Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help




Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Discussions > Off-Topic Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-02-2010, 06:06 AM
MS Fowler's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Littlestown PA ( 6 miles south of Gettysburg)
Posts: 2,208
Gay Marriage and the consent of the governed

The discussion of gay marriage began on a thread started by Diesel4me. I thought it wise to attempt to bring the political argument away from that thread and place it here, as that thread had started out as well-wishing for diesel4me on a personal basis. He is facing some rough times and some wanted to wish him well. I concurred in that sentiment. It seemed to quickly degenerate into an argument on gay rights.
So lets talk about gay marriage and gay rights in general, shall we.

I understand this is an extremely emotional issue, and name-calling and insults are never far below the surface. Is it possible to maintain a level of respect here? That is my wish.

The argument quickly seemed to degenerate to a call for the Courts--all the way to the Supreme Court--to step in and establish the rights of gays to marry. In fact, it was generally admitted that the Courts are probably the only arm of government where that can happen, as the legislative branch is very unlikely to vote for gay marriage and then face the voters.

It seems as if the gay marriage advocates are so strong in their desire for that change that they want to force it on the people, against their will.

My question is simple. We all like to quote form the Founding documents whenever they support our position, and ignore them otherwise. After the listing of RIGHTS in the Declaration of Independence, that document goes on to state,"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

How can any government claim legitimacy if it governs against the will of the mass of its people--at least in any society making the claim to be a free society?
This is stuff of despots and tyrants.

( Please do not discredit this by saying I got it from ____, or ____. It is the work, however flawed, of my own little mind.)
__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-02-2010, 06:53 AM
LUVMBDiesels's Avatar
Dead on balls accurate...
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Red Lion,Pa
Posts: 2,207
Actually I am totally in favor of equal rights for everybody as guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence
("Life,Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" ) and the Constitution .(
  • Ninth Amendment Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
14th Amendment:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ")

I do not see what the flap is about. What goes on behind closed doors is YOUR business not mine and certainly NOT the government's.

As long as two people are of legal age, it makes no sense to prevent them from getting married or divorced or whatever.
__________________
"I have no convictions ... I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy"

Current
Monika '74 450 SL
BrownHilda '79 280SL
FoxyCleopatra '99 Chevy Suburban
Scarlett 2014 Jeep Cherokee
Krystal 2004 Volvo S60
Gone
'74 Jeep CJ5
'97 Jeep ZJ Laredo
Rudolf 86 300SDL
Bruno '81 300SD
Fritzi '84 BMW
'92 Subaru
'96 Impala SS
'71 Buick GS conv
'67 GTO conv
'63 Corvair conv
'57 Nomad
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-02-2010, 07:17 AM
t walgamuth's Avatar
dieselarchitect
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lafayette Indiana
Posts: 34,427
To me this issue is decided. Twenty years ago I thought about it a lot and came to some conclusions.

The question came up when I was on the school board. The context was a teacher who was gay and whether it was grounds for dismissal if they displayed their choice of lifestyle to the children they were teaching.

At that time I believe we found that we could dismiss them if they did.

I doubt that would be true today.

The agencies who decide who can adopt are and have been for at least a decade placing children with same sex couples. I have mixed feelings about this.

There is a younger woman who teaches and is a good friend of my lovely Mrs. This gal is from a good family who I have known her father for decades. She has adopted two already.

In another twenty years we will find out how this grand experiment works.

All I can say is that there are plenty of poeple out there of heterosexual persuasion who are lousy parents. As near as I can tell these gals are doing a great job of raising their children.

Time will tell.
__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-02-2010, 07:42 AM
helpplease
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
A few questions.

So how is it that the Republican party is the party of "No goverment interference in my personal life" But almost all Republicans that I know are more than okay with asking the goverment to interfere with others lives?

So why is it okay to tell a group of people that they can't get married when they are of legal age and no one is being hurt or coerced? If this was any other group of people the Republicans would be the first in line to support their rights.

Many things have went against the will of a large majority or people but the goverment made the right call in ending them. Like slavery, a lot of people were very angry that it ended. Or segregation, goverment ended that too. Was the Goverment wrong to stop these things because many still wanted them? Is this the stuff of despots and tyrants?

Gay marriage is no ones business but the gay couples. Not my business or your's or anyones really. It is their choice if it makes you uncomfortable then don't get one or simply ignore it. The answer isn't to not allow them to get married. THAT is the stuff of despots and tyrants........

Last edited by helpplease; 02-02-2010 at 08:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-02-2010, 07:59 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Central Kentucky
Posts: 1,068
Please don't try to make this a Republican vs. Democrat thing. Some Republicans are for various gay rights and some democrats are against them. I'm a 54 year old Democrat and still trying to sort out how I feel about these issues...as I think a lot of people are. My logical mind and my gut/instinct are offen at odds on these issues and when I throw a dose of compassion into the mix, well it adds up to a lot of confusion. Perhaps I should have studied anthropology. Maybe somewhere in history lies a usefull insight.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-02-2010, 08:03 AM
helpplease
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Apologies I am not trying to make this a R vs. D thing. But the Republicans are supposed to be the party of "less government interference" Aren't they? I was simply asking a question and asking for an answer.

And that is almost all the Republicans that I know are against gay marriage. While all the Democrats I know are for it. Simply speaking from personal experience
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-02-2010, 08:21 AM
LUVMBDiesels's Avatar
Dead on balls accurate...
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Red Lion,Pa
Posts: 2,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by helpplease View Post
Apologies I am not trying to make this a R vs. D thing. But the Republicans are supposed to be the party of "less government interference" Aren't they? I was simply asking a question and asking for an answer.

And that is almost all the Republicans that I know are against gay marriage. While all the Democrats I know are for it. Simply speaking from personal experience
This Republican if I can still be called an Republican is all for it. The Republican Party has traditionally stood for less governmental interference in people's lives. I guess I am not a Libertarian as the GOP has become an offshoot of the Democratic Party.

As for the other civil rights issues, it was the Reps who ended slavery and began the civil rights agenda under Ike which came to fruition under LBJ. Also remember most supporters of the KKK were not Republicans

As for gay teachers and parents, I know a few gay couples who are great parents. (They had kids from previous marriages) They raised nice well adjusted heterosexual children (if their preference matters to y'all)

As for teachers, like in any profession, if they are PROFESSIONAL and keep their political and sexual agenda out of the classroom I have no issue with them teaching. That goes for heteros too... Keep it professional and I have no problem with what you do after hours...
__________________
"I have no convictions ... I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy"

Current
Monika '74 450 SL
BrownHilda '79 280SL
FoxyCleopatra '99 Chevy Suburban
Scarlett 2014 Jeep Cherokee
Krystal 2004 Volvo S60
Gone
'74 Jeep CJ5
'97 Jeep ZJ Laredo
Rudolf 86 300SDL
Bruno '81 300SD
Fritzi '84 BMW
'92 Subaru
'96 Impala SS
'71 Buick GS conv
'67 GTO conv
'63 Corvair conv
'57 Nomad
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-02-2010, 08:25 AM
helpplease
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Again I am not trying to make this a R vs. D thing.

And I agree with you LUVMBdiesel
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-02-2010, 08:27 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Tucker, Ga USA
Posts: 12,153
Before starting this argument all over again, define marriage.

It seems like at least 75% of the population agrees that marriage is a union between 1 man & 1 woman.

Even California seems to agree on that definition.
__________________
MERCEDES Benz Master Guild Technician (6 TIMES)
ASE Master Technician
Mercedes Benz Star Technician (2 times)
44 years foreign automotive repair
27 Years M.B. Shop foreman (dealer)
MB technical information Specialist (15 years)
190E 2.3 16V ITS SCCA race car (sold)
1986 190E 2.3 16V 2.5 (sold)
Retired Moderator
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-02-2010, 08:30 AM
helpplease
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by M.B.DOC View Post
Before starting this argument all over again, define marriage.

It seems like at least 75% of the population agrees that marriage is a union between 1 man & 1 woman.

Even California seems to agree on that definition.
Sorry, that's not really the discussion here is it? The title is gay marriage, so the defining has been done by the OP. And as I have previously stated both slavery and segregation were okay with many people does that make them okay?

"What's popular isn't always right, and whats right isn't always popular."
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-02-2010, 08:32 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Central Kentucky
Posts: 1,068
I think a good bit of the time, if you are in one group or the other you are assumed to be of whichever mindset and it may be unwise to let people know how you really feel. Where I work, folks seem to be left center to far left. The folks on center right to right have to keep a low profile.
Some folks have strong religious beliefs that dictate an anti-gay position. It is generally not out of meanness, simply a belief that something is wrong from a moral standpoint. These folks do tend to be republicans. But then where does that leave my father? He is a true blue Democrat. He considers big corps to be all out to screw the little guy. Yet he would be strongly anti-gay and he is quite religous. i really don't think the pigeon holes work on the issue. Some folks are very far to the pro gay side, some are far to the anti gay rights side and whole lot of folks are wandering blindly in the middleground (like me).
It's a tough discussion. With admittedly a fair amount of the ich factor. We are not all going to agree on most parts of this. This much I will promise: I will listen to your thoughts (provided there is no name calling or screaming) and give them serious consideration. Like I said, I am still trying to work out where I stand. maybe you will have the idea that crystalizes it all for me and helps me figure it out.
Now on to the discussion. The thought occurs to me that a gay person and I (straight male) DO have equal rights on marriage. I (if single) may marry any available person of the oposite sex and so may you.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-02-2010, 08:50 AM
helpplease
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobK View Post
The thought occurs to me that a gay person and I (straight male) DO have equal rights on marriage. I (if single) may marry any available person of the oposite sex and so may you.
Sorry this statement confuses me, Gays can't get married to who they want to. How is this equal to you? Who can?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-02-2010, 09:11 AM
Craig
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
So, the question is how should this battle be fought? Is this a civil rights issue where the courts will decide that everyone has the same rights to marrage, regardless of local public opinion; or is this a case where the majority will decide?

Personally, I think it is a civil rights issue that needs to be settled at a national level for practical reasons. We all know the final answer, but do we want to spend a generation of confused local and state laws that are in conflict? There are too many federal laws affected for this to remain a local issue. Eventually, someone will initiate a court case over taxes, SS benifits, or another federal issue and the courts will be forced to take a possition on the recognition of these marriages by the US government. At that point the states will follow suit. In the mean time, it will be a legal mess.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-02-2010, 09:23 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Central Kentucky
Posts: 1,068
sorry to confuse. I have right to marry person of opposite sex I choose. So do gays. They say: but we do not have right to marry person of same sex we choose. I say: neither do I.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-02-2010, 09:27 AM
Craig
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobK View Post
sorry to confuse. I have right to marry person of opposite sex I choose. So do gays. They say: but we do not have right to marry person of same sex we choose. I say: neither do I.
Seriously?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page