Stone holm Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I don't know about Republicans -- I am not one. But I am in favor of government using laws to promote some behaviors and to discourage other behaviors. It is, after all, what laws are about.Yes that is what laws are about, and what civil liberties are about is protecting minorities from laws which treat them unfairly, or infringe in some manner on their rights as individuals. The voting power of the majority is irrelevant in such cases, at least in theory.
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 So, in your fantasy world would you take a child away from his biological father who is actually gay or bisexual because there wasn't a "mother" invoked in the child's life on a regular basis? I hope not because that would be pretty dumb.No, I have said nothing about taking children away from anyone. You are inventing things. 1
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 As long as the units are not determined by religious ethics or morality, right? We don't want churches infecting the government with their silly bureaucracy. And as long as its not about gender but about love and commitment. Again, another problem solved.The units are defined as the best type of Family Structure for raising new Citizens: A Man and Woman raising the Children together, responsibly.
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 No, I have said nothing about taking children away from anyone. You are inventing things.Apologies. I was making an assumption that you wanted government to determine what makes a family.
Danzo Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 As long as the units are not determined by religious ethics or morality, right? We don't want churches infecting the government with their silly bureaucracy. And as long as its not about gender but about love and commitment. Again, another problem solved.Ahh, but how can you make sure its about love an commitment and not for another purpose?
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Yes that is what laws are about, and what civil liberties are about is protecting minorities from laws which treat them unfairly, or infringe in some manner on their rights as individuals. The voting power of the majority is irrelevant in such cases, at least in theory.Everyone gets treated unfairly in one way or the other. Society gets to decide what is best for Society. Generational Issues are important -- they rise to a matter of "our very existence and survival". It is OK for Society to declare that it wants to enhance some things and discourage others that are harmful that State Interest. And, incidentally, this does not violate any rights protected under the Constitution.
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 The units are defined as the best type of Family Structure for raising new Citizens: A Man and Woman raising the Children together, responsibly.According to whom? And without religion having anything to do with it, right?
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Apologies. I was making an assumption that you wanted government to determine what makes a family.I don't know about assumption. I said that the Government would define a Preferred Family Unit. This is not necessarily your idea of "family".
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 According to whom? And without religion having anything to do with it, right?Has nothing to do with religion. The man could be an atheist, the woman could be from the Westborough Baptist Church and the Children could each be Jewish, Mormon and Moslem.
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Ahh, but how can you make sure its about love an commitment and not for another purpose?Right, because men and women marry each other for all the right reasons too. Don't second guess one group unless you're willing to do the same for your own.
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I don't know about assumption. I said that the Government would define a Preferred Family Unit. This is not necessarily your idea of "family".Again, apologies. I more specifically assumed that you wanted government to recognize families according to your preferred ideals. Thankfully, marriage ain't about gender or procreation.
Daniel2 Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 The courts refer to the Federal Court SystemI could be wrong but I remember that the state supreme court upheld proposition 8 Ah. I think I see where the disconnect was in our conversation. In the sentence, “In what state was it overruled,” you were focusing on the word, “state,” I was focusing on the word, “overruled.” Yes. The CA SC did originally overturn Prop 22 (the original CA statute limiting “marriage” to opposite-sex couples) as unconstitutional (according to California’s then-state constitution). California voters subsequently attempted to amend the constitution in 2008, which was then challenged in the CA SC in 2009. At that point, CA SC then subsequently upheld the constitutionality of Prop 8 (per the newly amended CA Constitution):http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/california-supreme-court-upholds-prop-8-gay-marriage-remains-banned-in-state.html It was then appealed to the Federal Government in 2010, per the other links I already posted—which I still would say is the proper extension and/or legal step in California’s “state court system,” in terms of appealing a ruling—but I now understand you and I were talking about two different points, and you may not view it in those terms.Daniel2
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Perhaps there should be a surrogate mother bank so that 2 men or 2 women (assuming neither woman wants to carry child) can create and have REAL families. I apologize for my sarcasm. The government doesn't get to decide what makes a family. Plain and simple. 1
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Again, apologies. I more specifically assumed that you wanted government to recognize families according to your preferred ideals. Thankfully, marriage ain't about gender or procreation.I actually just want them to have a social structure that they favor with benefits. -- Man and Woman committed to responsibly raising Children together. Mainly because I think this is fundamental to the "very existence and survival" of our society.
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Please dont tell me that you think that just because there is marriage equality that heterosexuals will stop making babies. That is silly. Heterosexuals will continue to have sex and they will not be over run or out-populated by homosexuals.
Nathair/|\ Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Perhaps there should be a surrogate mother bank so that 2 men or 2 women (assuming neither woman wants to carry child) can create and have REAL families.I apologize for my sarcasm. The government doesn't get to decide what makes a family. Plain and simple.Wow, Val. I actually agree with you on something. That's way cool. I'm as libertarian as it comes without being an anarchist. (I do think anarchy is the right system for the terrestrial conditions of the Millennium, just not in our present Telestial world.) I'm willing to compromise on civil unions for everybody for now, but ultimately, I'd like the state out of all consensual human activities.
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Wow, Val. I actually agree with you on something. That's way cool. I'm as libertarian as it comes without being an anarchist. (I do think anarchy is the right system for the terrestrial conditions of the Millennium, just not in our present Telestial world.) I'm willing to compromise on civil unions for everybody for now, but ultimately, I'd like the state out of all consensual human activities.Under the Kingdom of God you will not have your wish. 1
Stone holm Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Everyone gets treated unfairly in one way or the other. Society gets to decide what is best for Society. Generational Issues are important -- they rise to a matter of "our very existence and survival". It is OK for Society to declare that it wants to enhance some things and discourage others that are harmful that State Interest. And, incidentally, this does not violate any rights protected under the Constitution.There are clearly some that disagree with you on that very last part. I am beginning to suspect that even the SCOTUS is going to duck the question because right now I think Justice Kennedy is going to seize the day and the marriage cases are going to go down like this: Prop 8 case will get dismissed as jurisdiction having been improvidently granted because of the standing issue, and the DOMA will be struck down via a plurality decision with Justice Kennedy writing the opinion based on a Federalism argument that it interferes with the reserved exclusive control over marriage by the States this will be accompanied by a concurring opinion by the liberals on the Court who concur with the result but not the opinion. The net result will be California will have gay marriage, and the Feds will be a bit confused, but the IRS and Social Security will probably have to start recognizing gay marriage. Which means that those states with full gay marriage laws will quickly become marriage mills for gays and lesbians which will help the bed and breakfast businesses in Vermont. 1
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Please dont tell me that you think that just because there is marriage equality that heterosexuals will stop making babies. That is silly. Heterosexuals will continue to have sex and they will not be over run or out-populated by homosexuals.I have not said anything about stopping making babies.. or calves.. or puppies.. or kittens.I have talked about Preferred Family Units. You know.. you are not doing a very good job of presenting the notion that Gay Rights Advocates are NOT anti-Family. 1
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) There are clearly some that disagree with you on that very last part.OK, explain how they so so logically -- with reference to the Bill of Rights.Remember, I was not talking about Marriage here.. although If you want, I will include that (Notice, by the way, that even the liberal members of the court are not talking about Prop 8 being an "equality" issue.) Edited March 30, 2013 by CASteinman
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Wow, Val. I actually agree with you on something. That's way cool. I'm as libertarian as it comes without being an anarchist. (I do think anarchy is the right system for the terrestrial conditions of the Millennium, just not in our present Telestial world.) I'm willing to compromise on civil unions for everybody for now, but ultimately, I'd like the state out of all consensual human activities.Do we not usually agree on things? It's because I'm a Mormon Communist Homosexual isn't it?
Stone holm Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I have not said anything about stopping making babies.. or calves.. or puppies.. or kittens.I have talked about Preferred Family Units. You know.. you are not doing a very good job of presenting the notion that Gay Rights Advocates are NOT anti-Family.Doesn't that depend on your definition of family? In the Church we have a definition, but most government agencies more or less gave up on that definition decades ago as not really fitting American reality.
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I have not said anything about stopping making babies.. or calves.. or puppies.. or kittens.I have talked about Preferred Family Units. You know.. you are not doing a very good job of presenting the notion that Gay Rights Advocates are NOT anti-Family.You're not doing a good job rationalizing that allowing for marriage equality and all families under that banner are in fact anti- family. My friend Vince and his husband Alex and their three kids ARE a family. Those opposed to their family structure are the ones who are in fact anti-family.
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Doesn't that depend on your definition of family? In the Church we have a definition, but most government agencies more or less gave up on that definition decades ago as not really fitting American reality.Irrelevant. Its a matter of providing the right environment for the responsible rearing of children -- with a man (preferably the father) and a woman (preferably the mother) committed to living in the same household and agreeing to take responsibility for the raising of the children. They don't have to be married. They don't have to be married to each other. They don't have to be married to only one person. It is irrelevant. Remember -- we are not recognizing marriage. Just providing social, legal and economic benefits to Preferred Family Units -- which are fall under the aegis of State Interest as it pertains the raising of future generations of citizens.
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 You're not doing a good job rationalizing that allowing for marriage equality and all families under that banner are in fact anti- family. Well good. I have not tried to do that! Did you want me to try?
Recommended Posts