patrick.net

Bap33 says

tat,
this may shock you, but all of America’s bombs - both nuke and non-nuke - are purchaced by private citizens. lol. Cool huh?

OK--you obviously don't want to engage in this discussion. I imagine it's because you see that you don't really have a 2nd amendment argument at all. Of course you don't think the Bill of Rights guarantees you unlimited rights to "bear arms" at all. Nobody in their right mind does. So, you can argue that you want to have the right to carry a loaded weapon in your car--but just don't bring the 2nd Amendment into it...

thomas.wong1986 says

Marriage is centuries old institution, since time itself, where the children carry their family name in blood — blood relatives. There are no blood relatives, family lineage, or ancestry in gay marriage.

Using this reasoning, marriage should be limited to people who are of child-bearing age, who pledge to have tons of children (like that couple in the TV Show "19 kids & counting), and who only have sex for procreation. The day that they're done having kids, we should shoot 'em.
And using that reasoning, there's nothing wrong with procreating the day you're able. Warren Jeffs (polygamous leader in prison for marrying 14 year old girls against their will) should be let out of prison and we should let him loose at the elementary schools. Let's make divorce illegal, extra-marital relationships would be just ducky fine as long as the woman has good lineage...

But that's not realistic. We're legislating behaviors and sexual orientations that don't have anything to do with most of us. We don't like the idea of two men having sex, but most men I know wouldn't mind watching two women having sex.

Welcome back, Clarence. Good to see ya.

tat,
You can find logic in the votes of millions being tossed away by a lone, activist, judge. Yet, you can not support a logical right to arms. We will just disagree and continue a fine relationship from here.

Ellie,
if you review my posts on this thread I really tried to stay on my point. My point was the removal of voting rights by a lone judge when the results did not match the wants of the left. I'll move into the topic now. The only reason I can see for Gov to have any say in what/who/where/when marrige is ok, is for the function of a healthy society. If the guideline is moved to include marrige that is not healthy for society, then where does the Gov draw the line for unhealthy marrige? Please note, I did not specify any particular act or group, I just said unhealthy for society. The logical next step would be to group marriges into healthiest, healthier, healthy, less healthy, unhealthy, very unhealthy. I think we all would agree that the only reasonable function of Gov, as far a marrige, should be to promote a healthy society. Can we at least agree thus far? How would the Gov go about choosing the health ranking of potential couples? For example, a son - mom marrige would be unhealthy for society (right?) but it would need to be called such in a legal manner? How does that happen? That's right, a vote. So lawmakers don't mind their vote being used, but they allow a lone judge to remove ours. And my use of 2nd A rights to show this is the same deal. Ofcourse there are logical limits on gun rights, just as there are logical limits on marrige rights .. and those limits were placed by votes. On one hand the votes of the lawmakers absent the vote of the people, and on the other hand the vote of a lone judge DESPITE the vote of the people.

My point has been, all along, that the same thought process that allows for absolute limits on the 2nd A gun rights should work just fine for limits on marrige rights. Nothing about gay or God or whatever. Just a simple logic that there are limits on personal liberty with regard to what is best for society. And a scan of this topic shows that both sides agree with logical limits for the good of society, at the expense of personal liberty. Agreed?

Bap33 says

Ellie,
if you review my posts on this thread I really tried to stay on my point

I don't recall saying that you couldn't stay on-point. In fact, there are distinct parallels with both these issues. The vote on Prop 8 was highly influenced by the millions of dollars spent on both sides, and the 52% vote to pass showed how deeply polarizing the issue was. I can see both sides of the arms issue.

But I can't see both sides of the gay marriage initative. You said thait would be detrimental to society for a mother to marry her son - but it wouldn't be. It wouldn't be healthy if they were to have children, and there are all sorts of Freudian issues involved - but society wouldn't stop functioning if it were to happen.

Marriage is a personal issue. It's also a legal issue. I'm sure that there are gays who wouldn't get married even if it were legal, just as there are heterosexuals who choose not to marry. But the issue of legalizing gay marriage is simply about recognizing the union of two people who love each other and would like to be recognized in the eyes of the law. To have rights of survivorship, to have the right to be considered a family member in every way just as do other people, including being able to have healthcare benefits from their partner's employment if they choose to pay for it.

I simply don't see the problem, here. To me, it's granting equality to people. Others see it differently. But I also recognize that others feel differently. I do know one thing - if Prop 8 is unconstitutional, it won't stand regardless of what the voters say. That'll all be figured out in the future.

But I sincerely don't recall demeaning you for your views, nor can I wrap my mind around the supposed detrimental consequences of two people joining in marriage. 18,000 homosexual people are currently married in the state of Calif, according to signsonsandiego.com. I haven't noticed any difference and the sky didn't fall.

just sayin' my piece.

thomas.wong1986 says

Marriage is centuries old institution, since time itself, where the children carry their family name in blood — blood relatives. There are no blood relatives, family lineage, or ancestry in gay marriage.

Actually the traditions of marriage are millenia old. And they weren't always just between one man and one woman in antiquity or even as recent as the Middle Ages. Many cultures including some Native American cultures have had same sex marriage for millenia. Why choose a Christocentric view on morality to guide this country since we have separation of church and state? The state has no business in legislating religious morality and chosing one religion's set of traditions and hang ups over those of another religion.

And beyond that, this country wasn't even founded by Christians. We were founded by Deists, Free Masons, Universalists, Unitarians, and Quakers, mainly. Very few of the people who signed our founding documents would be considered Christian under today's standards and they didn't even consider themselves to be Christian. Our country was founded on secular humanist principals that were to be considered universal and untethered to any one religion/faith/moral tradition. These men were idealists and envisioned rights protected simply because of the fact of being born as a human being, not as a creature of some deity.

Bap33 says

The only reason I can see for Gov to have any say in what/who/where/when marrige is ok, is for the function of a healthy society.

And the issue is, on what basis do you define as healthy? Do you do it from a Christocentric or Judaic lens? No, because our government is vehemently secular. Therefore, you go with reason and logic.

You don't judge "healthiness" of relationships based on the irrational fear of "butt sex" and ancient biblical pronouncements made through a select chosen few who allegedly had these "laws" spoken to them by some sort of allegedly all-powerful Ancient Middle Eastern sky god.

Our government is secular. Reason and rationality are the guiding principals of our secular humanist form of government.

All good thoughts sim, and ellie I did not mean for my post to sound that way, this is great debate. ... I submit that for an act to be considered healthy for society it would be ok, and even desirable, for all members of the society to engage in said act. Being careful with fires is a healthy act for all society to engage in. Wearing a safety belt in a car is a healthy act for all of car operating society. Using cross walks and street lights are a good idea. Brushing teeth. Regular showering. Using clean food practices. Cooking pork well. Taking a bath. Standing in line and not cutting. Raising your hand/waiting your turn to speak. Opening the door for someone else. Not yelling fire as a prank. Not playing music loud. Not talking on your cell phone while others try to listen to a speaker. Walking across the road as quickly as comfortable when cars give the right-away. Putting the gas despenser back in the saddle. Returning the potty key to the shop owner. Wiping your feet off before walking in. Treating pets with kindness. Teaching your children how to act in society. Following requests like, staying off the grass, wet paint, wet cement.

THere is no law for most of these, but they are all things that make for a healthy society. Proper actions.

Improper actions should be called unhealthy for society. If everyone in society were to engage in an action -- and IF everyone doing so would undoubtedly harm society -- then would you agree that said action should be deemed unhealthy for society?

I think I have a crush on you Simcha, though I know it would be an unrequited love.

You're spot on, as usual, about our founders. I'd like to add though that even if our founders were Christians, the constitution still clearly delineates church and state. Whatever their personal views on the higher being, or lack thereof, they mostly didn't want us spiralling into a theocracy.

Bap33 says

Improper actions should be called unhealthy for society. If everyone in society were to engage in an action — and IF everyone doing so would undoubtedly harm society — then would you agree that said action should be deemed unhealthy for society?

Sure, a harmful action is harmful whether perpetrated by one person or all people. But I fail to see the harmful action of which you speak. Someone's sexual orientation isn't harmful, as long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights. What happens between two consenting adults is none of my business. Some heterosexual people are into some pretty kinky acts - but if they do so willingly it's fine by me. I don't want to know the specifics.

If we were to pass a law that said sex can only be performed in the missionary position, and someone used another position, would that make it harmful to society?

If everyone in our society were to be gay, they would possibly view heterosexuals and their sexual practices as abhorrant and unhealthy. Would that make my sexual orientation wrong?

I don't care if gay people get married, because it doesn't affect me. It does, however, affect me if they're not legally afforded the same rights as I. That's because they're human, they deserve equality just as do women, minorities, and people with disabilities. They're the same as you and me, except that we don't want to recognize it.

Bap33 says

All good thoughts sim, and ellie I did not mean for my post to sound that way, this is great debate.

Thanks Bap33, you have been a good debater in this thread. I greatly appreciate your arguments around the 2nd Amendment above, even if my responses border on the ridiculous sometimes and don't show my appreciation or respect for your opinions.

LowlySmartRenter says

I think I have a crush on you Simcha, though I know it would be an unrequited love.

Awwww... Why does it have to be unrequited? :) Love is love, even if it doesn't lead to romance.

LowlySmartRenter says

You’re spot on, as usual, about our founders. I’d like to add though that even if our founders were Christians, the constitution still clearly delineates church and state. Whatever their personal views on the higher being, or lack thereof, they mostly didn’t want us spiralling into a theocracy.

And you are spot on too, I must say. I try to remember that the founders were trying to escape religious oppression in England and Europe where only state sanctioned religions had a protected status and any other religion was persecuted mercilessly by the state. They wanted to create a form of government that would be entirely free from religious influence so that we would never descend into a theocracy.

elliemae says

If everyone in our society were to be gay...

Then our species would cease to exist just as the Shakers are no more because they required chastity. Someone has to reproduce. I believe in evolutionary reasons for homosexuality. I believe that having a homosexual or two in a tribe allowed the tribe to conserve resources to care for their offspring with greater abundance than if everyone reproduced. Homosexuals contributed to the tribe, strengthening it, and often offering childcare without burdening the tribe with more offspring that would need to be supported. And you could only have a few homosexuals otherwise the tribe would decline in numbers.

Maybe that alleged 10% of the population having a homosexual orientation is a sustainable evolutionary percentage of the population. I believe that homosexuality has a genetic component as well as an environmental component. I'm not entirely convinced that if homosexuals were to never reproduce (as they have in our history because marriage and reproduction have been the enforced expectation) because we don't prevent same sex marriage that there would no longer be homosexuals in our population. Not only would some homosexuals choose to reproduce, as we do now through artificial insemination or through sex with the opposite sex, but somehow in our evolutionary history homosexuality has always been present to some degree. Maybe it's just naturally encoded into our DNA as a species for our survival. (All of this is supposition and I don't have scientific studies to back any of this up.)

Simcha:
we were speaking in hypotheticals, not literally. Although, with our modern technology, we'd have little kids. Surrogates, test-tubes... and a gay guy could always get drunk and experiment with a lesbian.

happens everyday (in the reverse, with hetero's accidentally sleeping with a same sex partner) somewhere in America, or at least that's the story they tell after it happens.

elliemae says

Simcha:
we were speaking in hypotheticals, not literally. Although, with our modern technology, we’d have little kids. Surrogates, test-tubes… and a gay guy could always get drunk and experiment with a lesbian.
happens everyday (in the reverse) somewhere in America, or at least that’s the story they tell after it happens.

I know, I was continuing the hypotheticals to their logical conclusion as I saw it. :) Again, these are my observations and opinions based on my observations and they are not meant to be offered as scientific certainty.

elliemae says

Sure, a harmful action is harmful whether perpetrated by one person or all people. But I fail to see the harmful action of which you speak. Someone’s sexual orientation isn’t harmful, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon anyone else’s rights.

I carefully avoided any particular action. But ... extrapulating this a bit .... if ALL members of a society were to engage in this particular behavior that is 100% harmful to that society (as sim sez) it would kill the group off. That fact makes non-productive coupling less than a healthy choice for society - just because everyone can not do it and society continue - and this is not for any health reason or mental reason,(there may be some issues there) but rather just the bio-mechanics of the issue.

Unhealthy actions tolerated within society may not destroy society, but that does not make them healthy for society. It may be that tolerating unhealthy actions takes a toll on society. My example here would be drug/alky use. Porn may be another example. Both personal, and tolerated, and considered a sign of an unhealthy society by many.

So, I think we all can we agree that when a society allows a particular behavior that is unhealthy for society, that doing so should not result in that unhealthy behavior being made equal to healthy behavior. I am being general on purpose, because that is the only way it can be fair. It can not, and should not matter if it's about sex or sport or hygene .. behavior that is not healthy to society should be labled as such. Sure, the Bible called most of the unhealthy actions sin .. but, we are not talking Bible here. We are talking about any action that if done by all members of society results in harming the society.

Yes, making laws that try to enforce private morality is stuuuupid. That does not mean that the requirements for a healthy society are changed. Does it? The requirements for a healthy society, and the distinction of unhealthy actions of society members from healthy actions, are necessary in my opinion.
We all agree with personal liberty being checked for the good of society. If you see above I copy/pasted it about 6 times for effect - but I did not say it first.

I mentioned sex, sport, and hygene. I gave examples of sex and hygene, but I skipped sport. The killing of Cows, just for sport, if done by all of society would not be healthy, so it should not be tollerated. Our Indian brothers miss the Buffalo due to this action.

How am I doing thus far?

Bap33 says

I carefully avoided any particular action. But … extrapulating this a bit …. if ALL members of a society were to engage in this particular behavior that is 100% harmful to that society (as sim sez) it would kill the group off...

And if everyone were married heterosexually (one man to one woman) and reproduced indiscriminately, as we are doing now, we will run out of resources and kill not only ourselves off but we would take 90% of the other species with us. So, taken to the extreme, reproduction is harmful to society too.

If you take any action and replicate it to an outrageous degree it's harmful to society.

Having a certain segment of the population that doesn't reproduce works to keep our population in check, which we sorely need in today's world. Homosexuality is one way to keep the population in check. And since homosexuality is only present in allegedly 10% of the population and doesn't increase over time (really there is no such thing as "conversion" as some would like to claim) I don't see homosexuals overwhelming the population. Therefore, homosexuality is actually a benefit to society in the correct proportion. In fact I would argue that with over-population exploding all over the place we could use more homosexuality to control the rampant breeding that is going on that is harming our survival as a species.

So, Sim has never said that homosexuality was/is/will be even the least bit harmful to society ever. The post to which you may be referring actually argued the opposite. I was arguing that homosexuality is integral to the human experience and necessary for our survival as a species. Using your language, homosexuality is healthy for society and our species.

I submit that for an act to be considered healthy for society it would be ok, and even desirable, for all members of the society to engage in said act

spoken like a true conservative. Everybody HAS TO CONFORM TO ME AND MY NORMS. No exceptions!

Troy says

I submit that for an act to be considered healthy for society it would be ok, and even desirable, for all members of the society to engage in said act
spoken like a true conservative. Everybody HAS TO CONFORM TO ME AND MY NORMS. No exceptions!

I hate to bring this up but I will. The Nazis argued that killing off "undesireables" in their population was about the hygiene, health, and strength of the Aryan race. They killed off entire wards of the mentally challenged, mentally ill, disabled, Jews, Gypsies, priests, homosexuals, the blind, promiscuous women etc. all in the name of "hygiene" and "health." This is known as eugenics. It was all done in the name of creating a "healthy society."

Wow, Bap - your argument is good-ish.

Anything, when taken to the extreme, can be detrimental to society. Take drugs, for example. (tee hee, just reread that and it's funnyish). Seriously, pain medications are meant to control pain and are integral to many treatments. However, if one takes too much there could be dire circoumstances. Doesn't mean we should ban all medications. How's about tylenol? lovely medication for minor pain & headaches, but excessive dosing can ruin your liver and land you on a transplant list or mortician's table.

You used porn as an example. Pornography has been around since man has been around. Many people are just fine with it. Many are not. But I guarantee you, if I stick a photo of a naked woman in front of a man, he'll at least glance at it and it's doubtful he'll become addicted.

Bap33 says

Unhealthy actions tolerated within society may not destroy society, but that does not make them healthy for society. It may be that tolerating unhealthy actions takes a toll on society. My example here would be drug/alky use. Porn may be another example. Both personal, and tolerated, and considered a sign of an unhealthy society by many.

Bap33 says

We all agree with personal liberty being checked for the good of society.

We don't all agree, tho. The definition of "the good of society" is open to interpretation.
My point is that, while many consider something a sign of an unhealthy society, many others might not. That's what is super cool about the USA, we can be who we want and as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else in the process it's not a problem.

Our country is deep into a recession, with millions out of work and/or broke. We've got a massive oil slick in the gulf, immigration issues divide us and we continue to send our young men and women into a conflict that may very well get them killed.

We have so many other things upon which we could focus, and expend our resources. But we're arguing over whether two people's union is more precious than two other people.

In my opinion, the declaration of independence, constitution, and bill of rights are so broad that they give us all and any rights- even those that haven't been thought of yet. This was the miracle our founding fathers bestowed on us. The only restrictions on those rights are those placed on us by our elected officials.

Essentially,the whole gay marriage thing started when a gay couple went to a California city hall to get a marriage licience. When the clerk saw they were both the same sex, a supervisor was consulted and the supervisor decided that a same sex marriage was improper. In other words a bureaucrat didn't know what to do because a box didn't exist for that particular choice.

So San Francisco decided to perform the marriage because there was no law against it(yet). So now we have prop 8, and it's adjudged unconstitutionality. If, as I have opined in first paragraph, have any and all right not specifically restricted by legislative process, can someone explain to me without using personal moral or religious arguments why this particular right should be denied?

thomas.wong1986 says

Clarence 13X says

Whites who hate Mexicans voted for: California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to create a state-run citizenship screening system in order to prohibit illegal immigrants from using health care, public education, and other social services

Illegal means exactly as you state. Foreign nationals living or visting who are here illegally are “under the jurisdiction of the foreign powers”, not the US government. We have no obligation to provide health care, education or other social services.

Yet the underlying message that whites were sending to Mexicans is: We dont want you here, go back home.

thomas.wong1986 says

Clarence 13X says

If I remember correctly the PROTESTANTS came here because they were running away from the rules of the Catholic Church that they did not wish to follow

No, it was one faction of the Protestants fighting over the other. England wasnt Catholic.

My point still stands, its ok for christians to fight for their rights but not others.

Bap33 says

lol .. Clarence …. such a silly silly lib. Racebator Extraodinare.
tat,
this may shock you, but all of America’s bombs - both nuke and non-nuke - are purchaced by private citizens. lol. Cool huh?

Is liberal code word for N****R?

Because the only thing I think you dont like about liberals are the people that make up their constituency.

elliemae says

thomas.wong1986 says

Marriage is centuries old institution, since time itself, where the children carry their family name in blood — blood relatives. There are no blood relatives, family lineage, or ancestry in gay marriage.

Using this reasoning, marriage should be limited to people who are of child-bearing age, who pledge to have tons of children (like that couple in the TV Show “19 kids & counting), and who only have sex for procreation. The day that they’re done having kids, we should shoot ‘em.
And using that reasoning, there’s nothing wrong with procreating the day you’re able. Warren Jeffs (polygamous leader in prison for marrying 14 year old girls against their will) should be let out of prison and we should let him loose at the elementary schools. Let’s make divorce illegal, extra-marital relationships would be just ducky fine as long as the woman has good lineage…
But that’s not realistic. We’re legislating behaviors and sexual orientations that don’t have anything to do with most of us. We don’t like the idea of two men having sex, but most men I know wouldn’t mind watching two women having sex.
Welcome back, Clarence. Good to see ya.

Race baiting my way to the top!

Bap33 says

So, I think we all can we agree that when a society allows a particular behavior that is unhealthy for society, that doing so should not result in that unhealthy behavior being made equal to healthy behavior. I am being general on purpose, because that is the only way it can be fair. It can not, and should not matter if it’s about sex or sport or hygene .. behavior that is not healthy to society should be labled as such. Sure, the Bible called most of the unhealthy actions sin .. but, we are not talking Bible here. We are talking about any action that if done by all members of society results in harming the society.

I think this slipped past on accident. Do you agree with any of what I say in this paragraph?

sim,
I'm pretty sure you know I am not NAZI-ish, I'm just trying to share my view in a constructive way. I do like how your mind works. "Use your powers for good, Luke." lol

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says
permits came from the socialist minded leftists as a form of income.
Let’s get back on track then. BAP–what is your view on a private citizen buying nuclear bombs?

Before you came here Tat, everyday people were packing heat in Sunnyvale.
Murder rate back in the day was close to zero as it can get.

elliemae says

Using this reasoning, marriage should be limited to people who are of child-bearing age, who pledge to have tons of children (like that couple in the TV Show “19 kids & counting), and who only have sex for procreation. The day that they’re done having kids, we should shoot ‘em.

Tisk Tisk Tisk! It is not my reasoning, it is a fact shared by many cultures, else we all be fornicators.

Clarence 13X says

My point still stands, its ok for christians to fight for their rights but not others.

You made no point, but state an error.

Bap33 says

Bap33 says

So, I think we all can we agree that when a society allows a particular behavior that is unhealthy for society, that doing so should not result in that unhealthy behavior being made equal to healthy behavior. I am being general on purpose, because that is the only way it can be fair. It can not, and should not matter if it’s about sex or sport or hygene .. behavior that is not healthy to society should be labled as such. Sure, the Bible called most of the unhealthy actions sin .. but, we are not talking Bible here. We are talking about any action that if done by all members of society results in harming the society.

I think this slipped past on accident. Do you agree with any of what I say in this paragraph?

No, because people's rights come before "society". Your morality is the morality of the Taliban, and the American Prohibitionists of 100 years ago. The "Pursuit of happiness" trumps any totalitarian/majoritarian morality.

It's really quite fascist in fact, as simcha alluded to above.

But as a left-libertarian I do balance this anything-goes desire for personal freedom with the cold hard facts of your logic, in that individuals shouldn't be allowed to ruin themselves at society's greater *monetary* expense (since that is just diverting wealth from positive uses to mitigating avoidable damage -- every numbnut going through a windshield is one less medical procedure we can afford to subsidize to someone who needs it).

This comes down to where a sacrifice of liberty is no great "undue burden" in Constitutional terms. Primary examples being seatbelt/helmet laws, bans on public prostitution, and criminalizing the meth trade.

Homosexuality isn't an "unhealthy behavior", either. It's just different. At any rate, discriminating against gays isn't going to fix the issue if it did exist, so your point is just bizarre really. Even if 50% of the population turned gay I don't see the "health" angle.

thomas.wong1986 says

Before you came here Tat, everyday people were packing heat in Sunnyvale.
Murder rate back in the day was close to zero as it can get.

Before I came where? to Patnet?

thomas.wong1986 says

elliemae says
Using this reasoning...
Tisk Tisk Tisk! It is not my reasoning, it is a fact shared by many cultures, else we all be fornicators.

Thomas, I didn't say it was your reasoning, but just because many cultures share it doesn't make it right. I gots no beef with you.

Bap33 says

Bap33 says

So, I think we all can we agree that when a society allows a particular behavior that is unhealthy for society, that doing so should not result in that unhealthy behavior being made equal to healthy behavior...We are talking about any action that if done by all members of society results in harming the society.

I think this slipped past on accident. Do you agree with any of what I say in this paragraph?

I feel like I'm in a police interrogation room, where they ask hypotheticals, "if you had been in the room when the gentleman said you had poopy pants, wouldn't you agree that you would have felt like taking an uzi and shooting him and all his family members?"

The problem is that everything is detrimental to society when unchecked. Overeating (should be ban eating?), driving while tired (should we require a full 8 hours of sleep before people drive?), working too many hours (should we require people to take time off?), working too few hours (should we require everyone work a minimum of 40 hours per week?), gun ownership (should we limit the amount of guns one can own?), etc. As Simcha said, if homosexuality were to be unchecked it's possible that the human race would die off. Then my dog would rule the world, and could herd animals to her life's content. That, and eat dead things she finds without anyone taking them away from her.

People live together without a contract every day - and I dare say that many gay people wouldn't get married if they were able to because they're not in a committed relationship. The issue is that we're not speaking about unhealthy vs. healthy - we're attempting to use a law to keep people from being who they are.

If simcha were to move next door to me, I imagine we'd hang out on the porch and drink wine while we chatted. If he had a partner, we'd do the same. And if he were to marry that partner, nothing would change for me - but it would for them. Their union would afford them a few more legal rights that I can have if I choose to marry.

elliemae says

The issue is that we’re not speaking about unhealthy vs. healthy - we’re attempting to use a law to keep people from being who they are.

Well, not me. I was talking about the rights of society vs the rights of the individual because that was the basis for placing limits on weapon rights - please see above for about 9 bizzillion posts from the left-leaning side that says expressly society has a right to limit liberties of the individual that are "potentialy" unsafe for society -- everyone having nuke bombs for example. So, it is my point that if the limits of individual liberty is best for society at any time, then it is reasonable to allow society to protect itself all the time, especially if society voices it's desire in a vote. It has been shared that the left-side of society wants protection from masses of armed crazy people due to the "potential" of what could happen (but, we both know no vote by society supports this view). Contrast this with the fact that Prop 8 shows society wants protection from the "potential" of having behavior it tollerates in a private consenting adult setting, to not be viewed as harmful to society. The individual liberty is checked to the benifit of society in both instances - against potential harm to society if unchecked. Add to this the voting issue involved; the voted voice of society vs activist judges and lawmakers bending to the mighty dollar, and maybe my point will be more acceptable?

elliemae says

If simcha were to move next door to me, I imagine we’d hang out on the porch and drink wine while we chatted. If he had a partner, we’d do the same. And if he were to marry that partner, nothing would change for me - but it would for them. Their union would afford them a few more legal rights that I can have if I choose to marry.

I think Sim seems like a fine person. So I agree with your point. And we can agree that his private activity could possible have zero effect on any other member of society. But, private activity is not what's being brought forth - in my opinion.
I disagree with having legal rights to another's stuff without a civil/public expressed union (I guess that may be just a contract) that includes expected duties of both parties (help, welfare, housing, children, loans and bills, ext ext - not private activity things). A church union should not carry any more weight in the eyes of the law (or society) than a non-church union, in my opinion.

Are we getting closer? This has been very nice thus far. thanks to all (except Clarence - he's a real buttbreath)

Bap33 says

I was talking about the rights of society vs the rights of the individual because that was the basis for placing limits on weapon rights - please see above for about 9 bizzillion posts from the left-leaning side that says expressly society has a right to limit liberties of the individual that are “potentialy” unsafe for society — everyone having nuke bombs for example.

To have legal standing one must show harm. To legislate restrictions on liberty, one must pass the rational basis and undue burden tests of Due Process.

Gays getting married in the eyes of the law has zero effect on you (other than the benefits they will receive thereby).

So, it is my point that if the limits of individual liberty is best for society at any time, then it is reasonable to allow society to protect itself all the time, especially if society voices it’s desire in a vote.

And that's where you're going off the rails. Gun laws aren't for protecting "society", they're for protecting people in the here and now from disproportional harm, harm that tax and insurance payers -- aka "society" -- has to pay the bill for.

In the Prop 8 case, 52% of an electorate voting to take away equal rights of a 5% minority is neither "society" strongly voicing its desire nor is it anything about protecting individuals from rather unnecessary harms.

The Prop 8 proponents had their day in court to argue that their little hate addendum to the California Declaration of Rights passed rational basis and undue burden tests; they failed spectacularly.

"Society" will in fact have to pay a bit more for domestic same-sex couples acceding to the same benefits that traditional married partners get. The gains we get from more stable domestic same-sex partnerships should be worth this cost, at any rate, cost alone should not be the deciding factor in denying people equal rights.

But the gun-rights cases do have some parallel with gay-rights, the majority taking away rights of a minority for arguably Unconstitutional and/or irrational reasons. Funny how the God-Guns-Gays Republican party platform is in utter conflict with itself.

Upon further reading of the constitution I've concluded that this is the only valid interpretation:

Troy says

“Society” will in fact have to pay a bit more for domestic same-sex couples acceding to the same benefits that traditional married partners get. The gains we get from more stable domestic same-sex partnerships should be worth this cost, at any rate, cost alone should not be the deciding factor in denying people equal rights.

People have to pay for marriage licenses, changing their names on driver's licenses, etc. They also pay to get married - and I believe that the monies reaped will be much greater than those paid out. If we're talking healthcare benefits, for example, those people who don't qualify for their partner's health insurance might be racking up some huge bills at the hospital that aren't being paid. This results in higher costs for the rest of us, higher taxes for Medicaid/Indigent programs, etc. It'd be a cost neutral issue, IMHO.

Troy says

And that’s where you’re going off the rails. Gun laws aren’t for protecting “society”, they’re for protecting people in the here and now from disproportional harm, harm that tax and insurance payers — aka “society” — has to pay the bill for.

I don't get this statement, please explain. IMHO gun control is about people who've never handled a gun trying to tell me that my household is somehow less safe because I have a couple. They're trying to tell me that guns kill people - but people are the ones who kill people, and trying to regulate my guns doesn't change this fact. If someone is set on hurting another, they'll do it however they must. My guns are for sport, and also for protection.

I'm a liberal with guns - and there are many of us. No one I know has ever shot anyone else, nor have we ever drawn our weapons on anyone else. The only person I knew who was killed was the victim of a robbery where the guy had an unlicensed gun, and no gun control law will change that.

elliemae says

IMHO gun control is about people who’ve never handled a gun trying to tell me that my household is somehow less safe because I have a couple. They’re trying to tell me that guns kill people - but people are the ones who kill people, and trying to regulate my guns doesn’t change this fact. If someone is set on hurting another, they’ll do it however they must. My guns are for sport, and also for protection.

I don't want to get into the actual science of public safety and gun control, since it's a big can of worms, but public policy has to balance on the averages and not on individual aptitudes.

Widespread gun ownership does have a significant bleedover effect into the public safety realm -- the Glenn Beck-powered nutjob arrested in Oakland last month is a good example of California's gun control laws working as intended. No automatic weapons for him!

I believe the only right we have to military-style weaponry is the 2nd Amendment right, and that can be limited just like the other amendments have been from time to time to balance public safety issues.

was the victim of a robbery where the guy had an unlicensed gun, and no gun control law will change that

. . . yet where did the unlicensed gun come from?

If we want gun-violence deaths in the 22nd century to look like the rest of the civilized world, we've got to start now. . .

Comparing California to Canada is interesting because the populations are nearly the same in size. There's over 400 dead kids a year from guns in California. Canada has ~150 gun homicides in total. There's a clear public health and safety argument for limiting ownership of guns.

The best gun for home defense is a shotgun and I think we all have a basic right to that, Constitution or no Constitution. Handguns bleed over into the public safety aspect because they are much easier to conceal and blandish when committing a crime, and also more easier to play with and accidentally shoot something. Hunting rifles don't have much self-defense or crime aspect, but of course they are useful for hunting, and also have some 2nd Amendment protection cuz a dude with a hunting rifle is going to cause a lot more problems for the Sandinistas when they land than a dude with a Desert Eagle.

The issues are complex and nobody has any good answers. Except Howard Dean, I liked his idea to just leave the problem to the states to experiment with:

"What I have said is that rural states -- and this includes places like Tennessee , perhaps, that have low homicide rates -- don't need the same gun laws that urban states do.

"And if urban states want to have lots of gun control, let them have it, but just don't impose the same gun laws that you have in New York City or New Jersey or California on states like Vermont, which have a very low homicide rate."

elliemae says

They’re trying to tell me that guns kill people - but people are the ones who kill people, and trying to regulate my guns doesn’t change this fact.

Couldn't you make this argument for any weapon though? Using this logic, we're back to allowing Aunt Susie to own a grenade launcher or a bazooka.

tatupu70 says

elliemae says

They’re trying to tell me that guns kill people - but people are the ones who kill people, and trying to regulate my guns doesn’t change this fact.

Couldn’t you make this argument for any weapon though? Using this logic, we’re back to allowing Aunt Susie to own a grenade launcher or a bazooka.

Yea - not an easy issue to disseminate, is it? I don't think that weapson such as grenade launchers & bazookas should be legal - not only would they be weapons of mass destruction, but they'd knock Aunt Susie on her ass when she used them. Sure there should be some limits, but exactly where they should be is a problem.

When I was growing up, M-80's were fun for blowing up mailboxes. We also made a few pipe bombs because we could. But we never tried to hurt anyone, we just played with 'em. Ah, the good ol' days.

Nomograph says

Your argument that “the people have spoken” is unconstitutional when it comes to individual rights.

But ... that's not what "I say" .. that is what happened with my 2nd Am rights. Individual rights were removed, and should be seen as unconstitutional. Did you skip down to the end of this thread?? lol I have tried soooooo hard to share this above. lol

elliemae says

Yea - not an easy issue to disseminate, is it? I don’t think that weapson such as grenade launchers & bazookas should be legal - not only would they be weapons of mass destruction, but they’d knock Aunt Susie on her ass when she used them.

I would love to see Aunt Susie fire a grenade launcher and then a bazooka. That would make for great television. Maybe we could start a show. Guns 'n Ammo For Little Old Ladies. The weapons that they would shoot would be immense and they would have one hell of a kickback! I think it would be one of the highest rated shows on television.

Of course you could even do some serious segments about gun ownership for the masses. The segments could feature gun safety, choosing the right weapon for the right person, and training on how to shoot. Also it could educate the public about current gun laws.

elliemae says

weapson

Where was my spell check when I needed it? :)