BDS

That's a reasonable position. In fact, the Supreme court agreed with you (in effect) when it declared anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional. However, my point is still technically correct.

All laws interfere with potential human rights (that is, all laws limit human freedom coersively and forcibly). Which freedoms are "basic" is a matter of debate. The Communist (for example) might argue that property laws interfere with basic human rights, by denying workers the fruits of their labors. Sex has had a long history of legal interference, and not just homosexual sex, either. There are anti-fornication laws, anti-incest laws, and all sorts of regulations about sex.

BDS

Well, good point aobut minding our own business. However, legal marriage is our business, as it provides certain public benefits to the married couple. Personally, I have nothing against gay marriage (except that, as a single father, I think that parents, not husbands and wives, should be given state benefits. After all, childless couples tend to be rich, with two incomes.).

However, the laws restricting marriage to members of the opposite sex apply to (and restrict the behvior of) gays and straights alike. So while they may be based on bigotted concepts, they are not discriminatory per se. Using your logic, I could claim that laws against shop lifting discriminate against kleptomaniacs.

BDS

It's different because the law allowing men to vote, and failing to allow women to vote discriminated against women as a class of people, rather than against a particular behavior. If homosexuals were not allowed to vote, that would be equaly discriminatory.

However, all laws prohibit particular behaviors. So laws against sodomy, fornication, and (even) laws defining the nature of a legal marriage, fall in this category instead of the above category. We may disagree that particular behaviors SHOULD be prohibited, however to inveigh against the laws for the wrong reasons never helps anyone.

Starboy

Not exactly, in the case of homo marriage you would have to show that anyone is harmed more than would be the case for hetero marriage. In the case of shop lifting the shop owner is obviously harmed. It is about freedom, however not just your freedom but everyone's freedom. No foul no harm. As for discrimination, those that discriminate have always been poor judges. It has taken an outcry from those discriminated against to open their eyes. This has been such a recurring pattern that you would think that all those loving Christians would have figured it out by now.

Starboy

Bumble Bee Tuna

So technically, if we designed voting booths so that to vote, you had to give a semen sample for identification (just a silly example), then it wouldn't be discriminatory against women, because we wouldn't actually be saying "women can't vote". Instead, everyone can't vote, and women just so happen to be unable to produce semen and by chance can't vote?

Seems a bit silly to me.

-B

luvluv

Yes on both counts, multiple times. As far as the morality of gay marriage, that is of course not subject to vote or to official codification. But ultimately it's in the homosexual community's best interest that their rights are formally decided upon either by the American legislature or by the Supreme Court, otherwise laws protecting them aren't enforcable.

BDS

Well, in the case of marriage we single people are harmed. That is, we have to pay a higher percentage of the tax burden, because of the tax breaks conferred on married people. Whether we are harmed MORE in the case of homosexual marriage than in that of hetersexual marriage is iffy.

Personally, I think that married people shouldn't get any tax breaks (since two people living together can live more cheaply per capita than one person) until they have children. It is in the interest of society to support the rearing of children. Of course these breaks would apply to gay parents, too.

BDS

Sounds silly to me, too. It's obviously discriminatory. However prohibiting particular behaviors is not discriminatory (although, as I said, it may be based on bigotry). That's what all laws do. As far as the Supreme court decision to overturn sodomy laws, I'm all for it. However, it seems to me that under the same principles of privacy and lack of a victim we could also overturn (for example) all of the seat belt laws.

jenergy

[QUOTE=BDS]Well, I have nothing against gay rights. But let's at least be reasonably honest, straightforward and accurate as to how we discuss the matter. Gay people have the same rights as other people in this country right now. There's no law saying, "Gay people can't get married." Gay people often do get married, I believe. It's just that men aren't allowed to marry men, and women aren't allowed to marry women. This stricture applies equally to everyone, whether gay, or straight. [QUOTE]

Ach, semantics. Entschuldigung. Allow me to clarify: please replace the phrase "gay marriage" in any/all of my posts w/ the phrase "same-sex marriage." Now back to the real issue...?

jenergy

And btw, seat belt laws have very little to do w/ actually protecting people involved in accidents and much more to do w/ protecting the state from having to foot the medical bill for an insurance-less idiot who flies thru the window and becomes a veggie. Let us not assume that laws are there for OUR good. Pshh!