<p>isn't it legal in canada? :) sorry, don't know if my sources are correct</p>
<p>Lets do the politics thread.
No more gay stuff.
Someone get us started</p>
<p>Nuance, folks. When one talks about a subject as divisive as gay rights, the nuance between different interpretations needs to be accounted for.</p>
<p>Simply, the defining point of the gay rights controversy is the word "marriage". Conservatives argue that the Founding Fathers based the country on so-called "moral values", and that these moral values, even if not intended by the Fathers have been mandated by the recent election and public opinion. If more people realized that Founding Fathers had some very unconventional views, like being Deists, I might be inclined to take the argument more seriously; nevertheless, it has does have some merit. Liberals on the other hand contend that gays are not being treated fairly and equitably by the government, and point to the political and economic benefits of marriage. And herein lies the pearl of the discussion; namely, what is the meaning of the word marriage?</p>
<p>However, first, I'll introduce some personal background about myself. I was raised with Christian values, Christian ideals, and yes, these have influenced me when I frame my opinion. However, being a minority also has helped me see the opposing view behind polarizing issues. Most importantly, I can see the human face behind the issue. Like conservatives, I believe that the Christian term "marriage" was intended to indicate a union between man, God, and woman. The Church DOES have full right to declare "marriage" as its personal convenant, but what "marriage" are we takling about here? People without any eye for subtlety should read no further, because it should be apparent henceforth that there are two very different sides to the word marriage in the United States; it's political and economic aspects, and it's religous connotation. Any conservative naive enough to proclaim that these political and economic rights, like tax breks, are not denied to gays is a fool. Any liberal brainwashed enough to deny marriage's religious significance to many is of the same ilk.</p>
<p>Some point to the recent election as evidence for a mandate intending to remove gay rights from the national agenda. After all, they argue, the government is the symbol and arm of the majority and thus should enforce majority rule. Such arguments are those of simpletons who cannot remember any past discrimination. I rememeber reading somewhere that Jews, one of the most heavily discriminated groups in the world, "live like Republicans but vote like Puerto Ricans." Sure, the law is designed to implement the will of the majority, but it also important to note it is designed to protect the rights of the minority. Our very first amendment stems from that wish of allowing free and open discourse by the minority. The law should heed the interests of the majority, but only if they do not infringe upon the rights of the minority! Of course, just defining such infrigement is confounding in itself; the United States Supreme Court has had trouble in the past differentiating between true and implied threats, such as the burning of KKK crosses on black's lawns. The establishment of the Miranda rights, which protect criminals' rights from the power of the state, also redefined what it means to "infringe".</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I think that most of the problem and controversy lies in the mentality of the staunchest opposers of gay rights. The religious right fears a cascading effect; "OH MY GOD, everyone's turning gay!" On a myriad of issues fundamental to the current conservative cause, such as welfare, foreign policy, and abortion, it's evident that such a worldview is endemic psychologically, in a fantasy world where all the lazy poor abuse the system, where all the Islamic nations band against the United States, and all thsoe dirty, dirty whores start killing babies. Again, as I repeated in my previous thread, there's an egoism, and yes, a fear present; "I fear it, so I must become better than it." Thus, straight people have that perfect moral compass, the hard working white people support America, our troops liberate countries, and we prevent God's children from dying every single day. It's cognitive dissonance in a major way. </p>
<p>Of course, this is just rudimentary analysis, but I feel it is a very apt one. I would rather see a self-confident Christian, content in their faith and willing to give and take on an issue, something that isn't very common on the far right or far left. So few people understand nowadays that their morality cannot, even if it would allow itself, enforced on other people. And yes, forgive me, I'll use a personal anecdote: the story of a friend. One of my good friends that excels in school I feel has this necessary mindsight that I believe has truly driven him above it all; above the cursing, above the randomness and inadequacies of teachers, above the petty worries of the average teenager. The mentality on the right will have to change to a less belligerent, more accepting one if any side on this debate is to make any real progress.</p>
<p>The realization that the debate is primarily about two very different things is the first step to making this progress. If marriage were a relatively new concept, I would simply dissolve its use in a government and term and define all unions under the law to be the same type; we could call them G Civil Unions if we wanted to, or Happy Bonding! if I was feeling silly. The church could then use its jursidiction to grant religous marriages of its own choosing, exercising and probably increasing its power. This exemplifies, in my opinion, the purpose of the establishment clause in the Constitution, while allowing each group some personal satisfaction within their spheres. However, marriage is not a new invention; the fight for the rights of gay and lesbians will be a long and tedious one. I don't have the solution, but most people have no clear inkling of the problem.</p>
<ul>
<li>Xander</li>
</ul>
<p>quite arrogant are we here. why does every other line in everything you type require a derogatory statement about what nobody knows but you.</p>
<p>maybe this works in your us gov class, but calling someone a simpleton and then going off-topic does not work here or at any place consisting largely of intelligent people. my argument was that the will of the majority in this case is a bipartisan and unified one and that in this particular case it makes far more sense to follow that will than to address some infringement of minority's rights that i don't believe is a fundamental right (in this case, the right of gays to marry). </p>
<p>you'd probably be one of the dumbest people at my school, and some may say our kind is known for arrogance, but i've yet to see the kind of arrogance you display here.</p>
<p>Well said Justice
very well said (as I clap loudly)</p>
<p>Well, it looks like the evening crowd (static, kingerdos, etc.) have looked at the gay marriage thing...we thought we were done, but we had only dealt with it for a few hours.</p>
<p>First: Static: I knew it! Well, didn't know, but guessed. (I have seen your homepage...but I am not a stalker...maybe we'll meet next year in Cambridge if everything goes right on Tuesday.) Woohoo.</p>
<p>Then: Kingerdos: "Like conservatives, I believe that the Christian term "marriage" was intended to indicate a union between man, God, and woman." First of all, what about opposing gay marriage is conservative? It is only conservative in the "old/incumbent" (not right word, but you know what I mean) sense of conservative, not the "small gov/low taxes/states' rights" form of conservative. (In this way, a federal amendment making sure gays don't marry is very un-conservative.)
This "intent" thing--which goes down to nature and what something is "supposed to be"--is really no argument. So something is intended to be something? Maybe marriage was meant to be between one man and several women, or maybe it was meant to be prearranged. This intent thing is just about tradition and nature.</p>
<p>America was intended to be a society of whites with blacks as their slaves, wasn't it?</p>
<p>And BC, I am glad we can be civil. Sorry, but I find your opinions and mindset so resistant to change and critical thinking that argument is pointless. (Maybe I am resistant to change, too, but note how our experiences have been different: I have been forced to confront a fact about myself and think critically; BC has presumably lived as a "proud Southern Conservative" for his whole life without any need to challenge that idealogy.) But I do not mean to be insulting! And this may be a good reason to change subjects--this may get too heated...</p>
<p>I like heated discussions. Heated not hateful.
I did not find your post at all insulting yoshe.
I am a proud Southern Conservative. I am not an ignorant one though. I have read philosophical works from ALL sides of the spectrum and I am still where I am now. The South was right in 1861 and is right now. (But thats a whole nother issue)\
Shall we shift the discussion to general political philosophies.
Also guys, I was thinking about doing what the Dartmouth board did and go ahead and create an Official Harvard Early Action Decision Thread and everyone post a short message so they are subscribed to it, and when the first person gets their email, post so it will be bumped to the top that way we don't have a bunch of little threads. Should I, or should we wait? I'm not being impatient, I just want to be organized and prepared.<br>
Best of luck to all</p>
<p>i agree with the change of subject</p>
<p>it's starting to snow in NE. harvard is most beautiful in the winter i think, with snowflakes floating and icicles hanging from centuries-old brick buildings, students inside by the fireplaces, talking about less grave issues than gay marriage, while sipping hot chocolate or coffee. that is a NE winter. any arguments against winter as best season at harvard?</p>
<p>Winter is by far the most beautiful season
We don't get much snow in South Caro., but when we do, the whole da*n state shuts down</p>
<p>I hate winter.</p>
<p>what is the deal? why and to where was this moved?
oh never mind i see</p>
<p>"Equality and Justice~~~for ALL"</p>
<p>I support gay and lesbian marriage. It is sad that many people stoutly refuse to acknowledge it and I understand the point about majority rules in a democracy... but that doesn't mean the majority is right. Not too long ago, the majority thought that separate but equal was perfectly ethical and acceptable.</p>
<p>o wow...how did this thing suddenly expand?? lol, i think I read the old one before it moved so my comment is random</p>
<p>Ok, so now for the new topic:</p>
<p>It snowed here too! I was fervently hoping for a snow day tomorrow because I have midterms and it would please me to no end to have my cumulative biology exam (all the material from last year and this year) and physics exam postponed to Friday.</p>
<p>Unfortunately the temperature rose and it even started drizzling...still there's hope for a quick drop tonight, right?</p>