Thread: If It's All The Same To You, Why Deny Others?

I didn't choose any of the options in the poll, because my opinion wasn't up there.

What I would say, is that the government should have absolutely no hand in marriage of any kind, what so ever, no exceptions.

No marriage licenses, no legal divorces. It's none of uncle sam's business.

The bottom line is that there is no shortage of people anywhere in this world who feel their way is the right way and that's they way they see it. Unfortunately, many of these people if they had the chance would ensure that everyone did what they felt is right and don't give a damn about others rights or opinions. Its one of the reasons humans fight war after war throughout the world.

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

I don't think we should deny their rights "because it doesn't affect us". Who's to say that it does or does not affect us?

I am asking the simplest question at the simplest level. Please take it at face value and forget about the long term consequences and statistical implications. I am curious about the passionate need to be involved or concerned with the choices of strangers.

An old man protesting violently against the legality of abortion. An abortion for any reason performed on a complete stranger does not affect this man. He simply wants all abortions stopped forever. It is something in his gut driving him. What? Why?

A middle aged woman married with children stands in front of a polling place screaming at a gay couple, "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" The gay couple are not related to her. Why would she so vehemently deny them the same deal she herself has enjoyed?

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

I didn't choose any of the options in the poll, because my opinion wasn't up there.

What I would say, is that the government should have absolutely no hand in marriage of any kind, what so ever, no exceptions.

No marriage licenses, no legal divorces. It's none of uncle sam's business.

I can dig that but the "legal marriage" provides benefits that are doled out by the government. That is the crux of the matter. The government provides tax breaks and other things for married couples.

I think this is about belief.
People do not like to feel insecure, but as soon as you show them an alternative way of doing the things they believe in, they will.

Originally Posted by icedog

I am asking the simplest question at the simplest level. Please take it at face value and forget about the long term consequences and statistical implications. I am curious about the passionate need to be involved or concerned with the choices of strangers.

Because, in their mind, it does affect them. Somehow, someway, they believe it. Whether it's their morals being encroached upon because they might have to explain to their children why two men are kissing and wearing wedding rings or that God will destroy the country via fire and brimstone.

I think you'll find that if they believed that it truly did not affect them, they would not be so vehement about it. Ask that same woman about the HIV epidemic an Africa, and ask that old man about the recent Pirate Bay ruling in Sweden. Whether they know it or not, those issues probably do affect them, but they perceive that they don't, and therefore likely won't be picketing about it.

Originally Posted by jockeys

i've never wanted the gov't to have the power to control my private life, ...

...needless to say, it gave him some food for thought.

I'll add a little more fuel to the fire for thought. Watch this: The American form of government. (Video)

It's an interesting little essay that sums up some of the arguments here, but in the most general fundamental terms as it relates to who gets to decide the issues as a democracy, or the standard against which decisions are made, as in the law.

My signature takes on a whole different meaning given the current state of the economy. The economy can take on the same force as the single issue of gay marriage, or abortion, or the war on terror, or global warming, or ________ the issue du jour.

What happens is that the politicians/media can make the herd move based on simple fearful inflammatory values couched in single issues. They polarize the voting body. The herd will not move if it's educated and moderate. If the herd is afraid and moving, the thin veneer of civilization will last about thirty seconds.

As Jockey's example points out, the swinging pendulum has the most danger in becoming stuck in one extreme or the other. That's where the most money is made.

I do not understand the mob rule argument. If one group ends up outnumbering another, generally that group, under the democratic ideal, will have more sway in all matters whether it be gay marriage, gun laws, or anything in between.

Am I missing something? As long as people bother to vote, and vote based on their ideals, isn't democracy in essence mob rule? I understand the checks (cheques!! ) and balances nature of a modern democracy, but bottom line is that if 90% of the population agree with Gay marriage, and vote their representatives in based on that, then whatcha gonna do? Hasn't the mob spoken?

Oh, and I am all for Gay marriage, btw. Although I doubt it is the "marriage" part that Gay people care about - it is the acceptance and equality it represents that matters, I suspect.

James.

The government should not restrict anything regarding marriage unless it somehow stands to violate the government protected rights of someone.

But since the US government does have its multi fingered hand dipped into every aspect of its citizens' personal lives, I would prefer it not to recognize a "marriage" between same gender people. To me that is doing it wrong twice and I'd prefer the state just stay out of it completely

Originally Posted by Mike Blue

I'll add a little more fuel to the fire for thought. Watch this: The American form of government. (Video)

I did spend the 10 minutes in which the author(s) started with 5 general forms of government and proceeded to reduce them to a choice between two. The other three were dismissed as either a cover for the 'negative' one, or a temporary transition towards it.
Some of the arguments for doing so were speculative, others were interpretations of history.

I learned a new thing. Apparently historical examples of 'government type A' ends and gives way to 'government type B' can mean either that 'government type A' is inherently doomed to failure, or that 'government type A' is one of the only sustainable possibilities.

No, I'm not that gullable.


Society, morals and values do change and eventually the government does reflect these changes. If it can't happen via peaceful evolution it will eventually happen via revolution and civil war. Laws just provide some inertia to this. The US constitution has been amended 27 times so far and it's safe to assume it will be amended again.

For example I'm pretty sure currently there is a minority of people who consider slavery as a good thing, slaves should have no right to marry, and inter-racial marriages should not be allowed either. When the US constitution was written these people were a majority and these things were then legal.

I expect that the same thing will happen with the gay marriages/unions/rights. And then it will be some other issue which today seems very clear cut to us but in few generations it would be up for debate.

Of course gay people would like to be accepted in the society, black people probably wanted the same thing when the founding fathers created the US constitution.

Bottom line is things change.