Removal of Gender from our Laws?

[B_allthebest]

Do you believe that men and women should be treated the same under the law? (Notice I said the same not equal)

Many activist and gay people accuse upstanding good people of being vile haters and bigots because they believe that marriage is defined as one man and one woman. The simplest defense of my stance on gay marriage is a response to gay activists claiming that their "struggle" is similar to the black struggle. Simply put, I do not believe there is a difference between men or women due to the color of their skin and they should be treated equally in life and under the law. But I do believe there are vast difference of men and women and our laws need to reflect that.

It seems analogous to say that gay marriage is supporting the idea that there is no difference between men and women and therefore shouldn’t all laws be gender neutral?

This is obviously a philosophical question, but please do not make this all about gay marriage.

 

[tinkius]

When a black person steps out of the house everyone knows they are black. But a gay person (if they want) can hide the fact that they are gay thus eliminating the prejudices of society. Yes, ther's is a huge difference between men and women, First starting with body parts. Also, laws of this country should reflect the nature of the crime, how many times the person has offended, what was involved i.e. gun, umbrella etc. mental stability, length of crime, how much damage was done etc. Example, if a woman kills someone and it is her first offense. She will probably get a lighter sentence than someone who's been in and out of the system who's already has two or three felonies. In this case this person will get more because the judge would feel society needs to be protected form this individual. Boom! LIFE. Some judges are smarter than we give them credit for; for their sentencing guidelines.

 

[D_Jared Padalicki]

simple: YES

 

[Notaguru2]

Another gay marriage thread....

 

[mindseye]

Many activist and gay people accuse upstanding good people of being vile haters and bigots because they believe that marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

And you're accusing vile haters and bigots of being "upstanding good people". You've poisoned this discussion with your pre-emptive classification.

...This is obviously a philosophical question, but please do not make this all about gay marriage.

Whoops -- too late!

 

[B_allthebest]

Another gay marriage thread....

I guess if you see itr that way. I just think people talk about the fall out of gay marriage act, really the wider scope is more philosophical point about gender differences.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Obviously it would be helpful for the cause of genital and bodily integrity, at least in the "developed" world.

 

[B_allthebest]

And you're accusing vile haters and bigots of being "upstanding good people". You've poisoned this discussion with your pre-emptive classification.

That is so funny and clever!

So your position is that people that are against redefining marriage are bad people and "haters" etc?

Very convenient world you live in, people that do not agree with you are haters and racists. Could it be you are just wrong some times?:frown1:

 

[nudeyorker]

That is so funny and clever!

So your position is that people that are against redefining marriage are bad people and "haters" etc?

Very convenient world you live in, people that do not agree with you are haters and racists. Could it be you are just wrong some times?:frown1:

Well are they good people that think of everyone as equal and due the same rights as every other taxpayer in America?

 

[mindseye]

So your position is that people that are against redefining marriage are bad people and "haters" etc?

My position is that you can't pre-emptively classify the entire lot of them as "upstanding good people" in a fair discussion of the issue. As a consequence, my position is that you are not seeking a fair discussion.

 

[B_allthebest]

Well are they good people that think of everyone as equal and due the same rights as every other taxpayer in America?

Same rights but there are gender difference in our laws and marriage is not the only one.

Please do not use the word taxpayer and equal when a good portion of the people pay no Federal income at all and some pay 35.5%.

 

[B_allthebest]

My position is that you can't pre-emptively classify the entire lot of them as "upstanding good people" in a fair discussion of the issue. As a consequence, my position is that you are not seeking a fair discussion.

I didn't?

Here is what I said:
"Many activist and gay people accuse upstanding good people of being vile haters and bigots"

Tot clarify:
Many activists, not all

upstanding people as a subset, not the people that are homophobic etc.

 

[mindseye]

You're postulating the existence of "upstanding good people" who deprive other people of their civil liberties. What, then, is your definition of "upstanding" and "good"?

Do you believe there are "upstanding good" kidnappers?

 

[mitchymo]

I do not believe that men and women should be treated differently.
It is in fairness that all men and women are treated simply as adult human beings regardless of their gender. Women are too easily impeded to succeed in male dominated professions on the one hand and men have fewer rights as parents...adults should be treated the same with the obvious exception of those who have had rights taken away for criminal behaviour.

 

[nudeyorker]

Same rights but there are gender difference in our laws and marriage is not the only one.

Please do not use the word taxpayer and equal when a good portion of the people pay no Federal income at all and some pay 35.5%.

As long as I'm paying taxes and don't have the same rights as others I will use the word tax payer and equality any time I like...thank you very much! Would you mind explaining any other gender differences in our laws I must have missed it.

 

[B_Nick8]

That is so funny and clever!

So your position is that people that are against redefining marriage are bad people and "haters" etc?

Very convenient world you live in, people that do not agree with you are haters and racists. Could it be you are just wrong some times?:frown1:

Let me put this very simply: Anyone whose views prevent me or anyone else from living their lives in the fullest expression of equality emotionally, intellectually, spiritually or legally is a hater and/or a racist.

It appears that for some 'subsets', it's a very inconvenient world they live in.

 

[B_allthebest]

You're postulating the existence of "upstanding good people" who deprive other people of their civil liberties. What, then, is your definition of "upstanding" and "good"?

Do you believe there are "upstanding good" kidnappers?

So those are equal things? Really? So by way of your comparison, people that voted not to change the CA state constitution and redifine marriage, are analogous with kidnappers? Wow.

I am postulating that we have other gender specific laws, for instance civil service registration for males, exposure laws, hiring and contracts to women owned business laws as well and marriage laws that would have to be nuetralized as well?

 

[B_allthebest]

As long as I'm paying taxes and don't have the same rights as others I will use the word tax payer and equality any time I like...thank you very much!

Two snaps for you!

Would you mind explaining any other gender differences in our laws I must have missed it.

You do not have the rights women have, but you have all the same rights any male has.

If you are male, you have to register for the civil service. You do not have the same right as a women.

If you are a man you have to marry a woman. You do not have the same right as a woman.

 

[B_allthebest]

Let me put this very simply: Anyone whose views prevents me or anyone else from living their lives in the fullest expression of equality emotionally, intellectually, spiritually or legally is a hater and/or a racist.

It appears that for some 'subsets', it's a very inconvenient world they live in.

Nice definition.

Why not though in anyone that cuts you off in on the highway in there too?

 

[mindseye]

So those are equal things? Really? So by way of your comparison, people that voted not to change the CA state constitution and redifine marriage, are analogous with kidnappers?

Yes. The analogy (and it is an analogy, not an equivalence) is this: Kidnapping is an offense to society precisely because it deprives a person of their basic civil liberties without that person's consent. The passage of Proposition 8 doesn't have the element of physical violence that kidnapping entails, but it's still a robbery of other people's rights.

Had Californians voted instead to restrict marriage to only same-sex couples (It is a no-longer-secret fantasy of mine that some jurisdiction would carry out this drastic experiment!), I suspect you would not be so complacent.