Let's talk equality

[jimnyc]

So the liberals want equality.

http://i.imgur.com/hpumFOT.jpg

That's the insignia that even politicians are using as of late to show their support for equality, since the cases are in the SC right now.

My question is, will these liberals hold up for additional equality, and remain consistent in the demands?

http://i.imgur.com/c1JEfo5.jpg

[gabosaurus]

If you are not a living, functioning person, you do not have definable rights. Just as children do not have the same rights as adults.

If I am taking your argument that everyone has a right to life, that would include those a court would sentence to death.

The kind of equality that the Supreme Court is considering is two homosexual adults desiring the same constitutional rights as two heterosexual adults.
One of the points made in the arguments today was that DOMA restrictions were imposed based on moral standards rather than legal ones. In one passage, House Republicans stated that one reason why DOMA was necessary was that they were "repulsed by the conduct of homosexuals." Which is one of the same tenets applied when states prohibited interracial marriages.
You can't pass or defend a law based on moral principles. There needs to be legal standing.

[Missileman]

I'm mildly surprised that none here are talking about the new ND law(yet to be signed by the governor) that says a fertilized egg is a person and gets human rights. I find the proposal a tad confusing however. They allow this person(as they've defined it) to be murdered(intentional killing of a person) up until a heartbeat is detected(approx 6 weeks). There seems to be a contradiction there.

[Robert A Whit]

If you are not a living, functioning person, you do not have definable rights. Just as children do not have the same rights as adults.

If I am taking your argument that everyone has a right to life, that would include those a court would sentence to death.

The kind of equality that the Supreme Court is considering is two homosexual adults desiring the same constitutional rights as two heterosexual adults.
One of the points made in the arguments today was that DOMA restrictions were imposed based on moral standards rather than legal ones. In one passage, House Republicans stated that one reason why DOMA was necessary was that they were "repulsed by the conduct of homosexuals." Which is one of the same tenets applied when states prohibited interracial marriages.
You can't pass or defend a law based on moral principles. There needs to be legal standing.

Amazing leap of so called logic. Saying the unborn is well, not human, is like saying children are not humans. They need not be out of the womb to be humans. When one dehumanizes humans to say they have no right of life then speaks of criminals to be executed, somebody is not logical. The unborn did nothing wrong. Criminals to be killed killed humans.

Can you explain to us all why if DOMA is struck down, how the FEDS get the right to force states to only select a certain class to hand marriage to given they said in court that it may be the case that the Feds have no role in marriage?
States exclude many people so why must they be allowed to exclude others yet not exclude homosexuals?

Bear in mind nobody is passing laws that stop homosexuals from operating freely and living as they wish. I don't understand why they would even need marriage. If it is to enjoy federal benefits, perhaps it is time to cease those for anybody. At least with the races, one was a man and the other a woman.

[gabosaurus]

Can you explain to us all why if DOMA is struck down, how the FEDS get the right to force states to only select a certain class to hand marriage to given they said in court that it may be the case that the Feds have no role in marriage?
States exclude many people so why must they be allowed to exclude others yet not exclude homosexuals?

Bear in mind nobody is passing laws that stop homosexuals from operating freely and living as they wish. I don't understand why they would even need marriage. If it is to enjoy federal benefits, perhaps it is time to cease those for anybody. At least with the races, one was a man and the other a woman.

First of all, tell me which other kinds of adults are prohibited from getting married.
Why does anyone need to be married? To most, getting married legitimizes their relationship in the eyes of society. And yes, people get married to enjoy federal benefits. Why are you surprised about this?

[Robert A Whit]

I'm mildly surprised that none here are talking about the new ND law(yet to be signed by the governor) that says a fertilized egg is a person and gets human rights. I find the proposal a tad confusing however. They allow this person(as they've defined it) to be murdered(intentional killing of a person) up until a heartbeat is detected(approx 6 weeks). There seems to be a contradiction there.

That is news to me. However, I would think of the human as being in the womb, not merely as a fertilized egg. That sort of egg may be part of an experiment. In the womb, I don't understand why we must pick the heart or even brain as the governing condition. When she can say she is pregnant, this may be the time to say it is human.

[gabosaurus]

By most standards, you need to be born to be a person. Otherwise, a woman who has a miscarriage could be convicted of murder. And her husband or partner would be an accessory to murder.
You need a guideline. To me, it is when the fetus could sustain itself outside the womb. Which is generally sometime during the second trimester.

I am all for limits on abortions. I think abortion should be banned after the first trimester.
But I am not going to look at a 10-day old embryo and classify it as a person, with full rights.

[DragonStryk72]

If you are not a living, functioning person, you do not have definable rights. Just as children do not have the same rights as adults.

If I am taking your argument that everyone has a right to life, that would include those a court would sentence to death. So then we CAN murder coma patients without it being a crime, or take a bat to a pregnant woman's stomachs as just an assault? According to you, no living functioning human being was killed, after all. I will take your fleeing the topic for agreement.

[aboutime]

By most standards, you need to be born to be a person. Otherwise, a woman who has a miscarriage could be convicted of murder. And her husband or partner would be an accessory to murder.
You need a guideline. To me, it is when the fetus could sustain itself outside the womb. Which is generally sometime during the second trimester.

I am all for limits on abortions. I think abortion should be banned after the first trimester.
But I am not going to look at a 10-day old embryo and classify it as a person, with full rights.


Tell us what your impression of this is gabby......4775 click to enlarge. Would you be proud to END the life of this child on it's BIRTHDAY?

[Robert A Whit]

By most standards, you need to be born to be a person. Otherwise, a woman who has a miscarriage could be convicted of murder. And her husband or partner would be an accessory to murder.
You need a guideline. To me, it is when the fetus could sustain itself outside the womb. Which is generally sometime during the second trimester.

I am all for limits on abortions. I think abortion should be banned after the first trimester.
But I am not going to look at a 10-day old embryo and classify it as a person, with full rights.

Globally, homosexuals can't marry either. However you want them to be married. Most women upon knowing they are pregnant realizes her baby is human. She buys it presents, has parties and so forth. She does not see it as non human unless she is some sort of Democrat. Miscarriage is not her fault so she can't be charged nor should she be charged. I may be the way I am because in college I spent time studying laws. Till I did, I really was all over the map on things like rights.

When you prove to me that pregnant women do not think they have a child in them, we can talk over your flawed reasoning. But if you prove my reasoning is flawed, I at least can admit it. I have yet to meet any democrat who is willing to change a view.

Law would really be terrible if the law winked the other way and used your type of arguments to reason this out.

[logroller]

If you are not a living, functioning person, you do not have definable rights. Just as children do not have the same rights as adults.

If I am taking your argument that everyone has a right to life, that would include those a court would sentence to death.

The kind of equality that the Supreme Court is considering is two homosexual adults desiring the same constitutional rights as two heterosexual adults.
One of the points made in the arguments today was that DOMA restrictions were imposed based on moral standards rather than legal ones. In one passage, House Republicans stated that one reason why DOMA was necessary was that they were "repulsed by the conduct of homosexuals." Which is one of the same tenets applied when states prohibited interracial marriages.
You can't pass or defend a law based on moral principles. There needs to be legal standing.
I think you're use of "rights" is subject to scrutiny. The government doesn't stop gays for getting married; the worst they do is not recognize it legally. I have a right to own and drive a car; but its a privilege to do so on a public thoroughfare. In can drive drunk at 200 mph on my private property; that's my right; but I can't make society or government say its a-ok to do elsewhere. Marriage is the same. Gays can get married in some states, the US govt doesn't stop them, it just doesn't recognize it at the federal level. I thinks that's unconstitutional, but not because marriage is a constitional right...because its not an enumerated right protected by the constitution. You can look for yourself-- the constitutional text is readily available on the interweb nowadays. ;)

[Drummond]

By most standards, you need to be born to be a person. Otherwise, a woman who has a miscarriage could be convicted of murder. And her husband or partner would be an accessory to murder.
You need a guideline. To me, it is when the fetus could sustain itself outside the womb. Which is generally sometime during the second trimester.

I am all for limits on abortions. I think abortion should be banned after the first trimester.
But I am not going to look at a 10-day old embryo and classify it as a person, with full rights.

How much of this is purely subjective judgment on your part ?

Your second sentence is ludicrous. Are all miscarriages deliberately induced ??

Your 'guideline' is nothing more than something that is apparently 'right' just because you'd prefer it was. But it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Using your 'logic', self-sustenance is what defines definition of a person AS such. Meaning, therefore, that any ill person dependent on, say, a life support machine ceases to be a person. Which therefore means that anyone has a right to pull the plug on any life support machine anyone is hooked up to, whenever they like. On a whim, presumably.

Hello, brave new Leftie world where euthanasia is happily practised on a whim, where life is VERY cheap.

A soul-less world, Gabby. Or, if you prefer (.. and maybe you would ?) .. a hell on earth.

[gabosaurus]

I think you're use of "rights" is subject to scrutiny. The government doesn't stop gays for getting married; the worst they do is not recognize it legally. I have a right to own and drive a car; but its a privilege to do so on a public thoroughfare. In can drive drunk at 200 mph on my private property; that's my right; but I can't make society or government say its a-ok to do elsewhere. Marriage is the same. Gays can get married in some states, the US govt doesn't stop them, it just doesn't recognize it at the federal level. I thinks that's unconstitutional, but not because marriage is a constitional right...because its not an enumerated right protected by the constitution. You can look for yourself-- the constitutional text is readily available on the interweb nowadays. ;)

The point I placed in italics is the issue here. You are extending rights to one class of person that is not extended to another.
It would be like the government saying "if you have red hair, you can't own a gun."
You are created a special class of citizens that don't have rights that are constitutionally available for others.
You can't just say "I am morally opposed to these people, so they don't have the same rights as others."

[red states rule]

If you are not a living, functioning person, you do not have definable rights. Just as children do not have the same rights as adults.

If I am taking your argument that everyone has a right to life, that would include those a court would sentence to death.

The kind of equality that the Supreme Court is considering is two homosexual adults desiring the same constitutional rights as two heterosexual adults.
One of the points made in the arguments today was that DOMA restrictions were imposed based on moral standards rather than legal ones. In one passage, House Republicans stated that one reason why DOMA was necessary was that they were "repulsed by the conduct of homosexuals." Which is one of the same tenets applied when states prohibited interracial marriages.
You can't pass or defend a law based on moral principles. There needs to be legal standing.

If libs were really for "equality" and treating everyone the same they would not punish success with high taxes. They tax everyone regardless of income at the same rate. With libs, some people are more equal than others

[darin]

First of all, tell me which other kinds of adults are prohibited from getting married.
Why does anyone need to be married? To most, getting married legitimizes their relationship in the eyes of society. And yes, people get married to enjoy federal benefits. Why are you surprised about this?

You're question is dishonest. It's not a 'kind of adult'. Homosexuality is a passtime. It's a hobby. It's a "like". It's sorta like people who like to drink alcohol begging the government to forcing every restaurant to serve alcohol.

If somebody prefers having sex with another of their gender, they should absolutely do that. If they want to get married to somebody of the opposite sex, they should do that, too.

"Who we love" is NOT a government/legal concern. Marriage is not about Love and the government has no place in all that.