Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (10516)	12/5/2010 8:20:19 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Although I've always asserted that homosexuality was a perversion (because it is)--I've also affirmed that it is as MORAL as any other moral behavior. I really respect what you said. It is (rationally) unassailable in my opinion.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (10516)	12/6/2010 7:22:30 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

>In the same manner that marriage for heterosexual or homosexual couples is not a constitutional right, abortion is not a constitutional right either.< Does this mean that you believe that government's role should begin and end with the Constitution? I do believe governments role should be limited by the Constitution. Judges do not have the right to nullify legislation unless there's a constitutional reason for doing so. There is no such constitutional reason for doing so in the case of abortion or gay rights. As for laws on marriage and abortion, those are appropriate for state legislatures. As it stands now unelected judges are substituting their personal morality for the will of the public expressed through their elected representatives. ------------------------------------------------------ Marriage, be it traditional or other, is not covered by the Constitution. But marriage is a civil union with legal consequences, e.g. taxation and estate. Right. --------------------------------------------------------- Is there any reason/excuse for government to hold gay couples who seek both the benefits and responsibilities of a civil union to hold them to a second standard? Government is perfectly free to do so by legislation. If society wants to extend such benefits (responsibilities seldom enter into it) they can do so via elected representatives. They're under no obligation and need no excuse if they decide not to extend such benefits to gay couples, or to polygamous or incestuous couples, or interspecies couples, etc etc etc. There was a proposition placed before the voters in one of our most liberal states to legalize gay marraige .... even though gays in that state already had legal civil unions giving them most or all the benefits of marriage without the name. It failed. Mostly because of the black and hispanic vote. If only white liberals had been allowed to vote, it would have passed. --------------------------------------------------- I would like to see such couples granted access to the same rights and duties we now accord traditional hetero couples. Then you should try to do so legislatively using persuasion, not force your moral beliefs and practices on everyone else by judicial fiat. ---------------------------------------------------- Without involving the Constitution (unless one wishes to advance the odious argument that gays are not full citizens!) The bottom line is you want your personal moral views about gays and gay marriage to be forced on society against its will. Our civil marriage laws exist by legislation and if you don't like the present laws, try to change them through the legislative process. ------------------------------------------------------ I see no barrier to treating homosexual couples, male or female, as entitled to the same rights and duties as the rest of us. You're not a dictator. Society has the right to pass laws you don't approve of morally. Many people object to abortion, but they need to recognize that society has the right to pass laws allowing abortion. ------------------------------------------------------ <edit> Brumar89, are you and "walterm" the same person? No. We merely seem to think a lot alike.