Separation of Church & State

[ecmst12]

Abortion is not "a baby being cut up" and let's try not to drag things too far off topic here.

 

[BOR]

abortion is not "a baby being cut up

bull bull bull bull!!

 

[ecmst12]

Repealing anti-sodomy laws is a privacy issue. Marriage equality isn't that far off though - the government grants rights to those who enter into a public committment contract. Basing who gets those rights on the anatomy of the 2 people entering into the contract is the government being more nosy then it has any right to be. If the 2 people are of sound mind and agree to the terms of the contract the government should uphold it.

 

[BOR]

Repealing anti-sodomy laws is a privacy issue.

There are NO anti sodomy laws that are in force, the 14th AM took care of that.

 

[mistoffolees]

I am talking about a baby being cut up and you make a joke!!

It's not a joke. It's the fact.

The courts do not rule on the basis of your emotional outbursts. They have evaluated the matter of abortion and decided that the fundamental legal issue involved is the right of a woman to control her own body. A man has the same right to control his own body.

The only argument that would overcome that would be if the courts were to rule that the fetus had some rights from the moment of conception. Then it becomes a matter of whose rights are greater - the fetus or Mom. But since there has not been ANY sign of a court granting a fetus rights, that's not something that's even on the table.

This is what is being attempted. To add "sexual preference" as a right. Two problems, if "preference" it assumes choice and "sexual", my goodness, have you SEEN what's on the internet? That's why I challenged someone to name the "right" being adjudicated. Putting it into words is very problematical. Most "rights" are easy to state, this one is harder.

The right to choose one's own partner. If the court has the right to tell me that I can't choose another man as a partner, then logically, they also have the right to tell me I can't choose a black woman or a Jewish woman as a partner, as well.

Fundamentally, I don't think it matters if it's a preference or biological. That's a red-herring raised by people who are eager to control how someone behaves in their bedroom. if someone chooses to sleep with a person of the same sex, the argument is that it is their right - regardless of whether it's a rational choice or biologically programmed into them.

Arguing that it's a choice rather than nature does not have ANY impact on the discussion.

No. THIS IS NOT A PRIVACY ISSUE!!!!! It is exactly the opposite. It is a seeking of societal approval. Even this thread has pointed that out.

Of course it's a privacy issue. What right does the state have to tell me who I sleep with?

 

[ecmst12]

Well, what does marriage have to do with sex??

 

[mistoffolees]

There are NO anti sodomy laws that are in force, the 14th AM took care of that.

Absolutely false. The 14th amendment had nothing to do with it.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' law in 2003. A number of states had previously dropped their laws either by judicial or legislative action.

In addition, there ARE anti-sodomy rules in force even today in the U.S. Military.


It's interesting that you bring up the 14th amendment. That is actually one of the greatest arguments for gay marriage. To quote:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Americans have the privilege of getting married. What due process has been used to deny gay people of the right to get married?

 

[BOR]

The only argument that would overcome that would be if the courts were to rule that the fetus had some rights from the moment of conception. Then it becomes a matter of whose rights are greater - the fetus or Mom. But since there has not been ANY sign of a court granting a fetus rights, that's not something that's even on the table.

Courts have granted fetus' rights, ever hear of fetal homicide laws??

If a woman says a fetus is not a person, then she can't complain if the baby is killed per the FH law. Why should the offender be sentenced for a murder of a bunch of gook then??

 

[tranquility]

ONE of the reasons I support marriage equality is because (historically) legal equality is the first step towards TRUE equality.

We do have marriage equality. We have exactly the same rules. Exactly.

However, a minority of society feel that acceptance of their lifestyle is moving at a slower pace than they want, so being able to marry a person of the same sex needs to be considered a right so that acceptance/equality comes faster. Me? I think it is a tactical error. People hate having things shoved down their throat based on some technical argument that common sense tells us is untrue. (Not the equality portion, but the equal protection argument.) Because of the insistence to push the issue in the courts, we may very well end up with a Supreme Court decision which will basically declare gays and straights are *not* equal regarding their preferences. Being on the wrong side of the law and of popular, religious and cultural support is not going to further the cause of gay rights. Even if the court were not to so find, like abortion, stances will harden and no dialogue will occur. Even though abortion is legal, is it accepted? Will it ever be? I think it would have been better to continue as had been. Acceptance was being raised and, in time, I think it inevitable gay marriage would have been allowed in all the land and gay rights would be a matter of course with broad societal acceptance. Now? It is slightly more likely there will be gay marriage and much more unlikely there will be societal acceptance.

Honestly I don't think it's possible to really study the topic because of the OVERWHELMING social pressure in our society to be straight.

I agree. Let's face it, one does not need to read a study to know it's conclusion, one only need see the author(s). But, for the real thinkum, WHY is there overwhelming social pressure in our society to be straight?

Why is everyone wrong?

 

[tranquility]

Well, what does marriage have to do with sex??

Some would claim an inverse relationship between the two.

 

[BOR]

Absolutely false. The 14th amendment had nothing to do with it.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' law in 2003. A number of states had previously dropped their laws either by judicial or legislative action.

In addition, there ARE anti-sodomy rules in force even today in the U.S. Military.

I am aware of Lawrence v Texas and it was decided on 14th AM Due Process grounds. TX had anti sodomy laws on the books, the SC struck it down.

It's interesting that you bring up the 14th amendment. That is actually one of the greatest arguments for gay marriage.

The US SC has already ruled there is NO 14th AM violation for same sex marriage prohibitions.

People support the "rule of law" for Roe, but not the "rule of law" for Baker v. Nelson.

 

[mistoffolees]

I agree. Let's face it, one does not need to read a study to know it's conclusion, one only need see the author(s). But, for the real thinkum, WHY is there overwhelming social pressure in our society to be straight?

Why is everyone wrong?

At one time, there was overwhelming social pressure to enslave blacks. At one time, there was overwhelming social pressure to prevent women from voting. At one time, there was overwhelming social pressure to make oral sex illegal (even between a man and a woman).

The beauty of our system is that it recognizes that individuals have fundamental human rights that are NOT derived from popular vote.

Courts have granted fetus' rights, ever hear of fetal homicide laws??

If a woman says a fetus is not a person, then she can't complain if the baby is killed per the FH law. Why should the offender be sentenced for a murder of a bunch of gook then??

Fetal homicide laws are a mess. In most cases, they are defined as a crime against the mother rather than inherently defining a fetus to have human rights. In others, they laws define the fetus to have limited rights - but only in protection from assault (and specifically spell out that the fetus has no other rights).

Not to mention that they have not actually been well enough defined by the Supreme Court to make ANY determinations as to what they mean.

Ultimately, you are correct that IF THE COURTS DETERMINE that a fetus has fundamental human rights that it might change the right of the mother to have an abortion, but that has not yet happened. As of today, a woman's right to control her own body overrides any rights of the fetus (if the fetus has any rights at all) and certainly the male involved has ZERO rights to control what a woman does with her body.


It's a tough situation and I'm sympathetic. Abortion offends me on a visceral basis, but under law, women have that right. Frankly, to me, the entire discussion is misguided. If we spent 1/10 the money and energy that people spend fighting over abortion on birth control education, research, and availability, the abortion problem would be reduced by 90% overnight. But that doesn't change the fundamental rights involved.

 

[ecmst12]

Pretty sure the supreme court hasn't made ANY rulings regarding same sex marriage at this time.

 

[BOR]

Pretty sure the supreme court hasn't made ANY rulings regarding same sex marriage at this time.

That is incorrect.

 

[tranquility]

At one time, there was overwhelming social pressure to enslave blacks. At one time, there was overwhelming social pressure to prevent women from voting. At one time, there was overwhelming social pressure to make oral sex illegal (even between a man and a woman).

No there wasn't. Be more precise in what you're trying to argue.

The beauty of our system is that it recognizes that individuals have fundamental human rights that are NOT derived from popular vote.

How can it be a fundamental human right for people of the same sex to marry when it has never (You can put an "almost" before the never if you use odd definitions of marriage.) been so for ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY?