Gay, Liberal Invasion of the Los Angeles Times

[rmngretsch14]

I'll agree to disagree with you Cali, because I have no problem with your sense of morality. I guess it's just my libertarian (anarchist?) views that the government's role in our society and social interactions should be limited. Oh and by no means to I condone pedophilia, because as I've stated when someone is harmed by someone else's beliefs those beliefs can be regulated, and children are harmed by situations such as the priest and alterboy situation

[Homz]

It's not that simple Homz' date=' Believing marriage to be between a man and a woman is also a Western historical perspective with nothing to do with religion or bigotry. I would turn question around and ask, if your not gay, why does it matter so much to you? Will your marriage be helped or hurt by supporting gay marriage?

 

I don't believe that there is ANY document that makes a claim that ANYBODY has a RIGHT to get married...it's certainly not an explicit right...is it?[/quote']

 

Any time someone's rights are infringed upon it infringes on my rights as an American. I have a duty as an American to defend our country and the Constitution. This is a constitutional issue. I am defending. My marriage is further secured by taking the moralizing out of it.

[KSG_Standard]

I'll leave it at this point so that fellow forumites don't think I'm a bully...but where is the right to marry granted? Who grants it? Where in the constitution is this issue made into a federal issue?

[rmngretsch14]

I would turn question around and ask' date=' if your not gay, why does it matter so much to you? Will your marriage be helped or hurt by supporting gay marriage?

I'll answer that if that's not a problem. It's simply a matter of perserving liberty. There was a catholic priest during the holocaust who said something along the lines of " When they came to take the gypsies I said nothing, because I was not a gypsy. When they came to take the socialists I said nothing, because I was not a socialist. When they came to take the jews I said nothing, because I was not a jew. When they came to take me, there was no one left to say anything." It's simply a matter of perserving your own liberties by perserving the rights of your fellow Americans, Abraham Lincoln was not a slave but thankfully he saw fit to fight for emancipation anyways.

[Californiaman]

I'll agree to disagree with you Cali' date=' because I have no problem with your sense of morality. I guess it's just my libertarian (anarchist?) views that the government's role in our society and social interactions should be limited. Oh and by no means to I condone pedophilia, because as I've stated when someone is harmed by someone else's beliefs those beliefs can be regulated, and children are harmed by situations such as the priest and alterboy situation[/quote']

 

That's good dialog.

Thank you.

I actually have common ground with you.

And the fact that you believe in some form of limited government leads me to believe you are actually more moderate than liberal. More common ground.

Got to go now.

Thanks

[rmngretsch14]

I'll leave it at this point so that fellow forumites don't think I'm a bully...but where is the right to marry granted? Who grants it? Where in the constitution is this issue made into a federal issue?

By golly you're right, none of us have the right to be married--let's nullify all of our marriages. The 9th Amendment could secure it to us, or deligate it to be handled by local govs..or it could just be that the government shouldn't really have a say in the people's formation of marriages. I don't have the right to have a computer in the Constitution either... I wonder if that makes it illegal

[Homz]

I'll leave it at this point so that fellow forumites don't think I'm a bully...but where is the right to marry granted? Who grants it? Where in the constitution is this issue made into a federal issue?

 

So that being a possibility I say we question the martial status of everyone under the law. Equal rights is that the law or is it Special rights for those that conform to what some call acceptable behavior. Am I special because I am a heterosexual who is married to a woman. Answer: No I'm not special for that reason. But under the current law in most states I must be special.

[rmngretsch14]

 

That's good dialog.

Thank you.

I actually have common ground with you.

And the fact that you believe in some form of limited government leads me to believe you are actually more moderate than liberal. More common ground.

Got to go now.

Thanks

This is turning out to be one of the forums most civil conversations actually. And I think as a libertarian I share beliefs with both sides of the board, like Ike said " I'm liberal when it comes to people, and conservative when it comes to money" It's a very Jeffersonian take on government, and I like Jefferson, despite his idiosyncracies

[KSG_Standard]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights

http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[Homz]

I don't know what your links are I didn't look. I'm more interested in the human conversation.

 

Something you said in another post made me think. It was something about looking at the issue from a historical point of view rather then it being bigotry.

 

So I ask you and any one else, if you can be honest for just one brief second. Is your belief that gay marriage is wrong based on a historical, religious and/or hatred of gays point of view.

[rmngretsch14]

Let's go back to the title of this thread "Gay, Liberal Invasion of the Los Angeles Times". Maybe I'm less informed than I should be but did these Gay Liberals literally invade the LA Times, ie., rush in guns blazing and overpower the previous staff forcing their surrender? Because that sounds illegal. Or did they just buy it? Because that just sounds like capitalism, which isn't wrong (is it?) The bigger question, are they asking for a bailout?

[KSG_Standard]

The links are definitions of rights from philosophical, legal and constitutional perspectives...

 

I don't hate gay people. My perspective on gay marriage comes from a mix of historical, biblical, traditional, legal and personal views. I have lost close friends to AIDS, I have both hired and worked for gay people, What sexual preference someone has, is none of my business, just like my sexual preferences are nobody's business either.

 

This issue doesn't seem to me anyway, to be about what I or you think about homosexuality, the argument is about whether or not to change our society's traditional, civil and legal definition of marriage, and how that change will/should take place if it takes place at all.

[Homz]

Unfortunately the federal government must get involved. There are legal gay marriages in a state or two already. Marriages are recognized in all 50 states even if they occurred in other states. So the legal beagles are going to have to do something. If a gay married couple move to Indiana from Boston then with the current laws will Indiana recognize that marriage. It's more important than some may think. State tax filings, power of attorney issues if one of the two were incapacitated, even simple visitation rights in the hospitals. Legal resolutions must be found on state and federal level.

[TheLiveSoundGuy]

{snip} I have lost close friends to AIDS' date=' I have both hired and worked for gay people, What sexual preference someone has, is none of my business, just like my sexual preferences are nobody's business either.

{snip}.[/quote']

 

You DO know that AIDS is not exclusive to gays. Don't you?

[KSG_Standard]

 

You DO know that AIDS is not exclusive to gays. Don't you?

 

 

You are kidding? I heard that AIDS was invented by Ronny Raygun to kill off all the gay people...

[rmngretsch14]

That bastard! He killed Freddie Mercury! Who is this Ronny Raygun and where can we find him, he must be destroyed