[quote]vroom wrote:
No wait…I know what will happen! After Gay marriage is ratified and accepted in our culture everything will then be fine. Not one more perversion to the institution of marriage will occur. Yea…that makes sense. LOL
Zeb,
That is just fear mongering, even if you don’t realize it.
Those issues are very extreme. It doesn’t matter if some quack in Alaska wants to marry his seal or something stupid like that.
The issues that would have to be discriminated against in those instances are not the same.
First, those activities are currently accepted as illegal.
Second, we are allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of age.
Third, limiting quantity within a marriage has nothing to do with the sex involved, again, meaning that a restriction is not preferentially being put in place based on sex.
If you choose to spread such alarmist material, that is up to you, but you are comparing apples to oranges. Anyone who thinks about it for even one moment will realize this.[/quote]
Those things are illegal huh vroom? Just like homosexuality was against the law in every state in the union up until the mid 1980’s!
Laws were meant to be changed!
If you think it is such a huge leap from homosexual marriage to say…legal polygamy think again!
All it seems to take is a good organization, plenty of money and a strong political lobby!
Not only was homosexuality illegal, but it was even considered a mental disorder up until the mid 1990’s! Is Psychology lot’s better now, or is it simply more politically correct?
No vroom, it’s not being an “alarmist” at all. It’s called being a realist!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Marriage, as defined, has always been a man to a woman. This thread was established to discuss the legal issues that would grant such gay marriages. If, in fact, said marriages would be covered under discrimination laws.
And, if present liberal/activist jurists are trying to rewrite/reinterpret existing law to accomodate said marriages.
Although feelings about the actual act of marriage are involved, the basis has been the law covering those issues and how the are/should be acted upon.
I have said it several times, that if they are allowed to marry it ultimately does not affect me one bit. I think it would be negative for marriage and society as a whole, but that is because my personal belief of the gay lifestyle as abhorent.
What originally this thread was based on though, was the constitutionality of gay marriage and judicial decisions concerning it.
Okay, personal feelings aside: In order to prove its affect on society as a whole we’d have to test it first. In order for this to happen it needs to be allowed.
I understand your aversion to gay marriage–you are not capable of stepping back and just observing individuals as the animals they are in their behavior–that’s another debate. If you do–and try not to fit what humans should be–in your mind–into some preconcieved mold just because historically it has always been that way. You will see where the majority of proponents of gay marriage are coming from. The definition of marriage is something that–despite what people like you try to do–will in the end change.
I understand your aversion to change as well–people had a hard time accepting that the Earth was round too. Peoples beliefs aren’t always going to determine what is right and therefore, legal.[/quote]
LIFT
It’s people like you who assume and decide what’s right or wrong for everyone else who have the problem.
What makes your view any more valid than mine. And seeing as you are in the clear minority as to this issue, come again with my aversion problem.
The definition of marriage MAY change, and as stated it will take away from the word and the institution. Why have age limits then? Why have just one partner?
You offered no opinion on the constitutionality of this issue. Just like your replies in the filibuster thread, you bring nothing to the table except that people who see gay marriage as wrong are inconceivable of rational thought. I’m glad their are people like you ready to do all the hard thinking, cuz who knows where we’d be without you guys to point out to us the error of our thinking.
You sure seem to have all the answers. This is a pretty cut and dried case I guess. I can’t understand all of the fuss.
[quote]vroom wrote:
No wait…I know what will happen! After Gay marriage is ratified and accepted in our culture everything will then be fine. Not one more perversion to the institution of marriage will occur. Yea…that makes sense. LOL
Zeb,
That is just fear mongering, even if you don’t realize it.
Those issues are very extreme. It doesn’t matter if some quack in Alaska wants to marry his seal or something stupid like that.
The issues that would have to be discriminated against in those instances are not the same.
First, those activities are currently accepted as illegal.
Second, we are allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of age.
Third, limiting quantity within a marriage has nothing to do with the sex involved, again, meaning that a restriction is not preferentially being put in place based on sex.
If you choose to spread such alarmist material, that is up to you, but you are comparing apples to oranges. Anyone who thinks about it for even one moment will realize this.[/quote]
Yah, why bring up extreme examples to state your case ZEB.
[quote]
No one has to “prove” gay marriage will harm society. As it stands there is no such thing as gay marraige. You have to prove why there should be.[/quote]
“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.”
That’s why.
Also this: [i]
“We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2’s prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint”[/i]
-Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado’s Amendment 2 referendum
So, now you’re only arguement against this is that a leprechan might marry a hypopotemus. That’s why my gay friends receive no death benefits from their partners employers? And why they have no rights to visit their partners in the hospital if said partner is incapacitated and the parents don’t wish it? Or attend the funeral?
[quote]futuredave wrote:
Prove that they are a minority. Prove they qualify for protection. Prove it’s genetic.[/quote]
The burden for this proof is not on the ones against gay marraige - it is on those that think homosexuals deserve preferential treatment under the constitution because they are gay.
Have you even read this thread?
No one is denying they gays are a minority. The question is - if you had bothered to read the thread - are they a protected minority? 2/3 of the U.s say no. You want to give gays protection as gays? Prove that is is betond choice and a court might see it your way. Short of that - change the constitution.
[quote]I would think the burden is on the anti[i] anti-hetero[/i] crowd to prove that denying these people the right to marriage is a harm to this country.
You can’t.
[/quote]
We don’t have to prove anything - the constitution is already on our side. Some of the judiciary, for the time being, is not. What will it benefit me to prove anything to you? Are you so lazy that you must have some think for you? You evisdently have trouble reading on your own.
[quote]So, you grasp at straws by trying to say they are not a minority in who deserves protection.
Why don’t you prove they don’t deserve to marry by citing the damage that’s been done in Mass. during the last year.
You have a year’s worth of data to prove your case. Please show us the harm in granting this non-minority minority their equal rights.
And please, let’s be more original that “Well, what if a duck marries a cat.” [/quote]
Do you not understand this thread at all? You are anangry person who throws all logic out the door to attack someone you don’t like. Fine by me - you’ve done that at least twice today
It’s not up to me to show any potential harm. That is not the issue. But you would know that had you read the damn thread.
I won’t waste my time with your lazy attempts at an argument. I’m not the one with the burden of proof, nor is the rest of the 2/3 of americans that think you are copmpletely full of shit.
[quote]futuredave wrote:
“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.”[/quote]
Show me the right to have a gay spouse. Show me the right to drive a porsche. Show me the right to own a 6000 square foot house. Your right - I didn’t see any of those choices in there either.
[quote]Also this: [i]
“We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2’s prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint”[/i]
-Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado’s Amendment 2 referendum
The list goes on and on. Not that you care. [/quote]
This is the example of a judiciary gone bad. But that will change. That will change.
The same goes for “homosexuality”. Actually the word itself is pretty new, as this source tells:
"Etymology
Main article: Terminology of homosexuality
“The word homosexual translates literally as “of the same sex,” being a hybrid of the Greek prefix homo- meaning “same” and the Latin root sex- meaning “sex.”
The first known appearance of the term homosexual in print is found in an anonymously published 1869 German pamphlet written by the Hungarian Karl-Maria Kertbeny.”
Old topic, new word. Would be interesting why our ancestors did not seem to need to identify “homosexuality” much earlier.
It is in my view irrelevant whether homosexuality is genetic or not. It seems pretty predetermined in some of us, while others make their experiences with it but stick to mostly heterosexual behaviour. Is it “curable”? Generations of “therapied” individuals speak against it.
“Homorepugnance”
The term “homophobe” is actually in my view quite accurate and understanding for “homorepugnant” people. It tries at least to understand anti-gay sentiments and its darkest phenomenons such as antigay-violence.
As much as the black/gay comparison may be flawed, following the choice argument is problematic at best. Let’s compare being being “gay” and being “jewish” for a second (I know this is purely polemic, but let’s play with the thought for a moment):
Following the “choice”-argument they both are a … well … choices.
Both have a history of persecution, culminating in progromes and concentration camps.
Both have been identified as “biological”. At times “treatments” were pretty radical (and proven to be scientifically wrong).
My point? You wouldn’t fare well calling yourself “jew-repugnant”. I think the very idea is pretty repugnant. You might not support a life-style, but defining yourself as disgusted about the legitimate and legal activities of others is indeed problematic, as it may be used by others who see themselves as equally “[insert group of choice]-repugnant” as an excuse for violence and discrimination. It may be your right to do so - but I find it highly problematic.
Legal
BB has opened up an interesting point - how activism towards gay marriage is trying to push its agenda - or how US judges interpret the laws governing society. I (think) I understand his concerns, and I agree to some extent with him. This should definitely not be decided in courtrooms, but rather in a parliament.
But to unpack the “polagamy/-andry”, “incest” and “sodomy” arguments does not really help, as they describe (in our society) clearly illegal behaviours. Homosexual behavious is a legal activity, proven not to cause any harm to people pursuing it. Trying to institutionalise it somehow show in my view a willingness to positively take part in society, not to thwart its traditions and values.
Just a few quick thoughts, sorry for spelling and sketchyness of reasoning.
Well, that’s the crux of the debate, isn’t it? Whether this should be the policy – and I think that’s inherently a political question - a values question, if you will - though others might disagree. And those types of questions are best settled via the electoral process, or at least via the legislature, which is one-step removed from direct democracy but is at least accountable, and should thus reflect the mores of most voters.
BostonBarrister wrote:
What sort of values would one say they had if they sought to deny rights based on sexual preference and nothing more? A bigot? A racist? A misogynist?
We cannot legislate values–this is purely a question of rights–a matter of equal protection under the law.
How is it illegal to deny rights based on the color of ones skin, race, gender, or age–but not illegal to discriminate on one’s sexual preference? And if we can’t legislate morality and use religion as an argument for legality what then can we use? “All men are created equal” but should be treated unequally? [/quote]
Because that’s the system of government under which we live. Sexual preference is not a status that is Constitutionally entitled to protected status. Not under current law.
Race is specifically protected by the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, which empowered Congress to pass laws to enforce their protections.
Gender, while not addressed in those, was addressed in the 19th Amendment, and is addressed in the Civil Rights Act, which Congress passed pursuant to its 14th Amendment powers.
(BTW, one of the reasons gender only gets intermediate scrutiny, whereas race gets strict scrutiny, is because the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments weren’t specifically aimed at gender, and the 19th doesn’t specifically address equal protection and discrimination issues).
Sexual preference isn’t.
BTW, while the Declaration of Independence is trotted out often in this discussion, and while I agree that it is a great document that illustrates the principles of our founders, it has absolutely no legal significance whatsoever. If it were, perhaps it’s reference to the Creator in the very next line might also be relevant to the discussion…
We can and do legislate values all the time. Criminal statutes are nothing more than legislating values. The tax code is full of values-based legislation.
The argument is over what kind of values should be the subject of legislation.
You want yours – other people want theirs. It tends to work best when the legislation reflects majority values (and very best when there is a large majority).
I have to say it again: What’s the difference between your gay friends, or someone else’s friends who want to have a group marriage? Don’t those same laws apply to them?
You never really addressed that possiblility. The point being, where is the line drawn? Why are you “gay friends” more important than people who want to marry multiple partners? Are their rights not important to you because you don’t know any of these people?
I can’t believe how far this debate on; “Gay Marriage”, the missing link, “Gay Gene”, and this on-going political discussion, “Gay Rights”, has progressed…
Everyone seems to be missing the “Big Picture”.
The United States of America is one fantastic country! I’m privileged enough to know that I have the right to open my own business and build something successful for myself and I thank my “For Fathers” for that opertunity.
That being said,
I live in Texas and have the right to bare-arms. I have the right to light-up a ciggarette and indulge in conversation after a meal with respective colleagues. But you know what? We’re not going to be discussing “Gay Marriage”. You know why? In America, marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. It is respected, cherished and admired by people with morales and sound minds and values. That’s one of the responsibilites of being an American. Upholding our countries beliefs. This is also called politics. Which some of you seem to be confused on the matter-at-hand.
A lot of the solid, core values in America have gone to shit. And it’s because of shit like this that screws it up for the rest of us. And we let it!!! Why you say? I blame the newest trend, time-out. This was a mistake. I believe if parents would have taken the time to smack their kids, when they smarted off or showed disrespect, the “Gay Gene” would have been “smacked” right out of them.
Anyway, “To Gay Or Not To Gay”, that is the question… Well here’s my answer:
If a grotesque act can be further indulged and glorified with the sacred bond that “God” intended for a man and a woman, than I have something to add…
People talk of religion, laws, and value. This country was founded on those three aspects. Rip them away and you rip away what this country was founded on. And as long as I’m a living, breathing American, I’ll be damned if I’ll allow a couple of fags to hold hands while they skip down the side-walk!
I know how social liberals hate to hear from pro family groups. The words “pro family” to a social liberal is almost like spitting holy water in Draculas face (ha). That not withstanding read the link below and perhaps it will give you a new perspective…probably not…but read it anyway:
You’d have to start with how is it fair for a heterosexual couple to marry and not bigamists. You’d have to throw out tradition (there’s a tradition of bigamy and polygamy) The discussion here is a civil contract between 2 parties, not multiple parties. Gays should have the right to enter the same civil contract with a loved one as straights do. So yeah its totally unrelated to a marriage between 2 parties.
Painful! And I’m sure you’d get a tsk, tsk from the forefathers, as they went to a lot of trouble setting up a republic to protect the rights of minorities. Hating fags is NOT an american value. (also history lesson: this country was not founded on religous values) and oh yeah gays are seeking a legal contract, that god has nothing to do with it.
Well social liberals hate fake pro family anti-america groups. The words “pro-family” is usually a propoganda term for constitution haters. The included link includes debunked studies(hinted at in point 4) and the rest are just pure speculation, and don’t include any caveats on the risk of straight marriages—like the 50% divorce rate and it’s effects on children.(note in liberal real american values mass.,usa we have the LOWEST divorce rate in the country—we also have gay marriage. Gay marriage hating states like Ken, Ark, Miss. are at the bottom—all voted overwhelmingly to protect the “santity” of marriage. Hilarious. And as an added benefit, they’re getting blue state tax dollars too! Yea!
“But to unpack the “polagamy/-andry”, “incest” and “sodomy” arguments does not really help, as they describe (in our society) clearly illegal behaviours. Homosexual behavious is a legal activity…”
But wait - only recently has it been declared that homosexuality cannot be criminalized (Lawrence v. Texas). Up until that ruling, it was a criminal act.
Moreover, those other ‘illegal’ behaviors are illegal because legislatures outlawed them, just as they can outlaw gay marriage. You’ve got a mixed up, circular argument - those behaviors aren’t illegal because they are illegal.
The comparisons between bigamy, etc. and gay marriage, once and for all, are styled this way: the argument for gay marriage is that people are being discriminated against because of their unpopular lifestyle and that shouldn’t be enough to deny someone their right to marriage. But that same rationale applies to any unpopular lifestyle that has been outlawed, thus the comparison.
“…proven not to cause any harm to people pursuing it.”
But you haven’t shown that the other alternative lifestyles hurt anyone else - consenting adults are the makeup of all the relationships, no?
“Trying to institutionalise it somehow show in my view a willingness to positively take part in society, not to thwart its traditions and values.”
This I have no problem with - I may disagree with it, but gay marriage advocates have every right to advance this view.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Not only was homosexuality illegal, but it was even considered a mental disorder up until the mid 1990’s! Is Psychology lot’s better now, or is it simply more politically correct?
[/quote]
Actually the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973.
