In Defense of the Marriage

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

It ties in nicely to something that Towny said and something that my mother has been arguing for a long time, that democracy doesn`t work because the average citizen doesn`t have the intellect to wield their vote in a sensible and well reasoned manner. The majority of people may have voted against the amendment, that is their right, but at the end of the day they are using that vote to legitimise their own bigotry because that is easier than facing up to their prejudice.

And that is their right to do so. You may not like it, but you're not a citizen there, so respect it. If you are so opposed to democracy, maybe you should move to the Worker's Republic of Cambodia.

Oh and, I suppose the fact that there is a law preventing sex with minors is just an abuse of a democratic society "legitimise their own bigotry because that is easier than facing up to their prejudice."

Good work.

You don`t have a clear division between the powers of the court in the USA, otherwise the Supreme Court wouldn`t have been able to rule against the sodomy laws in Texas.

Yes there is a clear dividing line between the separation of powers. In that decision, the Supreme Court didn't enact a law, they merely ruled that the law made by Texas is against the Constitution (which it is). You failed to demonstrate how this relates to being not a clear division of power.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Yes, and I don't claim to have all the answers either. However my point stands. *marriage* is reserved for a man and a woman.

Only because people like you have decided that it should be reserved in this manner. And don`t come back and argue that it is in the bible, as that should have nothing to do with legislation in a secular state. To be honest, if there were a referendum on this issue, I think that any vote that has been demonstrated to have been cast on religious grounds, either for or against, should be discounted as it goes against the principals of a secular state.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Only because people like you have decided that it should be reserved in this manner.

Yes, and it has been like that for thousands of years. It was invented by heterosexuals.

And don`t come back and argue that it is in the bible, as that should have nothing to do with legislation in a secular state. To be honest, if there were a referendum on this issue, I think that any vote that has been demonstrated to have been cast on religious grounds, either for or against, should be discounted as it goes against the principals of a secular state.

However, people have the right to vote in accordance what their religion tells them to. You may dislike it, but I value that right.

If someone wants to legalize dog-man sex, for example, I will vote against it and my religion will have an influence on it.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

And that is their right to do so. You may not like it, but you're not a citizen there, so respect it. If you are so opposed to democracy, maybe you should move to the Worker's Republic of Cambodia.

Oh and, I suppose the fact that there is a law preventing sex with minors is just an abuse of a democratic society "legitimise their own bigotry because that is easier than facing up to their prejudice."

Good work.

Thank you, you've entirely proven my point as to why some people shouldn`t be allowed to vote. Once again you've conflated entirely irrelevant issues to try and win your argument, and once you start conflating issues in this manner it becomes entirely trivial to dismiss anything your type as irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Yes there is a clear dividing line between the separation of powers. In that decision, the Supreme Court didn't enact a law, they merely ruled that the law made by Texas is against the Constitution (which it is). You failed to demonstrate how this relates to being not a clear division of power.

Mere semantics, at the end of the day the decision of the Supreme Court will be the one that is applied. Ok, so they don`t do the actual applying of the changes themselves, but they are the ones that have decided what changes will be pushed through.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Sociable

The compromise which may well evolve, at least in the UK, will be some form of civil †œcontractÃÂà ‚¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ƚÂÂ� recognised for all statutory purposes as †œmarriageÃÂà ‚¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ƚÂÂ� and available to all without discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. This will still be restricted by rules based on age and existing family relationships to prevent incest and the abuse of the young.

I'm in total agreement with you. The trouble would begin I think, if in law there existed 'marriage' and 'civil-union'. IMO if there is a diffrentiation in the law between the two it leaves itself open for discrimination in the future, as one of the US Court Judges stated 'different is rarely equal'. It doesn't matter in my eyes whether the law states either 'marriage' or 'civil-union', as long as it is one or the other and not both.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Oh and, in terms of a civil union, corporations and employers should have the right to choose whether they recognize it, and whether benefits will be applied.

This would create an extremely dangerous precedent in my opinion, it would be starting down the road to rule by corporation, a very scary thought.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Yes, and it has been like that for thousands of years. It was invented by heterosexuals.

And how did the human race procreate before this incredible "invention"? Where is the patent filed?

Just because something has been around for a long time doesn`t legitimise it. The poor treatment of racial groups other than Caucasians had been around for a long time in the west before society started to consider it unacceptable.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Thank you, you've entirely proven my point as to why some people shouldn`t be allowed to vote.

Interesting. Agree with me, or you can't vote? That sounds like the Soviet Union and China. Yep, you're on the right track if you're a fanboy of socialism/communism.

I, on the other hand, believe that all productive members of society have the right to vote. That exludes criminals and welfare recipients. See the difference between us? I believe in the current U.S. system, greatest democracy on earth, and you would rather assign voting rights based on who agrees with you.

Once again you've conflated entirely irrelevant issues to try and win your argument, and once you start conflating issues in this manner it becomes entirely trivial to dismiss anything your type as irrelevant.

Yes sir.

Mere semantics, at the end of the day the decision of the Supreme Court will be the one that is applied. Ok, so they don`t do the actual applying of the changes themselves, but they are the ones that have decided what changes will be pushed through.

And that is what their job is. Interpret the law. You've clearly demonstrated that there is a separation of powers, and your "mere semantics" is just a laughable excuse. Do you know what the separation of powers mean and imply?

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

This would create an extremely dangerous precedent in my opinion, it would be starting down the road to rule by corporation, a very scary thought.

If civil unions were recognised in law there would also be the necessary legal framework to protect the recognition of those rights, much in the same way we now have specific legislation against discrimination in the work place on the grounds of ethnic background and gender. Jerrek can bleat on all he likes about ignoring these unions should they come to pass, but at the end of the day he won`t have any choice about whether he recognises them or not.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

This would create an extremely dangerous precedent in my opinion, it would be starting down the road to rule by corporation, a very scary thought.

What? How will corporations now start to "rule" the country? They can't make laws! They can't enact laws! They can't govern! They can't pass judgment!

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

And how did the human race procreate before this incredible "invention"? Where is the patent filed?

Garden of Eden, c. 4400 B.C. Humans didn't procreate before that.

Just because something has been around for a long time doesn`t legitimise it. The poor treatment of racial groups other than Caucasians had been around for a long time in the west before society started to consider it unacceptable.

I agree, but I do value tradition, and this is not harming anyone.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Interesting. Agree with me, or you can't vote? That sounds like the Soviet Union and China. Yep, you're on the right track if you're a fanboy of socialism/communism.

I never said that you had to agree with me in order to get the vote, merely that you had to have the capacity in the first place to think through the reasons for casting your vote one way or the other, and not to be merely led by the tabloids or what some 2000 year old book tells you.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

I, on the other hand, believe that all productive members of society have the right to vote. That exludes criminals and welfare recipients. See the difference between us?

The fact that you would exclude people from welfare automatically voting speaks volumes about your attitude to human rights. Of course, in these times of turbulent economies you can absolutely guarantee that you would be in gainful employment your entire life?

Originally Posted by Jerrek

And that is what their job is. Interpret the law. You've clearly demonstrated that there is a separation of powers, and your "mere semantics" is just a laughable excuse. Do you know what the separation of powers mean and imply?

And if their interpretation of the law is upheld, as it is in this case, and any changes to the law are enacted based on their interpretations, then at a fundamental level they are making the laws. Maybe Dubya isn`t scrawling his X on a bit of paper, but at the end of the day that amounts to little more than a rubber stamp.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

That exludes criminals and welfare recipients

Sorry to take this off track once again, but you actually believe that people on welfare shouldn't have the right to vote?

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

If civil unions were recognised in law there would also be the necessary legal framework to protect the recognition of those rights, much in the same way we now have specific legislation against discrimination in the work place on the grounds of ethnic background and gender. Jerrek can bleat on all he likes about ignoring these unions should they come to pass, but at the end of the day he won`t have any choice about whether he recognises them or not.

I want to give employers the right to choose.

[Sociable]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

What? How will corporations now start to "rule" the country? They can't make laws! They can't enact laws! They can't govern! They can't pass judgment!

Well leaving asside the ways they do often influence governments the key thing is your assertion that they should still be able to discriminate, even if such "unions" were made lawful, is obviously unsupportable.

They would have to recognise the union for all official aspects of benefits, pensions and other employee rights. As to use your phrasing "They are not above the law either".

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

What? How will corporations now start to "rule" the country? They can't make laws! They can't enact laws! They can't govern! They can't pass judgment!

But if civil unions were written into the law, you are arguing that Corps should be exempt from or allowed to ignore that law. Which I am arguing would set a precedent for corporations discarding/ignoring other laws in the future, I didn't say that that they would immediately gain governance of the country