Gay Agenda?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
441

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Bigd1970 wrote:

It’s not going to happen. With all your arguements defending Gays, why don’t you just admit, that this is not about Gay rights, because they already have the same rights through the domestic partnership laws.

I don’t think this is true by any strech. Link? Personally, I don’t give a shit what it’s called. I think gay couples should have all the LEGAL rights of straight, married couples. No need to attach the label marriage to it. Many others are only pro-civil union. But I do not think this is the actual state of things at all. Gay couples in most states do no have the same legal rights as married couples and there’s no recognition by other states under full faith and credit in many cases.[/quote]

It is true in California. Prior to the gay marriage law they already had a civil union law that allowed ALL the same benefits as heterosexual marriage. So there was no benefits related reason to have the courts support marriage. So there must have been some other reason than benefits.

Also, many gay activists did and do not support the gay marriage law because they realize that it was not needed and will put gay rights in general in jeopardy. They think that society tolerated the civil union, but will not tolerate the marriage law. And they are right. As we speak petitions are being signed to put a measure to the voters to strike down the gay marriage law.

442

What is “a significant number?” Is it the same amount that were already in monogamous relationships, or did the relative amount of monogamous relationships amongst homosexuals actually go up? In other words, when gay marriage was made available in Canada and Europe, did a significant number of previously promiscuous homosexuals leave that lifestyle and become monogamous? If so, what are the actual numbers?

Right, this is what I’ve already said about three times. But will it have a statistically significant effect on it?

443

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Personally, I don’t give a shit what it’s called. I think gay couples should have all the LEGAL rights of straight, married couples. No need to attach the label marriage to it. Many others are only pro-civil union.[/quote]

Ditto.

444

[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
Ok, we can agree to disagree on the religious aspects, because, you are not going to convince me that my religion is not good, and I’m not going to convince you that your lifestyle is a choice you have made. However, you can not claim, that not necessarily you, but the Gay Agenda is to ruin the family, and force the lifestyle on me.

You all left out the fact that you will now be sueing me and my churches, which negates my freedom of religion, unless I believe the way you want me too.

I’ll just have to admit that you all may be right on the gay rights when it comes to taxes, citizenship, and other issues, as I’ve never filed taxes as a gay couple before. And I have never heard of the citizenship issue, but have had friends who married foreign nationals, and even they found it next to impossible to get their spouse citizenship, they had to actually apply for citizenship. Imagine that, but I guess that is another topic for another post.

Again, I’m not talking about you as an individual. So, stop negating arguements against the Gay Community by telling everyone that you would never do that…because the Gay Community in Canada is sueing religious organizations because they have refused to perform Gay Marriages, based on Religious preferences. So, My freedom of Religion, is being denied, and will be in the sue happy U.S. Especially here is the Republic of Kalifornia where it’s not if you will be sued it’s when.

[/quote]

Not only this but why do only homosexually have rights? What about the rights of adults who want to marry their sisters of mothers? Rights of those who want to marry their favorite pet? Or any other lifestyle option that adults may want to engage in?

Why are all these other people wrong and only Gay is right?

If we are not going to be hypocritical about it everyone should be allowed to marry whoever or whatever they want. If not, then its actually special rights for only a few and not all.

445

[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
You all left out the fact that you will now be sueing me and my churches, which negates my freedom of religion, unless I believe the way you want me too.[/quote]

Actually, I specifically said that you are free to believe whatever you want. I couldn’t care less whether or not your church thinks gay marriage is a good idea.

As for suing, I think a lot of that could be addressed by cleanly defining the role of government in civil unions and leaving the definition of marriage to the churches, for both straight and gay couples. Separation of church and state is a good idea for a lot of reasons.

446

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Bigd1970 wrote:

It’s not going to happen. With all your arguements defending Gays, why don’t you just admit, that this is not about Gay rights, because they already have the same rights through the domestic partnership laws.

I don’t think this is true by any strech. Link? Personally, I don’t give a shit what it’s called. I think gay couples should have all the LEGAL rights of straight, married couples. No need to attach the label marriage to it. Many others are only pro-civil union. But I do not think this is the actual state of things at all. Gay couples in most states do no have the same legal rights as married couples and there’s no recognition by other states under full faith and credit in many cases.

It is true in California. Prior to the gay marriage law they already had a civil union law that allowed ALL the same benefits as heterosexual marriage. So there was no benefits related reason to have the courts support marriage. So there must have been some other reason than benefits.

Also, many gay activists did and do not support the gay marriage law because they realize that it was not needed and will put gay rights in general in jeopardy. They think that society tolerated the civil union, but will not tolerate the marriage law. And they are right. As we speak petitions are being signed to put a measure to the voters to strike down the gay marriage law.
[/quote]

Many states do NOT recognize even civil unions to any degree. And they don’t acknowledge those of other states as valid. There are other reasons why the California court supports marriage. I have not read their opinion and don’t know their specific rationale. But the U.S. Supreme has held that marriage is a fundamental right. Constitutionally (if the issue ever comes before the U.S. Supreme Court), this leaves two avenues for prohibiting same sex marriage. 1. A sex sex relationship cannot definitionally qualify as a marriage. Or 2. the state has a compelling interest in limiting marriage to opposite sex and there is no less restrictive means of fulfilling the goals the prohibition is meant to serve.

447

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
It is true in California. Prior to the gay marriage law they already had a civil union law that allowed ALL the same benefits as heterosexual marriage.[/quote]

Wrong. The federal benefits (social security, federal taxes, immigration, etc.) were not and still are not available to gay couples. That is why it isn’t acceptable to just say “let the states decide”. Until it is addressed at the federal level, the inequality will persist.

448

[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:

You all left out the fact that you will now be sueing me and my churches, which negates my freedom of religion, unless I believe the way you want me too.

[/quote]

I am unaware of any activists who claim that religious organizations should recognize gay marriage as legitimate and would see to compell this. And if existing precedent means anything at all, even the most liberal Supreme Court justices would reject such a position.

449

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
It is true in California. Prior to the gay marriage law they already had a civil union law that allowed ALL the same benefits as heterosexual marriage.

Wrong. The federal benefits (social security, federal taxes, immigration, etc.) were not and still are not available to gay couples. That is why it isn’t acceptable to just say “let the states decide”. Until it is addressed at the federal level, the inequality will persist. [/quote]

That makes sense. I remember hearing that.

450

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
What is “a significant number?” Is it the same amount that were already in monogamous relationships, or did the relative amount of monogamous relationships amongst homosexuals actually go up? In other words, when gay marriage was made available in Canada and Europe, did a significant number of previously promiscuous homosexuals leave that lifestyle and become monogamous? If so, what are the actual numbers?[/quote]

Given that the rate of STDs like syphilus decreased after gay marriage was introduced, that is an indicator that sexual behavior changed as a result of marriage having been made available to gays.

451

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
If we are not going to be hypocritical about it everyone should be allowed to marry whoever or whatever they want. If not, then its actually special rights for only a few and not all.
[/quote]

Discussed ad nauseum throughout this thread.

In a nutshell: people should be able to marry whomever they want, as long as the marriage is fully informed, consensual, and is not inherently damaging.

452

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
It is true in California. Prior to the gay marriage law they already had a civil union law that allowed ALL the same benefits as heterosexual marriage.

Wrong. The federal benefits (social security, federal taxes, immigration, etc.) were not and still are not available to gay couples. That is why it isn’t acceptable to just say “let the states decide”. Until it is addressed at the federal level, the inequality will persist. [/quote]

All the same benefits within California. I was not talking federal. In fact that is the case for a lot of things. For example, medicinal use of Marijuana in California is legal, but not federally. So the State lets dealers sell it and then the Feds come in a bust them. Crazy.

453

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
What is “a significant number?” Is it the same amount that were already in monogamous relationships, or did the relative amount of monogamous relationships amongst homosexuals actually go up? In other words, when gay marriage was made available in Canada and Europe, did a significant number of previously promiscuous homosexuals leave that lifestyle and become monogamous? If so, what are the actual numbers?

Given that the rate of STDs like syphilus decreased after gay marriage was introduced, that is an indicator that sexual behavior changed as a result of marriage having been made available to gays.
[/quote]

I finally found your reference to that study back on page 9. I don’t see it helping your case:

See, for a taxpayer like me who is expected to pay for your expensive HIV drugs, I care the most about reduction in HIV rates. This, combined with the fact that gay “marriage” is correlated with a reduction in heterosexual marriages, I’m even less on your side now than before.

Your other arguments revolve around “equality”, which is nowhere guaranteed in the Constitution. The case for gay marriage is starting to look pretty thin indeed.

454

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
All the same benefits within California. I was not talking federal.
[/quote]

Then you agree married gay couples don’t have all the same rights as married straight couples.

455

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
See, for a taxpayer like me who is expected to pay for your expensive HIV drugs, I care the most about reduction in HIV rates.[/quote]

So reducing syphilus rates by 43% isn’t good for the couple and for society?

Don’t forget that gay marriage is also correlated with an increase in heterosexual marriages.

Also don’t forget the possibility of a third variable (like social liberalism) causing both.

The California Supreme Court, the California Congress, and the Governor of California disagree with you, but let’s see what happens with the constitutional amendment in November.

458

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
All the same benefits within California. I was not talking federal.

Then you agree married gay couples don’t have all the same rights as married straight couples.
[/quote]

Not if it is not recognized in all the US. But as far as California, then yes they do.

But my point was that a California law supporting gay marriage was not needed. Federally that is a different issue.

459

[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
Don’t you find it strange that there is not a Religious Organization on this planet that does not recognize that marriage was first an institution given to us by God?[/quote]

Sure about that?

460

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
There is no irrefutable proof that suggests any of this is true…LIAR.[/quote]

I’ve provided evidence from peer-reviewed scientific studies. Feel free to provide logic on why you don’t think these scientific conclusions are valid, then again it’s so much easier to just call people names right?