created as a religious practice, over time it has moved away from that, but at the heart of it, it is a religious practice. Others have taken it and changed it and modified it to their meaning and purpose because they feel that getting "married" improves their bond to eachother, when infact it doesn't do shit except make the bride get fat and make the husband broke.
For those that claim homosexuality is genetic, there has been work and some links to pedophillia being genetic. Should they now be free to practice their ways? It's genetic after all and we can't discriminate because of their genetics. They didn't choose to be that way.
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Mursilis
I'm leery of expanding 'suspect classes' to include a characteristic based on behavior, not genetics.
Iowa SC addressed this issue thusly:
The degree to which an individual controls, or cannot
avoid, the acquisition of the defining trait, and the relative ease
or difficulty with which a trait can be changed, are relevant to
whether a classification is ?suspect? or ?quasi-suspect? because
this inquiry is one way of asking whether someone, rather than
being victimized, has voluntarily joined a persecuted group and
thereby invited the discrimination.
Importantly, this background reveals courts need not definitively
resolve the nature-versus-nurture debate currently raging over the origin of
sexual orientation in order to decide plaintiffs? equal protection claims. The
constitutional relevance of the immutability factor is not reserved to those
instances in which the trait defining the burdened class is absolutely impossible to change.
That is, we agree with those courts that have held the
immutability ?prong of the suspectness inquiry surely is satisfied when . . .
the identifying trait is ?so central to a person?s identity that it would be
abhorrent for government to penalize a person for refusing to change [it].? ?
Accordingly, because sexual orientation is central to personal identity and
? ?may be altered [if at all] only at the expense of significant damage to the
individual?s sense of self,? ? classifications based on sexual orientation ?are
no less entitled to consideration as a suspect or quasi-suspect class than
any other group that has been deemed to exhibit an immutable
characteristic.?
That's all so convoluted; why can't the court just find that state gov't lacked authority to refuse to issue a marriage license to gays? That's the problem with modern liberalism - it accepts that gov't can do all except that which is prohibited under the law. I think it's the reverse - gov't can do NOTHING except that which is explicitly provided under the law. There's a reason the Bill of Rights includes the 10th Amendment.
1. There were conservative republicans on the IA court that issued this unanimous decision who might object your terming them liberal.
2. The 10th amendment has to do with limiting federal power vs the states. The IA court found the Iowa state gay marriage statute violated the Iowa constitution.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy
And if parents were screening certain eye colors out of their children because they thought people with brown eyes were unnatural/immoral/evil/whatever, I would call them bigots and retards too. I made it extremely clear in my post that the motivation for why people were conducting this screening would determine if I thought they were bigoted or not.
People screening for eye color because they want a baby that looks a certain way is weird, but I sincerely doubt many are doing it out of a belief that alternative eye colors are wrong.
So who polices intent or "motivation"? Is it sexist if they want a boy instead of a girl? Can they be denied if they say they want a boy because boys are better? If there really is a gene (and it's yet to be proven) for homosexuality then I don't see how it's any different than the other choices in designer babies and frankly intent or "motivation" is irrelevant as it becomes a choice.
Where did this 'policing' come from? You asked me if I thought they would be bigoted and I told you. I'm terribly sorry that you can't see the difference.
And I'm just asking the next logical question regarding this issue. It's relevant because there will be some who do not want it to be screenable(like the n yusef) but if there are designer babies and a gene is found then is there going to be a choice? If someone chooses to screen for it, do they have to provide a reason? If not, then how will anyone know their "motivation"?
Anyway, I engaged in this excercise because I wholly believe that many in the "gay lobby" do not want a gene found because it presents too many problems like these. It then becomes almost a choice - which they've been fighting against the notion of for quite some time.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Be carefull with your example. Their opinion was regarding the IOWA constitution(or was supposed to be) yet it had to use a grey area to issue it. There was no real resolution regarding any of the particulars - just that they wanted to snip parts of the code out and force their opinion on how it should be written down on Iowans.
I'd also caution your defense of saying R appointed justices. While true, we all know how these things work (souter a shining example).
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy
And if parents were screening certain eye colors out of their children because they thought people with brown eyes were unnatural/immoral/evil/whatever, I would call them bigots and retards too. I made it extremely clear in my post that the motivation for why people were conducting this screening would determine if I thought they were bigoted or not.
People screening for eye color because they want a baby that looks a certain way is weird, but I sincerely doubt many are doing it out of a belief that alternative eye colors are wrong.
So who polices intent or "motivation"? Is it sexist if they want a boy instead of a girl? Can they be denied if they say they want a boy because boys are better? If there really is a gene (and it's yet to be proven) for homosexuality then I don't see how it's any different than the other choices in designer babies and frankly intent or "motivation" is irrelevant as it becomes a choice.
Where did this 'policing' come from? You asked me if I thought they would be bigoted and I told you. I'm terribly sorry that you can't see the difference.
And I'm just asking the next logical question regarding this issue. It's relevant because there will be some who do not want it to be screenable(like the n yusef) but if there are designer babies and a gene is found then is there going to be a choice? If someone chooses to screen for it, do they have to provide a reason? If not, then how will anyone know their "motivation"?
Anyway, I engaged in this excercise because I wholly believe that many in the "gay lobby" do not want a gene found because it presents too many problems like these. It then becomes almost a choice - which they've been fighting against the notion of for quite some time.
By your logic if we can find a way to genetically alter people's skin color and facial features, then if black people are discriminated against they don't have much to complain about because being black is almost a choice.
As for the whole screening thing, no one is going to police their motivation. In my personal opinion some motivations would make the parents homophobic trash, and others would not. I'm not going around arresting people for being dumb though. I'm not sure if I would support legislation banning any sort of genetic screening that was outside of life threatening illnesses, but I would certainly consider it. Variety is the spice of life, and engineering ourselves into antlike conformity certainly seems like something we should be wary of.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Eh? Who is talking about "complaining"? I stated that the "gay lobby" has spend quite some effort trying to sell it as not a choice. There is no denying that they have been doing that. So, IF the scenario I presented happens, it puts them in a spot. This doesn't have to do with "complaining" about discrimination.
Sorry but the horse it out of the barn on designer babies. I wouldn't ever consider it(i'm done having kids anyway) but if people want to do it - I don't see why they shouldn't be able to chose all of them we identify if we are going to do it for disorders and such. However, I have no doubt that the gov't will step in and limit this at some point - they live to control society.
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Be carefull with your example. Their opinion was regarding the IOWA constitution(or was supposed to be) yet it had to use a grey area to issue it. There was no real resolution regarding any of the particulars - just that they wanted to snip parts of the code out and force their opinion on how it should be written down on Iowans.
I don't know what you mean. The IA state const. has an equal protection clause analagous to the US Const, and their analysis determined that the statute defining marriage ran afoul of it. What gray area did they employ to make their ruling?
I'd also caution your defense of saying R appointed justices. While true, we all know how these things work (souter a shining example).
These are Iowa Republican judges we're talking about. Pro-life, religious conservatives who nonetheless can't argue with the reasoning presented by the plaintiffs. Is Steve Schmidt or Dick Cheney a RINO because they support gay marriage? The Reps need to move on this issue, it won them the WH in '04, but it's a loser for them in the long run. The more they fight with this issue the longer they will be branded the party of intolerance. The next generation has voiced their opinion on this issue overwhelmingly.
Read the opinion and let me know where the court f'd up.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Eh? Who is talking about "complaining"? I stated that the "gay lobby" has spend quite some effort trying to sell it as not a choice. There is no denying that they have been doing that. So, IF the scenario I presented happens, it puts them in a spot. This doesn't have to do with "complaining" about discrimination.
Sorry but the horse it out of the barn on designer babies. I wouldn't ever consider it(i'm done having kids anyway) but if people want to do it - I don't see why they shouldn't be able to chose all of them we identify if we are going to do it for disorders and such. However, I have no doubt that the gov't will step in and limit this at some point - they live to control society.
And what I'm telling you is that in the future it still wouldn't be any more or less of a choice than being male or female, black or white. I fail to see why it matters.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Eh? Who is talking about "complaining"? I stated that the "gay lobby" has spend quite some effort trying to sell it as not a choice. There is no denying that they have been doing that. So, IF the scenario I presented happens, it puts them in a spot. This doesn't have to do with "complaining" about discrimination.
Sorry but the horse it out of the barn on designer babies. I wouldn't ever consider it(i'm done having kids anyway) but if people want to do it - I don't see why they shouldn't be able to chose all of them we identify if we are going to do it for disorders and such. However, I have no doubt that the gov't will step in and limit this at some point - they live to control society.
And what I'm telling you is that in the future it still wouldn't be any more or less of a choice than being male or female, black or white. I fail to see why it matters.
The only reason it matters is the example I gave - where they've been fighting so long against it being a "choice" and yet if they are proven right - it opens the door for it to become a "choice" via designer babies. Do you not see where that presents an issue?
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Eh? Who is talking about "complaining"? I stated that the "gay lobby" has spend quite some effort trying to sell it as not a choice. There is no denying that they have been doing that. So, IF the scenario I presented happens, it puts them in a spot. This doesn't have to do with "complaining" about discrimination.
Sorry but the horse it out of the barn on designer babies. I wouldn't ever consider it(i'm done having kids anyway) but if people want to do it - I don't see why they shouldn't be able to chose all of them we identify if we are going to do it for disorders and such. However, I have no doubt that the gov't will step in and limit this at some point - they live to control society.
And what I'm telling you is that in the future it still wouldn't be any more or less of a choice than being male or female, black or white. I fail to see why it matters.
The only reason it matters is the example I gave - where they've been fighting so long against it being a "choice" and yet if they are proven right - it opens the door for it to become a "choice" via designer babies. Do you not see where that presents an issue?
Well we have a pretty good understanding of the genes that control skin color, but we're not designing them out.
The California clinic is using the same technique to increase the chances of having a baby with a specified eye, hair or skin color.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well we have a pretty good understanding of the genes that control skin color, but we're not designing them out.
really?
The California clinic is using the same technique to increase the chances of having a baby with a specified eye, hair or skin color.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Eh? Who is talking about "complaining"? I stated that the "gay lobby" has spend quite some effort trying to sell it as not a choice. There is no denying that they have been doing that. So, IF the scenario I presented happens, it puts them in a spot. This doesn't have to do with "complaining" about discrimination.
Sorry but the horse it out of the barn on designer babies. I wouldn't ever consider it(i'm done having kids anyway) but if people want to do it - I don't see why they shouldn't be able to chose all of them we identify if we are going to do it for disorders and such. However, I have no doubt that the gov't will step in and limit this at some point - they live to control society.
Originally posted by: trooper11
Its interesting to see some people making the statement that they support the measure becuase it was the will of the people and its the law now and yet when the reverse is decided on by the will of the people (I.E. against it), people bash it and attack it.
Basically this is a very polarizing issue, no way around that. Most people on either side are set in their ways, unwilling to change their views, which isnt a bad thing, but tis the truth.
Your still going to see some states pass this while alot of other states pass just the opposite.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well we have a pretty good understanding of the genes that control skin color, but we're not designing them out.
really?
The California clinic is using the same technique to increase the chances of having a baby with a specified eye, hair or skin color.
I am unaware of meaningful numbers of people designing their children to appear as members of a different race.
Family Research Council: We Could Support Gay SCOTUS, But Not One With ?Pro-Gay Ideology?
Yesterday I reported that the religious right group Focus on the Family said that they wouldn?t oppose an openly-gay nominee to the Supreme Court on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Now a second top religious right organization, Tony Perkins? Family Research Council, is declaring something similar ? it?s a shift in emphasis from its harder-line stance against gay judges two years ago, and another sign of the changing times.
To be sure, the group is hedging a bit. Its position : Being gay would not in and of itself rule out getting the group?s support, though having a ?pro-gay ideology? would.
?We don?t think that the process of selecting a Supreme Court justice should include asking questions about a person?s personal sex life,? Peter Sprigg, senior fellow at the Family Research Council, told me moments ago.
?But if a person does publicly identify as gay or lesbian, or particularly if a person has been involved with homosexual rights activism at any level, then there would have to be serious questions asked about whether he or she would impose a pro-gay ideology on the court.?
Sprigg added that homosexuality in and of itself would not be a ?determinant? against the acceptability of the nominee.
That?s not as hard-line as two years ago, when the Family Research Council argued: ?We don?t accept that homosexuality is any kind of cultural identity that should be sought in a judge.?
To be sure, it?s unlikely that either of these groups would support any Obama nominee, simply because of philosophical differences. But the unwillingness of these groups to rule out opposition to an openly-gay nominee is a big sign of how much things have shifted towards tolerance of gays and lesbians.
Groups that see homosexuality as a fundamentally illegitimate and morally questionable lifestyle are no longer willing to say openly that its a disqualifier from serving on the highest court.
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
That is true if your view of marriage is simply a government-regulated contract between two or more entities negotiating a sharing of resources.
Well considering we are specifically talking about the government regulated contract and not the religious institution, what other areas do you think we should include?
What makes you think they can be separated in such a way?
Because under our laws they already are. There's a reason why a justice of the peace or a sea captain can marry people. It's why atheists get married.
Furthermore, throughout history marriage has been far more of a civil arrangement than a religious one. In many eras (Rome for one), marriage required no religious sanction whatsoever.
Why would you say that the institution of marriage cannot be separated from religion, when in practice in both the past and today it has been explicitly separated. In what ways are they inseparable?
Marraige was created as a religious practice, over time it has moved away from that, but at the heart of it, it is a religious practice. Others have taken it and changed it and modified it to their meaning and purpose because they feel that getting "married" improves their bond to eachother, when infact it doesn't do shit except make the bride get fat and make the husband broke.
For those that claim homosexuality is genetic, there has been work and some links to pedophillia being genetic. Should they now be free to practice their ways? It's genetic after all and we can't discriminate because of their genetics. They didn't choose to be that way.
Originally posted by: jonks
Don't think we need a whole new thread do we?
New Hampshire is now also on board via a stunning act of legislative and executive activism
http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin...Hampshire.html?_r=3&hp
Originally posted by: Shuxclams
PS: Rhode Island is the last New England state to not allow 'Gay' marriage, wonder how much longer that'll be.
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Shuxclams
PS: Rhode Island is the last New England state to not allow 'Gay' marriage, wonder how much longer that'll be.
no earlier than 2010. The current guv is strongly anti-SSM.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Gay marriage is an excellent idea, and should be legal across the nation. By allowing gays to marry, we can build an extensive database on the gay population, and will allow further study into what causes people to be gay. We will be able to examine familial ties and analyze patters in gay behavior. This information may lead to advances in "curing" the gay population, or, at the very least, it may lead to a better understanding of why people turn out to be gay in the first place. Everyone knows this.
Apparently 'everyone knows' just about every single post you make. If that's the case, you probably don't need to post it to begin with.
Actually now that I think about it, if you stopped posting that would be great.
Originally posted by: Shuxclams
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Shuxclams
PS: Rhode Island is the last New England state to not allow 'Gay' marriage, wonder how much longer that'll be.
no earlier than 2010. The current guv is strongly anti-SSM.
Yes, butt.... 60% Are in favor of SSM in R.I. We'll see, I have faith in Little Rhody............
?In Massachusetts it was the court. In Vermont it was the legislature. I believe the issue ought to be dealt with by all of our citizens. ... And let them decide,? Carcieri said.