Again, environmental laws can be argued to be a terrible example. Really easy one. The Clean air act. Or the clean water act. Or the endangered species act. Whatever. It is simple to argue that those laws exist in no small part because not having them is a detriment to all of us. Most people don't want PCB's in their water. Or to be downing liters of mercury because there's a coal plant near by. Or to have the ecosystem for a dozen species die off because a key predator was removed and the environment in the area went crazy.

 

In virtually every case, there is a negative outcome for at least a group of people or for the country as a whole if you don't have those laws. You are interfering with my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if you're constantly trying to give me cancer. Gay Marriage does not.

Speak for yourself. I am skeptical of the endangered species act and don't think they fit in with clean air or clean water because humans directly rely on those two other things.

 

Other than that I agree with you about "beliefs" and their place in the law.

That all depends on what you think about gay marriage. I was looking to not take a stance on it here, but I'll try and show the negative (that I am not yet fully convinced of) since you are taking the positive. It has already been argued that there is a financial cost to gay marriage due to insurance, blah, blah, etc (of course this is debatable too). There is also the argument that it leads our whole society to accept something that many people do not want to accept (again not saying whether or not that is a good thing). You believe it does not infringe on other people, others would disagree. It is a matter of what you believe and that is what gives us our laws.

 

I don't think anything that we do is done in a bubble. There are repercussions for everything that we do that affect those around us. So, it matters as to whether or not you believe that those repercussions are large enough or not to put into law. I'm not going into a full out huge dissertation on this because frankly I think that there needs to be a split between religious view of marriage and government marriage. As our government sits, we are not supposed to be sanctioning religious ideals.

I have never understood and will never understand how it is that people are OK with the idea of legislating their beliefs onto others, when those others' behavior has no effect on them. I can fully understand not agreeing with gay marriage. I just see no place for telling everyone else not to do something, because it makes you uncomfortable. Its just an incredibly arrogant and selfish mindset that, IMO, doesn't belong in the laws of a country built on personal freedoms.

 

There is also the argument that it leads our whole society to accept something that many people do not want to accept

 

Our society did not want to accept minorities as equals.

 

I believe that this ruling is just and at the end of the day justice is more important than the feelings of the majority.

Edited April 3, 200917 yr by Soxbadger

Speak for yourself. I am skeptical of the endangered species act and don't think they fit in with clean air or clean water because humans directly rely on those two other things.

 

Other than that I agree with you about "beliefs" and their place in the law.

Let me lay out an example for you of how the extirpation of predators resulted directly in many human deaths.

 

The rockies in Colorado used to be home to all sorts of large predators, that were rapidly extinguished from the area - wolves, Grizzlies, etc. - during the 19th and early 20th centuries. As a result, the non-predatory animals like Elk and other ungulates, realized they didn't need to stick to the margins of the forest and the creek beds to feed - they now fed in the open. This allowed the greenery along the creeks to grow much more out of control than they had before. This resulted in huge dams of debris, and this was made worse by the fact that mink, beavers, etc. were also reduced and could no longer stage the creeks. This in turn resulted in much wilder swings in river levels downstream. That resulted in much more catastrophic floods, such as, the Big Thompson flood that killed a lot of people in Colorado.

 

The lesson learned doesn't need to be specific here - its much more elemental. Quite simply, the more that humans do to massively shift ecosystems, the more unexpected and unwated consequences result. This is the KEY argument for conservationism - its not saving the earth (which will be fine), its saving ourselves from the earth's reactions to us. And rendering important species extinct will most definitely effect ecosystems.

 

 

The rockies in Colorado used to be home to all sorts of large predators, that were rapidly extinguished from the area - wolves, Grizzlies, etc. - during the 19th and early 20th centuries. As a result, the non-predatory animals like Elk and other ungulates, realized they didn't need to stick to the margins of the forest and the creek beds to feed - they now fed in the open. This allowed the greenery along the creeks to grow much more out of control than they had before. This resulted in huge dams of debris, and this was made worse by the fact that mink, beavers, etc. were also reduced and could no longer stage the creeks. This in turn resulted in much wilder swings in river levels downstream. That resulted in much more catastrophic floods, such as, the Big Thompson flood that killed a lot of people in Colorado.

When they reintroduced the grey wolf to Yellowstone, it was absolutely shocking how rapidly that cleared up.

Our society did not want to accept minorities as equals.

 

Yep, and I completely agree that is something that was rightly ruled on against the popular beliefs of that time. I never said and never will say that society is always right with its popular opinion, merely that our beliefs do shape our laws.

yeah since Iowans obviously love corn in sexual ways....

There's probably websites out there, but I'm afraid to look.

There's probably websites out there, but I'm afraid to look.

 

haha there could be, but i'm guessing pigs or sheep would come first.

haha there could be, but i'm guessing pigs or sheep would come first.

pigs i get. but sheep?

pigs i get. but sheep?

 

the random and rare times I read or hear about beastiality it usually involves sheep.

This is a terrible example. If you run a red light, you're clearly impinging upon my rights to, you know, live. The rules regarding red lights are more than beliefs, they're basic structures set up in society so that we aren't accidentally killing each other. If we didn't follow those rules, then either society wouldn't function as it currently does because no one would drive given the 50/50 chances of dying, or we'd run out of cemetery space.

 

No one died after the first gay people got married. Gay people getting married does not impinge upon my rights to live my life any way I want. It does not affect my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, to borrow a phrase.

 

No one died with someone saying a prayer in school either FWIW.

No one died with someone saying a prayer in school either FWIW.

 

No, but their rights were sure as hell violated if their teacher was proselytizing to them.

 

What rights of yours are violated if two men or two women get married?

No, but their rights were sure as hell violated if their teacher was proselytizing to them.

 

What rights of yours are violated if two men or two women get married?

 

So how about if the teacher is proselytizing about gay marriage instead?

No one died with someone saying a prayer in school either FWIW.

Then I agree every school should spend an hour a day praying to Allah.

Then I agree every school should spend an hour a day praying to Allah.

 

If kids want to, why not, who does it hurt exactly?

If kids want to, why not, who does it hurt exactly?

Are we talking about individual kids praying on their own account, or a school employee leading a prayer for everyone?

So how about if the teacher is proselytizing about gay marriage instead?

 

I wouldn't be comfortable with it, that's for sure, but I don't know enough about the law to say whether or not it is illegal.

 

I do know enough that preaching in a public school is absolutely illegal, and perhaps more importantly, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

Are we talking about individual kids praying on their own account, or a school employee leading a prayer for everyone?

 

Children are allowed to pray on their own account as much as they want. They can even organize clubs like FSA and use school resources after-hours. Just can't have the teachers or administrators doing it.

Children are allowed to pray on their own account as much as they want. They can even organize clubs like FSA and use school resources after-hours. Just can't have the teachers or administrators doing it.

Right, I am completely in support of the former, and I can't see how any reasonable person wouldn't be, either. The latter is a different story.

If kids want to, why not, who does it hurt exactly?

If gays want to marry, why not, who does it hurt exactly?

Correct me if I'm wrong but 2K5 isn't against gay marriage.

Correct me if I'm wrong but 2K5 isn't against gay marriage.

apologies if that's the case - but i was basing my statement and judgment off the fact that he was arguing against balta and sqwert on the last page.

I like prayer, even in school.

I also like gay marriage. Even in Iowa.

 

Up next? New Jersey probably. (and not through a court battle)

I like prayer, even in school.

I also like gay marriage. Even in Iowa.

 

Up next? New Jersey probably. (and not through a court battle)

 

probably supreme court eventually.

probably supreme court eventually.

idk, I'd really rather it not do that.

apologies if that's the case - but i was basing my statement and judgment off the fact that he was arguing against balta and sqwert on the last page.

 

Nope, not against it at all. I was more laughing at the arguements being made to support this here, but forgotten in other similar, "not hurting anyone" circumstances.