FRC: Comparing the Lifestyles of sexual Couples to Married Couples

[Blake]

Why must the sexual acts of individuals be the concern of the government? In what section of the Cons ution or the Bill of Rights is sex mentioned at all? TJ seemed like a rather randy fellow himself, but even he didn't think it was that important.

Since when is it the purpose of the government to outlaw/discourage/whatever sin? There are many sins that are perfectly legal. Then there are sins such as banging a woman other than your wife, but somehow that should be without consequences. To the extent sexuality represents a sin as sex outside of marriage, well, so does every other kind of sex. , we can't even agree on what cons utes sin to begin with.

Before I forget, we have two groups of fundamentalist nuts known as political parties in these United States. One group focuses on the sins of individuals, the other on the sins of man. Neither wants to leave you alone. They actually represent two wings of the same progressive movement, over a century old now. Gone is the country in which at least a good portion of the population was free to do as they pleased so long as they did not infringe on the rights of others to do as they pleased. Instead of extending that freedom to all, we end up with this dog to which most of you subscribe. you.

I don't recall sexuality ever being illegal at the federal level.

[FromWayDowntown]

I wonder if our founding fathers ever thought there would be an atheist ruling class or a movement of sexuality normalization. I wonder would they have included more things. Interesting.
That is a great point.

The generalizations of the Cons ution -- beyond the relatively rigid structure and obligations of the government -- and particularly the Bill of Rights suggest (to me, at least) that the Framers of the Cons ution weren't concerned with perpetuating any particular party, ideology, or morality.

What concerned them was protecting individual freedom and ensuring (in the broadest terms possible) that the government's ability to intrude upon those freedoms should be severely limited. Individual freedoms, above all else; protecting the political/social minority from the whims of any majority that might try to limit its rights.

[Blake]

why is that relevant?

It's not really relevant to anything you've said.

Why is my asking someone else's opinion relevant to you?

[spursncowboys]

I've read in numerous places that our founding fathers wanted no part of religion in the Cons ution.

I've also read that but I also read that it was more of denomination and not religion.

[Blake]

I wonder if our founding fathers ever thought there would be an atheist ruling class or a movement of sexuality normalization. I wonder would they have included more things. Interesting.
That is a great point.

I wonder if they ever thought slavery would be illegal.

[spursncowboys]

I wonder if they ever thought slavery would be illegal.

There were many who wanted it illegal from the beginning. I think they worded it so it would one day become illegal.

[ploto]

Everybody's vote counts. Whatever wins out, wins out.

Actually, that is not true. At times, it is the job of the government to insure the rights of the minority, even against the wishes of the majority.

[BacktoBasics]

Hi jack. Tough day at Tyson?

[spursncowboys]

The generalizations of the Cons ution -- beyond the relatively rigid structure and obligations of the government -- and particularly the Bill of Rights suggest (to me, at least) that the Framers of the Cons ution weren't concerned with perpetuating any particular party, ideology, or morality.

What concerned them was protecting individual freedom and ensuring (in the broadest terms possible) that the government's ability to intrude upon those freedoms should be severely limited. Individual freedoms, above all else; protecting the political/social minority from the whims of any majority that might try to limit its rights.

re so people could practice any christian religious denomination they want- not forbiding people from practicing their religion. I could be wrong and maybe they thought ahead that muslims should be able to practice alongside christians. I personally believe they should but I just wonder if they had that forward thinking like that.

[jack sommerset]

I wonder if they ever thought slavery would be illegal.

They did the right thing there but damn that would be a great time to live in. I would have me a whole flock of slaves working, singing, cooking and bathing me. Only women. Actually I would like slaves in our current time period or maybe in the future! They don't have to be a certain color. I'm not racist.

[spursncowboys]

The generalizations of the Cons ution -- beyond the relatively rigid structure and obligations of the government -- and particularly the Bill of Rights suggest (to me, at least) that the Framers of the Cons ution weren't concerned with perpetuating any particular party, ideology, or morality.

What concerned them was protecting individual freedom and ensuring (in the broadest terms possible) that the government's ability to intrude upon those freedoms should be severely limited. Individual freedoms, above all else; protecting the political/social minority from the whims of any majority that might try to limit its rights.

EDIT: I accidentally erased half my post and then hit submit. Don't feel like rewriting it.

[Phenomanul]

I'll at least attempt to show some support for my statement.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/Who...alization.aspx

Approximately 1/3 of men and women under the age of 49 as of 2005 support its legalization. No doubt that figure is higher now. No doubt there are people out there that support it but are afraid to say anything.

I consider a third to be widespread.

I typically don't Google other people's assertions... my reply was meant as a question... not a snide one, hence my use of the word "interesting..."

My initial point stands however, were such measures ever brought before voting booths a third is not nearly enough to pass it. So obviously, there is enough anti-marijuana sentiment here to keep them from passing. Apparently in Holland and Sweden, the sexual marriage/civil union laws passed without much fuss. There is less anti-gay sentiment in those two countries than what you tried to portray. That deals somewhat of a blow to your assumption that sexual people are choosing not to marry out of 'fear' or 'ridicule' in that dataset.

[Winehole23]

...

[spursncowboys]

Actually, that is not true. At times, it is the job of the government to insure the rights of the minority, even against the wishes of the majority.

Is that because the govt. knows what is best for the majority. Or because the govt. is the decider of what is good?
Slippery slope.

[jack sommerset]

EDIT: I accidentally erased half my post and then hit submit. Don't feel like rewriting it.

I don't blame you. Gets boring after awhile. I found this ed up. Some gay dudes don't have anal sex at all. They just suck and jerk each other off. I really don't have an opinion on that. Thought it was weird. It certainly makes you a still.

[Phenomanul]

I agree with snackbar.......it's an irrelevant truth

even if a very small percent of sexual marriages were to work, it still should be legal.

If divorce rates were to ever reach 70-80% for straight marriages, are you going to argue that marriage should be illegal altogether?

I'm not talking about whether they work or not... those were assumptions being made by the article.

I'm talking about their disposition to enter those agreements in the first place.

[FromWayDowntown]

re so people could practice any christian religious denomination they want- not forbiding people from practicing their religion. I could be wrong and maybe they thought ahead that muslims should be able to practice alongside christians. I personally believe they should but I just wonder if they had that forward thinking like that.

You seem to assume that the Cons ution is rooted in some notion of Christianity being an orthodoxy that tolerates other religious viewpoints in the manner in which people exercise their religious beliefs. While it's true that the Free Exercise Clause was surely intended to assure that Muslims could practice their religion alongside Christians (or Druids or Santerians or Pagans or any devotees of any other religion), the very existence of the Establishment Clause suggests strongly that the Framers intended to protect AGAINST government becoming a wholly Christian endeavor (and certainly against government becoming exclusively Christian).

So, yes, they had that forward thinking like that -- if you consider the promotion of diversity (at least religious diversity) to be forward thinking.

[ploto]

Is that because the govt. knows what is best for the majority. Or because the govt. is the decider of what is good?
Slippery slope.

Neither- the government upholds certain individual rights.

[ChumpDumper]

Now you want to move the 'goal posts' simply because of speculation...?

That is precisely what you want to do.

You now want a marriage quota that gay couples much reach before you want to allow them to marry. You're doing the exact same thing that the fatally flawed "study" did.

Congratulations.

By your logic, heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either because the majority of their relationships don't end up in marriage either. It's completely disingenuous.

[spursncowboys]

Neither- the government upholds certain individual rights.

Our elected officials do not uphold individual rights. They SHOULD uphold the cons ution. Though they don't.

[admiralsnackbar]

Is that because the govt. knows what is best for the majority. Or because the govt. is the decider of what is good?
Slippery slope.

Not really. If for some reason a majority of the polity is found to be depriving a minority rights which they appear to be cons utionally en led to, the government is often pushed into the role of defending said minority. While the ACLU is a non-profit, they advocate and try to expedite legislative action for groups who find themselves in this sort of position. I'd say it's less a slippery slope and more an eternally contentious one.

[FromWayDowntown]

Our elected officials do not uphold individual rights. They SHOULD uphold the cons ution. Though they don't.

The Cons ution protects individual rights from infringement by the government (through the acts of elected officials). One could argue that the you're absolutely right in suggesting that elected officials who infringe upon individual rights by their official actions do not uphold the Cons ution.

Of course, the legal issue in the same-sex marriage debate is ENTIRELY about whether laws prohibiting same sex marriage infringe upon the rights of those individuals to marry without some compelling justification for the prohibition.

[Marcus Bryant]

I wonder if our founding fathers ever thought there would be an atheist ruling class or a movement of sexuality normalization. I wonder would they have included more things. Interesting.
That is a great point.

I wonder if our Founding Fathers thought they'd be regarded one day as a bunch of Southern Baptist fundy prudes.

[Phenomanul]

Actually, that is not true. At times, it is the job of the government to insure the rights of the minority, even against the wishes of the majority.

When it concerns the denial of basic human rights... I agree. Hence the Bill of Rights.

The provisions afforded to marriages are closer to 'terms of contract'...

The IRS muddled it all up...

As I mentioned earlier I could care less whether or not sexuals in this nation were granted all of the same provisions that are extended to heterosexual marriages. If you look closely however... most of them are monetary in nature, or have tax implications (even the healthcare ones, and beaurevement of leave, etc... they boil down to money). IMO the adoption of children for growth in that environment is the only one that sticks out like a sore thumb - as not relating to the others. That and obviously the insistance that certain passages of the bible be stripped out and labeled as 'hate' speech.

[BacktoBasics]

I typically don't Google other people's assertions... my reply was meant as a question... not a snide one, hence my use of the word "interesting..."

My initial point stands however, were such measures ever brought before voting booths a third is not nearly enough to pass it. So obviously, there is enough anti-marijuana sentiment here to keep them from passing. Apparently in Holland and Sweden, the sexual marriage/civil union laws passed without much fuss. There is less anti-gay sentiment in those two countries than what you tried to portray. That deals somewhat of a blow to your assumption that sexual people are choosing not to marry out of 'fear' or 'ridicule' in that dataset.

Just because an elected official put their vote forward doesn't mean we can assume that it truly represents everyone as a whole or majority. This has been proven time and time again. It doesn't protect jack and jack from being dealt a raw hand from their boss or their coworkers who are likely still bigots. I'm certain that even if gay marriage were allowed any where in the states that there would be thousands that still wouldn't come forward because of the potential repercussions from the work place...or even their personal lives.

If we legalized same sex marriages do you really think the discrimination would stop? How can you reasonably assume that it isn't prevalent in a place like Sweden....aren't they predominately Roman Catholic? Regardless of that...its still an odd assumption.

Ever since you posted your assumption of easy going for these people outside of the states I've been more than interested in the reality of that. I think if you take the time to look around those people are still fighting quite the war against discrimination. Their hate crimes, particularly gay ones aren't too far off percentage wise from where we're at here. Which supports my idea that their legal rights are just a small victory in the bigger picture for equality.

People. Many. Thousands if not millions still discriminated against blacks even when they were granted their freedoms. Same with women and their rights. It took decades of being "legal" before society as a whole begin to accept the fact that they should or would be on the same playing field. Many argue that its still not fair or equal.

On the other note. Marijuana is now legal in many more capacities than it once was. More and more states are pushing to either decriminalize it or make it legal altogether. So "the third" more or less is becoming a factor and/or the fat cats supposedly representing them.