Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

How about we start by at least giving everyone the same rights and then we go from there to decide what these rights should be.

Whew, practically speaking, how would that work? Erase all laws? Seriously, how would something like that work? Could you throw out some ideas? Ideals are great, but practical details must be worked out.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Spock

but "rights" may be moral or legal...and if the later, laws are needed...if the former, society determines whether they exist at all.

Agreed. However there's still something not-so-right when society decides that everyone aren't equal - when society creates moral laws that only apply to a part of the population.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Whew, practically speaking, how would that work? Erase all laws? Seriously, how would something like that work? Could you throw out some ideas? Ideals are great, but practical details must be worked out.

Shee, no no no. I'm not trying to work anything out - my point was that no matter how we determine what our rights should be, it's important that we strive to make these rights the same for everyone.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Agreed. .

GOODIE!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Fine, but then how DO we determine rights?

when the law appears to possibly conflict with the constitution (as the gay marriage issue does now), we either:

1) leave it to the states

2) have the supreme court resolve the issue (which takes the decision away from the states, like in the case of interracial marriage)

3) pass a constitutional ammendment

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Have you ever seen gays not being allowed to marry?

LOL
no, actually i've never even seen a gay who wanted to marry, but thats beside the point i suppose.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

How about we start by at least giving everyone the same rights and then we go from there to decide what these rights should be.

I know you're in sweden, but doesn't your constitution have a bill of rights, i mean come on you want to know where we determine rights theres your answer.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

I know you're in sweden, but doesn't your constitution have a bill of rights, i mean come on you want to know where we determine rights theres your answer.

Eh, what are you on about? I actually have a replica of your bill of rights at home even

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Spock

I'm not going into O.T. comments.

Not the OT ones, I meant our discussion about State rights and gay marriage, and international recognition of marriages.

On a related note, if someone felt a state law was violating their rights, could they appeal to the Bill of Rights (or the Constitution)? (I'm asking so I can compare Canadian and American laws. I don't really know how American laws work when it gets down to the details.)

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What you said has nothing to do with my example, IRex - I was only discussing the "majorities should not determine the rights of minorities" statement and showing problems with it. I was not even considering whether or not allowing homosexual marriage is right or not. I was only showing that that statement had flaws in it when examined.

The pedophile example?

IRex's assessment was entirely relevant to the "majorities should not determine the rights of minorities" debate. He points out, with complete accuracy and utter relevancy, that the right of a pedophile to have sex with a child impinge upon the child's (another minority) right to not be abused and raped.

Since the rights of one minority should not impinge on another's rights, there are laws against pedophelia.

He then uses another entirely relevant example of gay marriage to point out that in this case, the rights of a different minority group are not impinging on anyone else's rights, thus it should be allowed.

What IRex said has everything to do with your example!

Also, if my statement about minority rights really can be picked apart, then go for it!

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

regardless of opinion or morality or position ... i thought the whole point of "Rights" whatever or wherever or whenever they are or relate to, is that they are by definition as "rights" universal?

...else they are not "rights" but priveledges.

This is true. The line between rights and priviledges can get fuzzy, but it's important to remember that you can't descriminate against someone in order to deny them priviledges like having a job or arguably, marriage. (That's how it works in Canada anyway. I so very much love the Charter.)

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Fine, but then how DO we determine rights?

I'll use a Canadian example. I think this is a good way, though I'm sure you could determine people's rights other ways.

The following is grossly simplified, but it works:

Women: We have the right to vote.
Some jerks: No, you don't. *the men go off and vote*
*some very intelligent women present eloquent arguments*
Men and women: You know, you Suffragettes were right. There really isn't a reason why women shouldn't get to vote.
*women's right to vote is acknowledged*

About fifty years later...
Native people: Excuse me, we have the right to live in our traditional way of life and culture.
The Canadian Government: Hm... I guess you do.
Pierre Trudeau (then Prime Minister): *drafts the Charter of Rights and Freedoms* How's that?
Native people: Much better. *complex land treaties begin, and old discussions continue with renewed vigour*
Other Canadians: Hey, it's nice to know the government can't draft random laws that infringe on my rights. Not that they would, but it's nice to have that assurance.

Twenty years later:
Gordon Campbell (BC Premier): I just got elected, I will now hold a biased referendum on the Treaty process full of barely-disguised racism like I promised.
BC Native people:
Some BCers: Wouldn't a yes vote (changing the treaty process through a referendum) be illegal anyway?
BC people in general: I don't know *vote yes*
Lawyers and judges: This is illegal. It violates the Charter *throw the referendum results in the garbage*
Some BCers: That's why the Charter is awesome!

About three or so years ago now:
Gay people: Excuse me, we have the right to get married too.
Supreme court: *looks at the Charter and thinks about it for six months* Why yes, you do.

There. That's how you can determine people's rights. People fight for their rights, and over many, many years, a consensus is built and it becomes law. (Er, yeah. Sorry that was so long. I got into my little condensed Canadian history there.)

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by jonathan

Eh, what are you on about? I actually have a replica of your bill of rights at home even

__________________

cool, so you know that we already have equal -legal- rights. for everyone "all men are created equal".

what you seemed to be saying earlier almost sounded like authoritarianism; after all in your hypothetical scenario who exaclty is deciding to give and take away rights?

[Jonathan]

Lol! Yay for the Canadian Charter

[edit]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

what you seemed to be saying earlier almost sounded like authoritarianism; after all in your hypothetical scenario who exaclty is deciding to give and take away rights?

It wasn't a hypothetical scenario at all really, just a suggestion that whoever determines people's rights (the people themselves, the majority - whatever) these should be true rights and not just priviledges.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

On a related note, if someone felt a state law was violating their rights, could they appeal to the Bill of Rights (or the Constitution)? (I'm asking so I can compare Canadian and American laws. I don't really know how American laws work when it gets down to the details.

yes and no

you can not appeal directly to the supreme court... first, you must find a case that illustrates the case... then, bring it through the normal court system (local, state supreme, federal supreme)

also, the supreme court can pick and choose which cases they wish to hear with little or no reasoning given

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

cool, so you know that we already have equal -legal- rights. for everyone "all men are created equal".

State rights come into this too though. I do think the Bill of Rights generally rocks.

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

what you seemed to be saying earlier almost sounded like authoritarianism; after all in your hypothetical scenario who exaclty is deciding to give and take away rights?

You mean my scenario?

If so, it's not arbitrary. The government determined the law, building upon, changing, or sometimes removing old laws, or adding new ones. The government was elected by the majority of Canadians.

I should have been more clear though. The government acknowledges the rights of the people. (I believe, for example, that women have had the right to vote as long as voting has existed, but it took a while for this to be acknowledged.) I don't believe our government has ever taken away a right.

Since its creation in 1982, the Charter has never been changed (though it is possible to change it).

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Lol! Yay for the Canadian Charter

Yes, I love the Charter! I have a copy at home.

edited to delete a random paragraph break

[Butterbeer]

cool, so you know that we already have equal -legal- rights. for everyone "all men are created equal".

mmm... very interesting point here Rohirrim TR (thanks for the JD syndrome post btw )

but isn't the whole point here ("all men are created equal") that some are not effectively here (in context of your quote there and this thread) ... not seen as "men" in the traditional sense?

(or women as the case may be, etc)

isn't this the essence of the question?

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

[edit]It wasn't a hypothetical scenario at all really, just a suggestion that whoever determines people's rights (the people themselves, the majority - whatever) these should be true rights and not just priviledges.

that's where i think the bill of rights comes in, and i don't really think that anyone should be able to give or take away rights.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

LOL
no, actually i've never even seen a gay who wanted to marry, but thats beside the point i suppose.

Havent been watching much tv for the past few years then? or been reading any newspapers?

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Havent been watching much tv for the past few years then? or been reading any newspapers?

so you believe everything you see on TV do you?
you asked if KNEW any that had been discriminated because they couldn't marry I don't KNOW any none of the homosexual people i have met even want to marry.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

mmm... very interesting point here Rohirrim TR (thanks for the JD syndrome post btw )

but isn't the whole point here ("all men are created equal") that some are not effectively here (in context of your quote there and this thread) ... not seen as "men" in the traditional sense?

(or women as the case may be, etc)

isn't this the essence of the question?

(no problem on the JD thread)
i'm a little confused BB "men" in context is simply refferring to individuals instead of a collective like mankind. but you're saying the problem is that gays for example aren't viewed as "men" in the customary sense?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

so you believe everything you see on TV do you?
you asked if KNEW any that had been discriminated because they couldn't marry I don't KNOW any none of the homosexual people i have met even want to marry.

I have only met about a thousand people in my life, so no one else exists. There aren't over six billion people in the world! Lies I tell you!

edited for spelling

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

so you believe everything you see on TV do you?

All those news shots were staged then? And the protests and law suits by specific gay couples was just in everyones imagination? You realize you are taking the same approach you do when rejecting evolution right? Denial is a poor choice to use as a tool when debating something.

you asked if KNEW any that had been discriminated because they couldn't marry I don't KNOW any none of the homosexual people i have met even want to marry.

No I didnt actually. Read what I said again.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

All those news shots were staged then? And the protests and law suits by specific gay couples was just in everyones imagination? You realize you are taking the same approach you do when rejecting evolution right? Denial is a poor choice to use as a tool when debating something.



No I didnt actually. Read what I said again.

were debating? about what?....umm dude I haven't denied anything, in my neck of the woods there has been no discrimination or protests or nothing almost a non-issue, there are a few homosexual people here, everyone likes em they're nice guys who couldn't care less about getting married. I repeat I haven't denied anything I have assembled my own conclusion based on who i know, you cool with that? or is it a thoughtcrime?