California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

[ranter]

Originally Posted by Cricket

Actually it is about "California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage"
The fact is the people of California said NO.

Shouldn't their vote count? The California Supreme Court said, yeah, it does count.

No, because it tries to legislate moral issue.

People may don’t like gays and their life style but being in relation with another person is legal in US and recognized when certified by marriage license thus homophobic people can’t… have no right to turn social issue in a subject of personal taste just because they don’t like and disapprove people who prefer to eat vegetarian food.

Imagine we start making laws based on superstitions.
Where are we going to be then?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by ranter

No, because it tries to legislate moral issue.

Liberal political theory is based on morality. Specifically, democratic morality. If you object to legislating morality, then what principle do you suppose legislation should be based upon?

[ranter]

Come to Papa

Originally Posted by John Scott

Liberal political theory is based on morality. Specifically, democratic morality.

What?
I mean what about conservatives? Should I remind you that when it comes to conservatives they hold record for moral principals that they employ? It may come to you as a surprise but conservatives are using five moral variables such as: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, in-group loyalty, authority/respect, purity/sanctity, whereas liberals use only two: harm/care and fairness/reciprocity.

Once again, just for you Johnnie. Morality is not a legal but emotional state of mind.

Originally Posted by John Scott

If you object to legislating morality, then what principle do you suppose legislation should be based upon?

Funny you should ask. Given you being an Individualist, it surprises me that you are lining up yourself with the group that wants to take away from you your rights and rejecting protection of the Laws that guaranteed you your rights.

Yes John, I’m talking about the Reasonable Person common Law the one that represents an objective standard against which any individual's conduct can be measured.

The reasonable person standard is by no means democratic in its scope; it is, contrary to popular conception, intentionally distinct from that of the "average person," who is not necessarily guaranteed to always be reasonable. The reasonable person will weigh all of the following factors before acting:

• the foreseeable risk of harm his actions create versus the utility of his actions;
• the extent of the risk so created;
• the likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others;
• any alternatives of lesser risk, and the costs of those alternatives.

Taking such actions requires the reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. Such a person might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but whatever that person does or thinks, it is always reasonable.

I hope it easy enough for you to swallow.

[John Scott]

I mean what about conservatives? Should I remind you that when it comes to conservatives they hold record for moral principals that they employ?

Conservatives - neocons, that is - are just as totalitarian as liberals. Where did I say otherwise? Why would that come as a surprise to me?

Morality is not a legal but emotional state of mind.

You spit out more crap that a backed up toilet. Modern political theory is based on the concept of law being based on morality. Read more, type less, kiddo.

Given you being an Individualist, it surprises me that you are lining up yourself with the group that wants to take away from you your rights and rejecting protection of the Laws that guaranteed you your rights.

When did I line myself up with such a group?

Yes John, I’m talking about the Reasonable Person common Law the one that represents an objective standard against which any individual's conduct can be measured.

Again, you've gone off the deep end. Probably why people tell me that I should just ignore you until you grow up. The legal standard of the reasonable person is not relevant or employed in any of the liberal political doctrines. It has to do with criminal law, and is used in determining culpability. And criminal law, again, is based for the most part on morality.

Let me ask you again, what principle do you suppose law should be based on, if not morality? I know that's like asking a 2 year old what he thinks of quantum mechanics, because you've already demonstrated ignorance on the topic at hand, but you might want to think about it and get back to me when you've got a mature reply.

[Cricket]

Play nice y'all.

Gently reminding folks of the topic.

We are not discussing if being gay is right or wrong. We are not discussing if it is natural or unnatural. We are discussing the fact that the California Supreme Court upheld the ban on same-sex marriage.

(1) The people of California voted and chose to ban marriage between same sex individuals.
(2)The California Supreme court upheld that ban.

How do you feel about that?

Are some of you saying that the PEOPLE do not have the RIGHT to vote and make these decisions?

Where do our rights begin and end?

There are counties who choose not to allow the sale or possession of alcohol (this is just an example, not the debate). The people of those counties VOTED this into law. Perhaps if you choose to drink, you should consider living in a county that allows drinking rather than trying to force others to accept your preferences.

If we take away the right of the PEOPLE to vote and decide on what is and is not acceptable in their society, then WHO should have this right, if not the people?

Please note that I am being deliberately controversial in my comments, playing devil's advocate if you will.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Cricket

(...)Are some of you saying that the PEOPLE do not have the RIGHT to vote and make these decisions? (...)

Not I, not currently, anyway. I do believe however that in the future a gene will be discovered and then all the type people that were so against it will become obsolete except for the most extreme crazies.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Cricket

(...)If we take away the right of the PEOPLE to vote and decide on what is and is not acceptable in their society, then WHO should have this right, if not the people?

Please note that I am being deliberately controversial in my comments, playing devil's advocate if you will.

I'm a little confused about this part, Cricket. Who's taking away the right of the people to vote?

[Cricket]

I have removed the posts fussing at each other. I am respectfully requesting that you keep it out of my thread.

[Cricket]

It is more of a hypothetical question, based on the protests of the decision made by the California Supreme Court. My question being, the PEOPLE decided, so what is the controversy? Isn't it the RIGHT of the people to vote? If not, who?

[Atom]

Ok I see what you're saying now, my bad. Yeah right, they voted it in, they can vote it out I guess, yeah.

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by Atom

Ok I see what you're saying now, my bad. Yeah right, they voted it in, they can vote it out I guess, yeah.

Exactly! So if there is going to be change, the change has to happen with the people. All the protesting in the world isn't going to change the vote unless you change the thoughts of the voters.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Cricket

Exactly! So if there is going to be change, the change has to happen with the people. All the protesting in the world isn't going to change the vote unless you change the thoughts of the voters.

Right. I think that protests and court battles are pretty much all they can do though, and I'm sure that eventually they'll win out, even if there is no solid biological evidence found for the cause, but the protests do seem a bit counterproductive.

[Allen Farlow]

Originally Posted by Cricket

Exactly! So if there is going to be change, the change has to happen with the people. All the protesting in the world isn't going to change the vote unless you change the thoughts of the voters.

I will respectfully NOT reply to k Rahmaan's response to me above as he/she is so full of it that it does not deserve my response.

Cricket hit the nail on the head: change the thought of the voters. That's exactly what proponents of Prop 8 did. With the financial backing of the religious right, they ran a smear campaign on the California voters, nothing but scare tactics.

Do a Google search of this term, tv ads against prop 8, and watch the tv commercials that they ran prior to the vote. Notice their message.

For instance, this video. They make it very clear that a yes vote for Prop 8 would help "restore traditional marriage."

Restore it? What happened to it? Are gays the only people getting married anymore? No, nothing happened to traditional marriage. This was just a scare tactic, the way it was worded.

How about this video? Here we go again. Exact words from the video: "Voting yes means restoring traditional marriage." What happened to traditional marriages? They don't happen anymore?

"What it means when gay marriage conflicts with our religious freedoms." Uh-oh, if we vote no on Prop 8 we will lose our religious freedoms! More scare tactics.

"Why it was forced on us by San Francisco judges when gay domestic partners already have the same legal rights." As long as gays cannot have an actual marriage ceremony just as any hetrosexual couple, gays will not 'have the same legal rights'. Oh, no! It was forced on us! That's not right! Those horrible, horrible judges! From San Francisco? They must be GAY! That's what they are intimating (to make known in an indirect way). They just won't come out and say it in so many words.

Just more scare tactics to sway the minds of the voters.

More quotes from the above video:

"What it means when our children are taught about it in public schools."

Don't we already teach children about drugs with the DARE program? So I assume that children are running out and trying drugs because they were taught about drugs? So if we teach them about gays our children will become gay? Nothing but scare tactics. Our children are our most precious resource and it's easy to say things that will get people up in arms about their children. The religious right knows all too well to play that card.

The funds that were contributed by religious groups enabled proponents to sway the minds of the voters and get this passed to kill gay marriage. If it was not for the funds contributed by the religious right, Californians would not have been flooded with such an obvious televised smear campaign.

I don't believe the vote should stand, as I don't believe many voters voted according to their beliefs and conscience, but swallowed the convoluted propaganda fed to them by the religious right without thinking once about what those ads were saying. (Reminds me of Hitler and his campaign to sway the minds of the German public and get them behind him so he could take over the country and then the entire world.)

Prop 8 passed with only 52% of the vote (according to this article.) It was not an overwhelming defeat by any means, indicating that almost half of Californians are for allowing gay people the same rights as anyone else.

I have a fundamental problem with ANYONE telling me how I can or cannot live, who I can or cannot love, or dictating the manner in which I should love them. It's a basic human right to be able to live and love in the manner we choose. Government and religious meddling in the personal lives of people needs to end.

[krahmaan]

The ban on same sex marriage in the state of California was voted on and law was enforced. But a compromise to those who had already married into gay unions is just the reality at hand. Those couples were lucky. But that brings to question how will other same-sex couples feel about not being able to marry in the state of California?

Will this cause a problem? I already know that among the 'against' gay marriage minds the preservation of the 18,000 gay marriages sounds contradictory to law. At least it does to me, and others I've spoken to on the matter.

But why is it that those against cannot have their say? We voted, and we won the vote. It sounds as if more rights other than just those of homosexuals here are truly being taken away by the Supreme Court's decision.

[Cricket]

John, help me understand for a moment here, especially concerning the term "collectivism". I have spent the vast majority of my adult life living in what is known by many as the Bible Belt of the US. Others may refer to us as rednecks, but we are pretty proud of that term. (grin)

Overall this area has been historically pretty unbending on the subject of morality and still strongly believe in the notion of One Nation Under GOD. In these areas you will find laws that others can't believe still exist, such as dry counties. The odds of most of these states voting to allow gay marriages anytime in our lifetimes is pretty slim. These laws are based on the area's perceived ideas of what is and isn't moral.

So "collectively" they determine what is and isn't acceptable for the population of their state or county. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but doesn't that come down to the majority rule?

Perhaps I need a simple definition of individualism vs. collectivism?

[John Scott]

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but doesn't that come down to the majority rule?

Yes. It's also known as democracy. The practice of democracy is based on the theory of collectivism. When the people collectively have the right to deny freedom of the individual, that's collectivism.

Individualism says that no matter how many people vote for something, it still doesn't justify the violation of the individual's freedom.

Typically, the biggest opponent of individualism is socialism or "liberalism". The Left believes that freedom can be dangerous and individuals need to be protected from themselves and protected from freedom of others.

One argument is the "man down the well" argument. If a man is down a well, his rights are not being violated, but he still is in a bad situation. So, the Left argues, freedom isn't good. Collectively, we can impose a burden on others to help the man out of the well. And while we're at it, we can impose a burden on others to feed, clothe, employ, and provide healthcare for others. And NASA is in the interest of the common good, so we'll coerce people to fund that. And bailing out auto-makers is in the interest of the common good, so we will coerce taxpayers to fund that. And on and on and on.

But it's not just the Left that opposes freedom. The religious Right in America seems similarly hellbent on opposing freedom in certain areas. Mostly these people are "neo-conservative", as opposed to "paleo-conservatives".

Stuff like opposing gay marriage. Bush was a neocon. He increased the size and role of the Federal government, and trampled individual rights.

The religious Right also tends to support Nanny State legislation (opposition to alcohol, cigarettes, and junk food with higher taxes or just outright bans).

The argument comes down to whether people believe freedom is a right even when that freedom can be used to do things that the majority doesn't agree with, or things that can be outright dangerous to one's self.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by ranter

What about children who born with degenerative conditions?

You seem to be talking about mutations. But this doesn't actually do any credit to gays by calling them mutants -now does it? They are still people -with no real disability. Only an error in sexual practice. Necrophiliacs make the same error.

The fact remains that there is still no scientific proof of a 'gay gene'. Why not just accept this? Please refer to the link from one of my previous posts: Is there a "gay" gene? @ Born Gay - ProCon.org

http://www.v7n.com/forums/politics/1...ml#post1112510

[krahmaan]

I will respectfully NOT reply to k Rahmaan's response to me above as he/she is so full of it that it does not deserve my response.

Hmmm?

Someone screams out my name, but yet fails to address me? Ha, then why call out my name in the first place? What a tease in debate, by this woman/man (?). Oh well, carry on. Most of the facts have already been covered here. I need not say more of the courts decision.

(But you guys are some tough debaters though -I'll give you that!)

[ranter]

Wow Mr Scott, it looks to me that you are not taking loosing debate too well.

All I want to know is, what mental institution let you out?
You should see your psychiatrist and check your head and most definitely you should start drink iodine to heal your head wounds.

And, get use to that and remember: loosing one battle is not the end of the world, eh.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by ranter

Wow Mr Scott, it looks to me that you are not taking loosing debate too well.

I've names several philosophers who base their abortion arguments on democratic morality. You haven't been able to provide me one instance of an abortion argument based on "common sense". It seems to be the objective truth that you have lost, no matter where you're looking at it from. I'm sure that even know know that you've lost; there could be no doubt otherwise.

Originally Posted by ranter

And, get use to that and remember: loosing one battle is not the end of the world, eh.

If you grew up and realized that debates are not won simply by refusing to acknowledge the obvious truth, and decided to spend some time actually reading, you might become less familiar with losing debates, eh?