asbestosman wrote:If I believe that X is immoral and vote to not legalize it, is this stance necessarily hypocritical?
No. You have a right to vote however you see fit.
I believe that people should vote according to their consciences. I am perfectly fine with Hindus trying to ban beef. I am fine vegetarians voting to make all meat illegal. I think they should all vote according to their consciences. I might even be willing to live in such a society, and if I was not willing to do so then I would move to a place with laws I could abide. Similarly I think homosexuals should vote according to their consciences.
Everyone should vote in whatever way they see fit. Why is this even an issue? You can vote according to your conscience, according to your evaluation of an issue or whatever way you wish. It is your right. Discussing it on a board like this is an exercise in futility.
But what of civil rights? What if someone thought that it was immoral for blacks and whites to mix? Do I still think those people should vote against it? That is a tricky question, and one I cannot easily answer.
There were laws against it that no longer exist. Having said that, if this specific vote were on the table, why is it a tricky question? You almost sound apologetic. You have the right to vote however you wish.
On the one hand, I do think they should vote according to their consciences. On the other hand, I think there are fundamental rights all people should have. I don't think that forbidding people to eat meat is on the same level as forbidding marriage. Yet I also think there is a difference between a governmental status and benefits being bestowed upon particular relationships (marriage) and actually forbidding people from associating together (you can share a home with any adult you please).
Yes, there is a difference between forbidding people from associating together vs holding "status" and extending specific rights. I, myself, am in favor of extending rights. I see no reason to deny anyone the right to hold property, joint health care benefits and such.
What if Mormons were on the receiving end of legislation? What if America enacted a one or two child policy ala China? What would I do? Would i fight for a "civil right" to reproduce as much as a please, or would I insist that it be left to the legislature and then choose whether to move to another country? Is this hypothetical situation different because Gay Marriage is about changing the status quo to allow something whereas my hypothetical reproductive limitation law changes the status quo to now deny something?
I'm not entirely certain what you mean by gay marriage changing status quo. It simply affords same sex couples the right to a legal union, to hold property, have joint health care benefits, and the right to screw up their relationship and fight it out in the courts just like heterosexual persons do every day of the week.
ab man...gay marriage (I don't like the word marriage here for traditional reasons) is NOT a threat to the sanctity of marriage as we know it or the family.
Hetero's historically need no help whatsoever in screwing up marriages or their own families.
Thoughts?
You pretty much got 'em in this post. I am dumbfounded by (primarily) religious groups who think that extending the right to legalize unions to same sex partners is in anyway a threat to the nuclear family (how many nuclear families do you actually think survive in this society to begin with?) or to the sanctity of marriage.
Up until this time, hetero's themselves who have the right to marry, hold property, have joint health benefits, etc. and their attitudes are the threat to this society. Homosexual's make up a very small percentage of the population in the US. Please tell me how anyone thinks that homosexuals somehow are responsible for the divorce rate in this country, the abuse of welfare and health care systems, and who is filling up the family therapist office?
Hetero's.
And if religionists think that gay marriage poses a thread, they might wanna look at their track record regarding hetero unions first.
Do you see what I'm saying, ab?