MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The American ExperienceContains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  General  
  Ask Management  
  Member's Place  
  Coffee Breaks  
  Members Recipes  
  Pictures  
    
  Backup Group  
  Links  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : I've changed my mind about "gay-marriage"........
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 57 in Discussion 
From: govols  (Original Message)Sent: 11/28/2008 4:40 AM
Some people say that we all get set in our ways, and while we might entertain arguments presented by others, we don't usually change our minds on issues we've already decided. For the most part they're right--at least in my case. I tend to form my opinions and then stick to them. That's how I, in the past, have treated the idea of marriage between homosexuals. Somebody said "gay-marriage" and I went, "Huh?" I've argued the "anti" position from perspectives ranging from linguistics and tradition to the notion that equal rights are provided for by the existing "conservative" rules for marriage: homosexuals have the exact same rights to marry under current law that heterosexuals do.

The thing is, I've changed my mind. I now think homosexuals OUGHT to have the right to marry any "of age, human" who legally enters into the union. I think every State should codify the notion, but that the federal government should present to the States an amendment to the Constitution.... "The several States shall have jurisdiction over the institution of marriage, but no State shall be bound to accept as legal any marriages that don't comply with its own laws."

What it boils down to is this... I've come to the conclusion that marriage between homosexuals in no way threatens the personal liberty of other individuals. "Gay marriage" is an assault against all sorts of stuff like tradition and the meaning of words, but it in no way infringes on other individuals. A State's allowance of homosexuals to marry does not violate the rights of any of its other citizens. Such an allowance changes the definition of marriage but it does NOT change the nature of more traditional marriages.

The fed has no role in the matter beyond a proposal to leave it to the States, and the individual States really OUGHT to let it happen.


First  Previous  43-57 of 57  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 43 of 57 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname_Driver_7Sent: 12/1/2008 10:15 PM
That argument is rather lame, JT.  Kinda like arguing that the civil rights act expanded government powers, which it didn't.
 
The real danger is when people attempt to use the law to pertetuate their biases and prejudices.

Reply
 Message 44 of 57 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname_Driver_7Sent: 12/1/2008 10:16 PM
...... and perpetuate, even...

Reply
 Message 45 of 57 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknamealaskanfreeSent: 12/1/2008 10:31 PM
Driver,
  The Civil Rights Act most certtainly did expand government powers. Before the Civil Rights Act, the government could not do things like force business owners to do business with folks that they did not want to do business with due to race, or prosecute them for violating a person's civil rights. It increased the government's powers over private enterprise greatly.

Reply
 Message 46 of 57 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname_Driver_7Sent: 12/1/2008 10:35 PM
The Civil Rights Act basically gave government more legal authority to protect the rights of minorties. I guess it expanded government somewhat, but the Constitutional authority (Bill of Rights) was already in place.

Reply
 Message 47 of 57 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname_Driver_7Sent: 12/1/2008 10:39 PM
I suppose it was more like a balance.....
 
Local communities who enforced "Jim Crow Laws" could, by law, no longer enforce them.  Perhaps a shift in the paradigm?

Reply
 Message 48 of 57 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknamealaskanfreeSent: 12/2/2008 12:00 AM
  It also gave the federal government powers that it did not have before. That is just a simple fact.

Reply
 Message 49 of 57 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname_Driver_7Sent: 12/2/2008 12:09 AM
I'll concede the point.  True..... any Consitutional amendment expands government powers to an extent, but in the case of the Civil Rights Act, it also expanded individual liberties, which is what the US Constitution is supposed to do.
 
If I had my way I'd repeal every constitutional amendment enacted in the 20th century, except the Civil Rights Act.

Reply
 Message 50 of 57 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname_Driver_7Sent: 12/2/2008 12:18 AM
.....and that Interstate Highway thing.....

Reply
 Message 51 of 57 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknamealaskanfreeSent: 12/2/2008 12:23 AM
  Which Civil Rights Act? There have been several dating back to 1866. None of them were constitutional amendments. Perhaps you are confusing one of the Civil Rights Acts with the 13th, 14th or 15th amendment.

Reply
 Message 52 of 57 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname_Driver_7Sent: 12/2/2008 12:53 AM
Point of clarification....
The Civil Rights Act of 1964.... the Constitutional amendment 14th.

Reply
 Message 53 of 57 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname_Driver_7Sent: 12/2/2008 1:00 AM
I might be wrong, but I believe the Civil Rights Act of 1964 just expanded the 14th Amendment. 
I'll be the first to admit that the 14th amendment needs to be repealed and re-written for a post-recontruction America.

Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations  Message 54 of 57 in Discussion 
Sent: 12/2/2008 2:47 AM
This message has been deleted by the author.

Reply
 Message 55 of 57 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameTheJollyTrollSent: 12/2/2008 2:50 AM
So, tell me....what other people's business are liberals pathologically sticking their noses in?  Just what is it about liberals that you don't trust JT?
 
Sex Education for one.
 
Ninth Circuit Deals Blow to Parental Rights

City: San Francisco, CA
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected a lawsuit brought by parents against a school which administered sexually-themed surveys to young schoolchildren. In so doing, the Ninth Circuit made clear that parents have little control over what their children will be taught in public schools.

The case, Fields v. Palmdale School District, arose after school officials obtained parents’ permission to administer a psychological survey to first, third and fifth-graders. The school stated that the survey would measure exposure to early trauma and behaviors such as anxiety, depression and aggression. In fact, the survey contained ten sexually-provocative questions, asking the seven- to ten-year-olds to rate on a scale from “never” to “almost all the time” how often they engaged in activities such as “Touching my private parts too much,” “Thinking about having sex,” “Thinking about touching other people’s private parts” and “Not trusting people because they might want sex.” Outraged parents filed a lawsuit attempting to assert their privacy rights under Supreme Court precedent to direct the upbringing of their children, especially in regard to sexual issues.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed, stating that parents who send their children to public schools do not have a constitutional right to exercise control over the school’s decisions to teach or discuss sexuality. The Court further declared that schools may teach freely about issues such as gay marriage and evolution without regard for objections by “idiosyncratic” parents. The Court even went out of its way to praise right to privacy cases including Roe v. Wade and to note that, in some cases, the state may “supplement or even in some circumstances supplant parents’ interest in the custody, care and nurture of their children.”

Reply
 Message 56 of 57 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname_Driver_7Sent: 12/2/2008 2:56 AM
The Ninth Circuit Court....?
 
We call it, " The Circus Court"   for very sound reasons.

Reply
 Message 57 of 57 in Discussion 
From: govolsSent: 12/2/2008 2:58 AM
It's not beyond the reasonable to think a "right" to marry might result in Churches being forced to conduct them. If nothing else, Churches could easily see their tax-exempt status threatened as it now is over political activity. The thing is, my new found support for "gay-marriage" is strictly a "civil rights" thing; I don't see any real harm stemming from a "civil union" that shares the name marriage. The problem is that "civil" has morphed from the relationship between the State and the citizenry to a far broader meaning. That's how "civil rights" came to mean more than equal treatment by the government, but instead government mandates that private businesses and individuals be prohibited from discrimination in their commercial dealings.

It isn't a stretch to see Churches choosing between their privileges and their doctrines.

First  Previous  43-57 of 57  Next  Last 
Return to General