Canada has WMDs

[Jester]

And I don't think any of those ideas hold water. Virtue is morality, and morality is not the realm of government, but of religion.

Liberty should only be restricted when there is a compelling case to do so. This almost invariably means an infringement (or likely infringement) on someone else's liberty. Since there is no case for this with homosexual marriage, this can also be discarded.

So that leaves tradition, or some appeal about the damage to society at large. The second is so vague as to be irrelevant, and the first is, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't carry much weight in a just society.

Children are a different issue, and while I find the idea that homosexuals raising kids damages them to be ludicrous, this is a separate issue from marriage.

Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

on the other side you have same-sex marriages which are not criminal by law (they are just not recognised by law).

I suspect that the laws against "sodomy" which are still on the books in many places in the USA would make same-sex marriages criminal under the law. How that would hold out in challenged would depend much on the judge and the local. The more urban an area, and the longer it has been urban, the more likely the law would be overthrown.

--Pete

[Guest]

Isnt the legalaity of antisodemy statutes being challenged in the Supreme Court this month?

[Guest]

It might be a big deal to some concerned about gay rights, but as an international issue its minor other than the media attention it will get for a few weeks.


Does it really matter if the US recognizes a marriage of US Citizens done in another country? No - they are still US citizens and our country is completely with in its rights to ignore what is esentially a run around of US law.

You can reasonably argue about gay marriage, sure - that principal was no different last week than it is this week. But the Canada law flap is a non issue.

[Nystul]

Virtue is morality, and morality is not the realm of government, but of religion.

Government is grounded in morality. Your entire case seems to be based on moral beliefs. Or do you have some sort of proof that humans have a right to liberty and justice that doesn't involve your moral beliefs?

Liberty should only be restricted when there is a compelling case to do so. This almost invariably means an infringement (or likely infringement) on someone else's liberty. Since there is no case for this with homosexual marriage, this can also be discarded.

We have laws against public nudity. We have laws against gambling and prostitution. Heck, we even have laws about wearing seatbelts. Pure libertarianism is not a fact that the world must run by, it's an opinion shared by a minority. Maybe it's the key to a just society, but that arguement is "so vague as to be irrelevant".

[--Pete]

Hi,

Yes, it is being *challenged*. For instance, see http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/02/scotus.sodomy/

Considering the makeup of the Supreme Court, that the challenge will succeed is not a slam dunk. The challengers in '86 failed. The present court leans greatly right. For instance, see http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/22/nyt.greenhouse/

Furthermore, it has not been at all unusual for States to redraft laws which the Supreme Court overturned in an attempt to find a wording that will, at least for a time, get by.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Government is grounded in morality.

This is simply a reflection that almost all cultures and religions share a core group of values. Thus in *many* (but by no means all) cases, what a given religion considers "right" will often be reflected in what a government considers "legal". That government is *grounded* in morality is both true and wrong. True in that most cultures including ours have a tendency to codify their unfounded prejudices into law. Wrong in that an opinion should not be made a law simply because a majority hold it.

One doesn't need the guarantee of freedom of religion to join the prevalent church.

One doesn't need the guarantee of freedom of speech to mouth the majority opinion.

One doesn't need the guarantee of freedom from persecution if one is of the dominant race, sex, or national origin.

The purpose of government as founded in the United States in the late eighteenth century is *not* to make the prejudice of the majority the law of the land but to protect the rights and freedoms of the minorities. That purpose, that ideal, has not always been met. The arguments that the poor, the blacks, the women, the working class, the immigrant were somehow inferior have each been knocked down in law and are, slowly, being knocked down in the minds of the people. Our history to our shame is not free of injustice and ignorance, but to our pride, it is a history of continuously moving towards that great ideal of equality in all ways for all people.

I don't need morals to believe that. I simply need a small degree of empathy. "There but for the grace of god go I" is sufficient for me to want for everyone the freedoms I want for me.

--Pete

[Guest]

"The purpose of government as founded in the United States in the late eighteenth century is *not* to make the prejudice of the majority the law of the land but to protect the rights and freedoms of the minorities."

This is not wrong but in saying "The purpose of government as founded in the United States" it implies that it is the complete purpose.

There are actually 2 competing purposes of goverement in the US that both serve the same end - the welfare of the citizens.


1. One purpose is to make functioning and safe society.

2 The other purpose is to ensure freedom and liberty in the society.

In some cases its accepted that certain freedoms are limited for for the sake of function or safety. For instance you may not own a machine gun, most places you may not drink(even moderatly) while driving, and you may not threaten people - even if you dont actually hurt them.

In other cases we give up some safety in the name of freedom. You may own some weapons such as hunting rifles, we have a draft when we need it, and we let people do dangeous expsense activities, such as rock climbing motorcycling.


Im not really addressing the issue of gay rights here, but i think we should step back be clear on why we have a goverment from time to time.




Declaration of Indepence - "effect their(people's) Safety and Happiness"

Preamble to the constutution - "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

[Occhidiangela]

Define it.

Check every country on the globe, and see which ones actually have a statute against it. Check and see where, in the 50 states here, statutory rape ends and pedophilia begins.

Now, consider the existence of the nmbla, and a bunch of folks whose freedom to have intimate relations with minors is their version of the pursuit of happiness.


The reason that pedophilia is a crime in this country is that the MAJORITY of citizens choose to define an arbitrary age as the age of consent. (I am in that majority, go figure!)

However, that definition is not globally universal, even though I'd suggest that a great many countries have statutes against it.

And therefore, I suggest you read the title of the post where I threw that sarcastic comment in, liberty and license, and reconsider why you fell into the typical trap.

[Guest]

Heh why do some many forums spend so much time on Pedophilia? I assume relatively few posters on game forums like this are pedophiles.


Anyway the whole pedophile discussion is a mess because in the US 2 seperate problems are adressed by the same statutes.

One is having sex with prebubesent children - which is both perverse and exploitive.

The other is sex with sexually mature but still young kids - this is a fairly natural activity(look at history at times the majority of marriages were with teen age girls)) but it is still exploitive.

[wakim]

Moving away from pedophilia and statutory rape, in a thread abandoned by all but the most caviling of casuists, it seems to have been agreed upon that homosexual marriage cannot exist without re-defining marriage (and hence destroying what was once thought of as marriage) and, it is argued, that this is necessary to maintain the greater good of equality and its concomitants of liberty and justice (or vice versa).

It seems peculiar that no one has argued that the current definition, or function, of marriage currently excludes certain hetrosexual unions such as brother and sister, father and daughter, cousins, etc. Can one not argue that by mere accident of birth, and through no fault of their own, these people are held up to a different standard than the majority of the population? Might not a brother and sister be the most compatible of all possible couples as they share so much in common, and, it may be argued, that they may be the most qualified to become married since they probably possess a high degree of love for each other even before entering into this union? If this union is consentual, and both adults, should not this also be condoned as simply an alternative to the traditional, and rather exclusive, possibilities of marriage? Should we allow prejudice and discrimination to rule our intellects and limit our quest for equality for all?

[Chaerophon]

nt

[--Pete]

Hi,

Might not a brother and sister be the most compatible of all possible couples as they share so much in common, and, it may be argued, that they may be the most qualified to become married since they probably possess a high degree of love for each other even before entering into this union?

Again, it hinges on what you want to define as "marriage". Is there any problem with siblings living together into adulthood and even old age? Not that I can see. Is there any problem with said siblings adopting and raising children? Again I fail to see any. Is there a problem with those same siblings engendering a child? Hell yes, and if I have to explain why, then you need to study some genetics. Or just the history of the royal families of Europe.

Since your post was both plausible and controversial, I nominate you troll of the thread. Thanks anyway, but go away. We don't really need plausible stupid ideas to generate heat around here -- controversial good one are sufficient for that purpose.

--Pete

[Guest]

Canada is run by Liberals, haha. :P

[Chaerophon]

Yes, very insightful.

[Guest]

Who said insight was required to post? At least I used good grammar, hah.

[whyBish]

I suspect that the laws against "sodomy" which are still on the books in many places in the USA would make same-sex marriages criminal under the law.

What does sodomy have to do with same-sex marriage? Or am I confusing sodomy with "sodomy"?

P.S. I did not realise that there were laws against it.

[whyBish]

Heh why do some many forums spend so much time on Pedophilia?

Not sure if it is appropriate, but I am reminded of the post by a lurker who said that their company had blocked any sites that had 'Lurker' in it :unsure:

[whyBish]

And therefore, I suggest you read the title of the post where I threw that sarcastic comment in, liberty and license, and reconsider why you fell into the typical trap.

Sorry, I'm going cross-eyed looking at the threaded view.

I still think we are arguing different things. You are right that paedophilia/pot-smoking/marriage are defined differently in different countries. You are right that one country can consider activities as criminal where others do not.
What I am saying is that there is nothing criminal about same-sex marriage, it just wont be recognised by the U.S.

I suppose I could put it better by saying that the issue of U.S. recognising same-sex marriages conducted in other countries is similar to the issue of whether N.Z. accepts qualifications of medical professionals from countries outside of N.Z. (I have a workmate from India who is a qualified anaesthetist in India, but it is not recognised here, so she is an I.T. project manager). There is nothing criminal about her holding that qualification, the only crime is if she attempts to 'fraudulently' (in the eyes of the host country) us it to gain the benefits it entitles (in this case practising medicine)

[Nystul]

Assuming the newly-weds do what most newly-weds do (not talking about going to Vegas here), except that they are both the same sex, that would be sodomy. It is a word that covers a pretty broad scope of activity. Whether the marriage itself would qualify I don't know. Guess it would depend on the wording of the law, and if the wording is something like "sodomy is a crime punishable by xyz" (as may well be the case when the law is centuries old) then it would depend on the judge. Of course, any state that keeps sodomy laws on the books would not be likely to recognize same sex marriages any time soon.

I think these laws are on the books in quite a few states, but actual prosecutions are pretty much nonexistant. After all, if there are any witnesses you will get booked for something like public indecency, and if there are no witnesses there is no case.