It doesn’t matter what the Constitution says, nor the Declaration, nor Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, or “the people,” for that matter. Rights do not derive from any of these sources — they can only be recognized or violated by any political body, not created or destroyed.

I don’t recongize that anything trumps a human being’s right to live his life as he sees fit, so long as he doesn’t prevent others from doing the same. We have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of human rights and self-determination, and I suppose we’ll just have to leave it at that.

I do believe that the right of the voters to shape their legal system, as the Declaration puts it, “as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness”, trumps your right to your interpretation of sex.

What you refuse to realize, kdogg, is that there is nothing in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence that guarantees your right to sex. That is an interpretation that you have laid on it which may, with perfect right, be used by pedophiles or others in exactly the same fashion.

The simple fact of the matter is that, if you wish your sexual liaisons to be free, voters must be convinced that they should be as well. However, you seem insistent on writing into the Constitution and the Declaration a right to sex that a) doesn’t exist and b) runs contrary to the CLEARLY-stated words in both that the people have the right to determine their own laws.

Since we were talking about rights, how they come about, and the relationship between government and rights, I can only conclude, with some horror, that you beieve rights are defined by (using your phrasing) the people. They don’t exist if the people don’t think they exist.

This is an extremely dangerous form of moral relativism that, quite frankly, I find shocking. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that the Framers believed, correctly, that rights exist prior to and apart from government, and that government exists only to protect these rights. In fact, government exists even to protect these rights from a political majority that chooses not to recognize them — that’s a main purpose of limited government, as described in the Declaration and realized in the Constitution.

I claim that I have a right to conduct a relationship with my boyfriend (who is 25, just slightly younger than I am — just to dispense with that straw man). An intimate, sexual relationship, as long as we both want it. We do no harm to anyone else in the world by conducting this relationship, and it enriches our lives immensely. If someone tried to stop us — no matter what process was used and no matter what majority supported it — they’d be violating our rights. Are you really such a relativist that you think that it could possibly be ethical to use force to stop us from conducting our relationship?

The problem, kdogg, is one of definition.

The Declaration of Independence says the following:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So, technically, you’re right; “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is broad enough to encompass having sex with your boyfriend.

However, what if you’re using this definition of “boyfriend”?

Based on your argument, any law that was passed to deal with that would “have no ethical legitimacy at all” and would be “moral thuggery”, inasmuch as it would abridge your right to your preferred “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

The Declaration deals with this in its next two sentences (emphasis mine):

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

That “to them” is the crucial part — and the singular invention of the Founders that makes our system so wonderfully powerful, flexible, and adaptable. Instead of requiring allegiance to a fixed, immutable code, i.e. the “divine right” of monarchies, as the basis for government, the Declaration sets the right of definition and promulgation squarely in the hands of the governed. No longer is the government answerable only to God; now it is answerable to those who it governs.

The ethical code outlined in the Declaration of Independence and later in the Constitution is simple: whatever the people think is ethical, is, and what isn’t, isn’t. They may to varying degrees codify parameters, but everything is subject to vote and change. The rules have moved from being a static set that never changes to a dynamic set that alters and is reshaped with and by the times in which it operates.

To your initial statement, I would say, no, you do not; you currently have a judicial decision that interprets the Constitution to limit the power of the state to regulate your private sexual conduct with your unrelated, adult, unpaid, consenting boyfriend. That is the operating definition of granting you “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, and it will remain so until the electorate decides to reverse said decision or go off in another direction entirely.

Rights exist separate from the state, which can either recognize rights or violate them, but cannot define them. This is made clear in the Declaration of Independence, for instance.

Then, since homosexuality is so abhorent to them, push the gays either back into the closet, or better yet, out of the country – “you’re not welcome here, your behavior is socially unacceptable, does not promote families, and is disgusting”.

We go back into the closet, but why, let’s just leave the country.

Gone are our tax dollars. Gone is the highest revenue source outside of this country – entertainment(there aren’t enough straights to keep it going or at least do damage to it). Gone are the votes we give. Gone are the charity contributions we make. Gone are the historical contributions we’ll make. Gone are the brothers, sisters, of families we’ll never see. Gone are the capitalistic dollars we give to the thousands of businesses in this country.

I say we do it. Encourage it. Lead them to it. Let them reveal themselves as either disdainful of our “behavior” since they think this is a “choice”, or they shut up about it once and for all and give all gays their civil rights once and for all.

Polygamy is “illegal” only in that we allow marriage between one man and one woman* so if someone lies and commits fraud to marry an additional person (without getting divorced from the first one) then it’s illegal. People can set up their households any way they please without coming afoul of the law. There isn’t anything illegal about setting up a household of three or more.

Rape is *illegal*… sex with underaged persons or any other non-consensual sex. It’s always illegal and doesn’t depend on making a false contract (such as a bigamous marriage would be.)

(* Or in Mass, one man or woman and one man or woman.)

Just nit picking. I really don’t “get” the argument that polygamy is so outrageously impossible, anyhow. Even more so than gay marriage, much more so, it’s got extensive historical precident.

Please note what I said, Jed (emphasis added):

Santorum’s point was absolutely true; if you argue that gay sex should be OK because the government gives you the right to sex with whomever you want, then by definition, you have the inalienable right to have sex with people other than your spouse, your relatives, children, animals, and whatever else.

Indeed, those who cite “equal protection” as grounds for the right to sex forget that the standard in the Fourteenth Amendment is “persons residing” in a state’s jurisdiction. It says nothing about “two”, “adults”, “not already married”, “consensual” or “of the same species”.

First, you’ll notice what I specifically said (emphasis mine).

Santorum’s point was absolutely true; if you argue that gay sex should be OK because the government gives you the right to sex with whomever you want, then by definition, you have the inalienable right to have sex with people other than your spouse, your relatives, children, animals, and whatever else.

In short, under this argument, the government cannot in any way abridge your right to sex.

Furthermore, since the the recipient of “equal protection” in the Fourteenth Amendment, where most gays seem to claim the right of unlimited sex is found, happens to be only “person”; it does NOT say anything about “consensual”, “adult”, “not blood relation”, or “two”, and depending on how one wishes to define “person”, could be extended to animals as well.

The key in handling these sort of arguments is to get past the superficial “outrage” and dig deeper into what was actually said and the reality of the statement. Right now, whether we like it or not, the arguments of our activists that sex is some kind of inalienable right that the government should not be allowed to regulate opens the doors for all of these abuses.

And the definition of “allowable sex” is basically, “whatever the electorate wants to allow”. Pedophilia is not Constitutionally forbidden; if a jurisdiction wants to lower the age of consent to 6, it theoretically can do it.

I also think that people tend to figure that what other people do is their own buisness, even if/when they disapprove. So most people won’t make an effort unless they feel that they are being personally impacted. When it comes to education, for example, parents don’t want their children taught that it’s okay to be mean to some people, but that doesn’t make it acceptable to them to teach their children that sexual morality doesn’t matter. Most people don’t care about what domestic arrangements are made by gay people, but the break down of marriage directly impacts them and (wrong or not) changing the definition of marriage seems a step in the wrong direction.

Anti-anti-gay seems a good way to express the attitudes of people. They aren’t pro-gay by any means but they don’t hate gay people or want bad things to happen to them.

Santorum’s point was absolutely true; if you argue that gay sex should be OK because the government gives you the right to sex with whomever you want, then by definition, you have the inalienable right to have sex with people other than your spouse, your relatives, children, animals, and whatever else.

A child or an animal cannot have consensual sex, by definiton, period. Polygamy, I believe, is illegal…etcWe don’t need “permission” to have sex with someone other than our spouse.

The easy and simple way for the gay community to defuse this would have been to immediately press for laws and/or amendments that would make it clear that extending the definition of allowable sex to include two consenting, unmarried (or married) adults of either gender did not require the legalization of any of the others.

I must have missed Civics class that day. Can you tell me “the definition of allowable sex.”

I didn’t realize I was unclear.

My point is that you can’t argue that the difference between homosexuality and the other behaviors is that homosexuality isn’t criminal and the others are, because what is a crime in society is defined by the legislature of that society. Pedophilia is a crime, only because the legislature has made it such, if the legislature decided tomorrow that it is okay to have sex with young children and abolished laws against pedophilia, I would hope you wouln’t then argue the comparison to homosexuality is valid, since pedophilia isn’t a crime.

Your point shouldn’t be that they shouldn’t be compared because some are crimes and others aren’t, if you lived in Iran, could you make that argument? (shoot I would be willing to bet in Iran a homosexual would be more likely to get hanged than a man who had sex with a 12 year old, even though we can both agree that sex with the 12 year old is wrong).

Basically the real argument to make is that those other actions don’t involve consenting partners and they involve harm.

But crime is nothing more than a legal construct of individual societies, so it makes a poor gauge or right and wrong-just make the argument based on morality and harm.

Clearly, his remarks were taken out of context, as media outlets of both persuasions are so adept at doing. But I’d suggest that even not taken out of context, these remarks in particular didn’t hurt Santorum so much as the fact that his “values” (and I put that in quotes because I think it’s a loaded word, not to reflect my opinion of him) are / were simply out of the mainstream of most PA voters. Santorum subscribes to a very traditional (I guess you could even say orthodox or obedient) set of Catholic teachings, and while that’s certainly his right, I think most Pennsylvanians found it to be out of touch with their own positions.

I’m no fan of Santorum, but I have to give him credit for the very classy concession speech.

The animosity is there in screamin’ technicolor and you’re right to point out the gay marriage issue as proof of it. Hoping it isn’t and looking for it “not not” being there isn’t reality –sorry Dan.

Frankly, I think Dan is wrong.

Dan, my experience is that most Americans do NOT support gay rights as defined by the radical Left –and we have election after election to prove that point solidly. My experience is that most Americans do NOT want their kids anywhere around openly gay men in an unsupervised manner. Hell, most str8 guys wouldn’t share a shower or locker room or sauna with openly conventional gay men –to think otherwise is pure, flat out fantasy. It’s why gay athletes aren’t out.

My experience is that most Americans do NOT want gays in their neighborhood, to see them in the grocery stores shopping together, or deal with PrideParades once a year. They may not show their intolerance in a strong fashion, but try holding hands with your partner in mid-town America and tune in to the commentary. It’s why we seek protection in enclaves and work to dominate the political subculture of a few pro-gay communities/areas in America. We need that sense of community and push out those who don’t conform to our perspectives… it’s why the GayLeftBorg is so very intolerant of gay conservatives.

My experience is that most Americans don’t like us and maybe that shouldn’t matter UNTIL we start asking for their support in the ballot box or seeking their support in tolerance campaigns. And this isn’t a liberal vs. conservative polar aspect… I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “Oh… but you aren’t like regular gays” from very well meaning, liberal friends. When I argue it shouldn’t matter, the discussion turns cold fast.

We might like to think that most Americans aren’t anti-gay but that hardly translates into pro-gay or even willing to abide with tolerance toward gays and include us in their daily lives. I think most Americans will tell pollsters some version that gays are “ok but not in my neighborhood” –and we have the years of dramatic license from our gayLeft friends pushing their alternate lifestyles on the American consciousness to thank for that. It’s why PrideParades have been so corrosive to the long term PR interests of progress.

Nope Santorum lost for a lot of reasons other than a majority of PA voters didn’t like his anti-gay attitude. He lost because he didn’t do what was necessary over 5+ years to build an effective political organization that would return to him office. Same is true with Allen and others.

While it can be argued that Santorum might have been practicing litmus test purity… that wasn’t the test group that showed up on election day.

And most Americans don’t like gays of the median persuasion… but will tolerate them if removed from daily intercourse. That’s much closer to reality. I can think of hundreds of little demonstration projects if anyone here thinks it’s a warm, embracing world out there.

I’d suggest you do your homework, since this had been addressed hundreds of times on hundreds of conservative sites.

On a larger issue, the post says, “Most Americans, while opposing gay marriage, don’t harbor much, if any, animosity against gay people.” I’d like to know on what basis these people do oppose gay marriage if it isn’t animosity towards gay people. Why, in these people’s minds, should gay people be excluded from civil marriage? What are the pro-gay reasons?