Gay Marriage: The Latest Salvo

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]100meters wrote:
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.[/quote]

I’ve got a little newsflash for you. Irrespective of what we believe now, pretty much the only minorities the majority of the Founders were concerned about treating fairly were religious and political minorities. The idea of racial equality was pretty much unknown (note: not the idea of being kind to all humans, but the idea that the races were equal in all respects) at that time, and definitely was not a concept embraced by the majority of people who ratified the Constitution. And if you really think that the Founders had gay rights in mind when the passed they ratified the Constitution, or even that the people who ratified the 14th Amendment had gay rights in mind, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you…

Now, all that means is that gay rights aren’t enshrined in the Constitution as it was originally intended. These days we let judges add things – but even now they have not yet managed to add that.

THis isn’t to argue you couldn’t go and get states to pass anti-discrimination laws that specifically protect gays and guarantee them equality under the law – you could probably also get Congress to pass something under its Commerce Clause authority, which apparently is just about, though is not quite, general power.

Just don’t claim stuff that isn’t there.

[Professor_X]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There is no question that the sexual characteristics in each are malformed, but there is no debate on what their sex is. Bad examples.[/quote]

Those examples weren’t even presented until one poster wrote that XX and XY should be enough to judge who should marry whom. It wasn’t meant to mean that gender was necessarily the issue but that not everyone falls into the boxes being neatly thrown around on this topic. My main point was in regards to the those who are born with both sets of genetalia, or even those born with only one set but the genetalia don’t match the intended sex of the person.

[quote]
Let’s assume you are right - then let’s carve out an exception for the exceptions, per my idea. Those individuals who legitimately have biological problems determining sex can identify and marry accordingly. The rest, the overwhelming supermajority whose sex is straightaway, follows the law of the norm. What does this have to do with whether gays should be able to marry? [/quote]

Because you are denying a group of people the ability to marry based on their sex. Even when this is difficult to determine, you simply say they can “indentify and marry accordingly”. What does that even mean? So, that group of people can avoid your strict intent on marriage but everyone else, simply because they look more the part, is held strictly to it?

I do not argue that biology is the lone determinant as to whether gay marriage should be permitted. My original foray into sex-based ‘exceptions’ came as a result of quizzing Vroom as to where he might draw a bright line as to who should be able to marry based on biology, ie, is it ok for a brother and sister to marry when they both claim the biological legitimacy of their sexual atrraction?

So you relate gay marriage to incest? Why do you keep doing that? It is like tossing in everything you find deplorable simply because you don’t like a certain group of people. Again, if it weren’t for simply voicing my opinion, there is no way I would ever even talk this much about the subject. It is a daily non-issue for me, yet for some of you, it seems to be some threat to your way of life. I have yet to hear from any of you how two girls getting hitched will affect your life. I mean, could just one person answer that question in detail for me? One poster even talks about how he won’t allow two “fags holding hands” to take place on his street…yet no one says a word about how wrong that sounds. Are those “christian values”? Let’s beat up the faggots? No problem there, right? The problem is all of those crazies who aren’t throwing rocks at them as they walk by and actually wouldn’t care if they were happy.

[Original_Demon]

[quote]100meters wrote:
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.[/quote]

This is by far the biggest load of horseshit I’ve heard all year!!! This country was not founded on religous values!!! You’re making this too easy for me… In fact, I’ll keep it simple for you.

Reach into your purse, pull out a “1” dollar bill and read:

Right side:

• E pluribus unum (from many, one)- “FROM MANY”, not the minority, is one nation formed.

Left side:

• Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertakings) - I believe that would be “God”.

• Novus ordo seclorum (New order of the ages). - This would be the nation made under “God”.

And what do the funny pictures mean you ask? Allow me to elaborate…

What the pictures mean:

The unfinished pyramid and the eye in a triangle on the reverse side are classic symbols. The Egyptian pyramid is a symbol of strength and duration; the 13 steps indicate the original number of U.S. states; and the 13 steps leading to an unfinished summit indicates future growth of the nation. The eye is known as the “Eye of Providence” and is surrounded by rays of light. According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, “providence” can mean:

• a looking to, or preparation for, the future; provision.
• skill or wisdom in management; prudence.
• a) the care or benevolent guidance of God or nature, b) an instance of this.
• God, as the guiding power of the universe.

The single eye shows up in Egyptian mythology as the Eye of Horus, an ancient god of the Egyptians. The eye represented wisdom, health and prosperity.

Let’s recap shall we…

As of June 20, 1782, the American poulace’s beliefs:

• Strength and growth as a nation through the guidance of God – A symbol not only adopted from the Egyptian God, “Horus”, but found on many other American currencies, State Buildings, and Capitals.

And although fairies do exist, they will never fly with the Eagles!

OD

[vroom]

No vroom, it’s not being an “alarmist” at all. It’s called being a realist!

Zeb,

If you truly believe that, then we’ll probably disagree on this point. Nothing wrong with that (regardless of what assquatch has to say).

Laws don’t change just because of lobbyists and money, although that is potentially an influence, but also because people think about issues and adjust their opinions based on new information.

I honestly don’t think anyone is going to think that any of the things you are describing need to be made legal, much less protected activities with respect to discrimination.

I do however see and understand your point. You have every right to the opinion that those things will be seriously pushed for change, if that is what you believe, then so be it.

Personally, I scoff at it. Time will, of course, tell. Probably after we’re dead and buried though, and at that point I won’t really care anymore.

[vroom]

On a totally different note, it’s funny how some people fight so violently to squash activities that are already happening.

People shouldn’t drink, let’s have prohibition! That worked.

People shouldn’t take drugs. Let’s make them illegal! Yeah, that is working well.

People shouldn’t screw each other up the ass! It has been illegal basically forever, that didn’t stop it.

So, gay people live together, have sex, do whatever the hell they want, already, but we can’t have them marry. Oh no, society would surely fall apart.

As much as you stick your head in the sand and wish these things would go away, they won’t. People do these things because for some there are very compelling reasons – reasons that are worth the risks involved.

Imagine how strongly you feel about your wife (since this is a predominently male crowd). Do you think you’d let anyone dictate to you how you can relate to her? Good luck.

You are trying to step between two people and tell them their love is wrong.

I know you can’t picture it or understand, it’s rejected before you can even get that far. You’d rather “throw rocks at them as they walk down the street”.

Everybody should act just like I act. Everyone should do just as I do. If anyone gets to decide on a rule to break, it must be me. Do as I say, not as I do.

Anyway, just a rant, this is not directed at anyone in particular. I don’t understand the need to persecute and discriminate against those that aren’t doing anything illegal. It smells like tyranny and oppression by the majority of a weaker minority.

[rainjack]

Twelve pages of this endless debate…Surely we can all agree on another subject to fight about, no?

[thunderbolt23]

Pro X,

Last time. Seriously.

“So you relate gay marriage to incest? Why do you keep doing that?”

The argument for gay marriage: consenting adults should not have their rights denied - the unpopularity or minority status of their non-traditional lifestyle should not be the reason they face discrimination.

Does not this general platitude apply to every relationship that is ‘unpopular’ but ‘between consenting adults’, be it gay marriage, marriage with more than one partners, or incest?

You can’t explain why gays should be allowed to marry but a man who wants seven wives can’t. What if Angelina Jolie wants to marry her creepy brother? How is that relationship harming you?

The general principle being used to advance the gay marriage argument is a perfectly plausible argument for all non-traditional relationships that want marriage rights - and [b]that is why the comparison is made.[b]

As for its importance, it’s not something I spend a lot of time worrying about, but I hang out with a lot of liberal friends and it is always a topic of discussion with them.

[thunderbolt23]

Rainjack,

“Twelve pages of this endless debate…Surely we can all agree on another subject to fight about, no?”

Preach on.

While this debate generally is ramping up, we have reached the point of diminishing returns in this thread.

[Original_Demon]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Twelve pages of this endless debate…Surely we can all agree on another subject to fight about, no?[/quote]

Here’s one for you… If gays can marry than I should be able to legally use steroids!!!

OD

[lothario1132]

vroom just owned all of you. Shame on you homophobes. Yes, I called you “homophobes”. After catching up with the four or so pages that got posted since I left this morning, I had to shake my head in amazement at numerous posts and their outright fearmongering and hostility and all the ridiculous parallels they were trying to draw.

vroom’s got it right. Look at your wife and just for one friggin’ second try as hard as you can to imagine (just for a second) that there are people who feel JUST LIKE YOU DO ABOUT HER about another guy. This will be impossible for some of you to do, because the hate/fear is so deep. And I think that’s sad.

Props to futuredave, good post dude. But you have to admit that talking about this with some of these people is very similar to talking to a brick wall. They have no ability to understand the feelings or situations of gay people because they don’t see gays as people. Gays to them are abstract symbols of something unnatural and wrong, and are not to be seen as somebody to trust or care about in the slightest way. And I am drawing this conclusion from some of the posts I have read on this thread.

You guys should know better than to be so weak as to hate on somebody because they are gay. Honestly, that’s friggin’ insecure.

[lothario1132]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Was there a point to this ra-ra session? I gotta situation for you to put yourself in - and then I’m done.

NAMBLA is a huge supporter of gay marraige. Can we agree on that much? Now, put yourself in the shoes of a ten year-old boy. No you wouldn’t do that - that’s fear mongering. Funny how truth - and I’m talking been there had it done to my ass truth - is passed off as fear mongering by those that think motherfuckers like NAMBLA have a right to anything but a firey fucking death.

But you stay on their side - protect their right to rape kids - hell even marry them. Don’t believe me? Read up on them.

[/quote]

I in now way am supporting child rape, RJ. I see that you didn’t read my “ra-ra session” very well. The fact that NAMBLA supports gay marriage is another one of those ridiculous parallels I was talking about. Who knows, maybe NAMBLA supported John Kerry, too. I suppose JK is now a child rapist because of that. I’m no JK fan, but good lord… does that make any sense at all? Come on RJ you are better than this.

What WOULD be f’d up is if the majority of gay marriage folks supported NAMBLA, which they don’t of course, but you are talking about this like they do. That’s the problem here. Might as well do this same thing with incest and bestiality while you’re at it, but they’re not going to hold water either.

Gay marriage is NOT child rape, having sex with an animal, marrying your sister, marrying twenty-five different people, or Janet Reno. (shudder)

2+2 also equals four. The sky is also blue, except at night when it’s more of a dark purpley color. When you put food up your butt, you do not crap out of your mouth. Okay now I’m just being a smart-ass here. Women who lift heavy weights will not look like Arnold, eating a good deal of protein will not make your kidneys fail, Carbs are not necessarily the devil, you cannot lift weights just to “tone”, did I miss anything?

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]100meters wrote:
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.[/quote]

This is actually precisely the problem with the idea that there is an individual right to marriage – at least to people who find it troubling that marriage could not be limited to two people, or that incestuous marriages could not be prohibited.

I’ve said this previously, but it bears repeating: If there were an individual right to marriage, a limitation by number, or a prohibition against incest, wouldn’t be any less “arbitrary and capricious” as restriction on that right than would limitations that limited marriage to those of the opposite gender.

That’s the Pandora’s Box here – I’m sure the idea bothers some more than others…

[vroom]

Boston, according to your own descriptions earlier, there isn’t much of a Pandora’s Box. Certain things can be discriminated against, fairly easily, while others cannot.

We are allowed to discriminate against other species (not races, species), for example.

Also, there is no need to be concerned about limiting the number of participatns in such a contract, as long as the limitations are not based on protected features of the prospective participants.

These are silly arguments at best, meant to whip the fearful into a frenzy at the mere thought.

Question though – isn’t there already a religious group out there that has allows multiple wives?

[ZEB]

[quote]vroom wrote:
No vroom, it’s not being an “alarmist” at all. It’s called being a realist!

Zeb,

If you truly believe that, then we’ll probably disagree on this point. Nothing wrong with that (regardless of what assquatch has to say).

Laws don’t change just because of lobbyists and money, although that is potentially an influence, but also because people think about issues and adjust their opinions based on new information.

I honestly don’t think anyone is going to think that any of the things you are describing need to be made legal, much less protected activities with respect to discrimination.

I do however see and understand your point. You have every right to the opinion that those things will be seriously pushed for change, if that is what you believe, then so be it.

Personally, I scoff at it. Time will, of course, tell. Probably after we’re dead and buried though, and at that point I won’t really care anymore. ;)[/quote]

“I honestly don’t think anyone is going to think that any of the things you are describing need to be made legal, much less protected activities with respect to discrimination.”

No of course not right now vroom. How many people just like you stated the same thing about homosexual marriage back in 1980? If you brought up the topic of homosexual marriage in 1980 you would be laughed out of that circle of conversation. It’s about progressing down the wrong road. We take one step which is then followed by another step and so on…until we are at a place where we (as a country) don’t want to be!

As far as money and political whack, I think those two things can change opinions. However, I will say that at this point we still have about 67% of the American populace who stand flatly against gay marriage. I’m proud to be in the majority on this one. How long that will last with the constant barrage of pro gay propaganda coming from Hollyweird and other powerful social liberal groups, I don’t know.

I’m of course also alarmed at the liberal activist judges who are indeed overstepping their boundary on this issue.

Time will indeed tell vroom! I hope that you live a long long time and get to see it!

[ZEB]

[quote]Original_Demon wrote:
100meters wrote:
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.

This is by far the biggest load of horseshit I’ve heard all year!!! This country was not founded on religous values!!! You’re making this too easy for me… In fact, I’ll keep it simple for you.

Reach into your purse, pull out a “1” dollar bill and read:

Right side:

• E pluribus unum (from many, one)- “FROM MANY”, not the minority, is one nation formed.

Left side:

• Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertakings) - I believe that would be “God”.

• Novus ordo seclorum (New order of the ages). - This would be the nation made under “God”.

And what do the funny pictures mean you ask? Allow me to elaborate…

What the pictures mean:

The unfinished pyramid and the eye in a triangle on the reverse side are classic symbols. The Egyptian pyramid is a symbol of strength and duration; the 13 steps indicate the original number of U.S. states; and the 13 steps leading to an unfinished summit indicates future growth of the nation. The eye is known as the “Eye of Providence” and is surrounded by rays of light. According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, “providence” can mean:

• a looking to, or preparation for, the future; provision.
• skill or wisdom in management; prudence.
• a) the care or benevolent guidance of God or nature, b) an instance of this.
• God, as the guiding power of the universe.

The single eye shows up in Egyptian mythology as the Eye of Horus, an ancient god of the Egyptians. The eye represented wisdom, health and prosperity.

Let’s recap shall we…

As of June 20, 1782, the American poulace’s beliefs:

• Strength and growth as a nation through the guidance of God – A symbol not only adopted from the Egyptian God, “Horus”, but found on many other American currencies, State Buildings, and Capitals.

And although fairies do exist, they will never fly with the Eagles!

OD[/quote]

Shame on you! You should know by now that the social liberals hate the idea that our founding fathers had any respect at all for God!

[ZEB]

[quote]vroom wrote:
On a totally different note, it’s funny how some people fight so violently to squash activities that are already happening.

People shouldn’t drink, let’s have prohibition! That worked.

People shouldn’t take drugs. Let’s make them illegal! Yeah, that is working well.

People shouldn’t screw each other up the ass! It has been illegal basically forever, that didn’t stop it.

So, gay people live together, have sex, do whatever the hell they want, already, but we can’t have them marry. Oh no, society would surely fall apart.

As much as you stick your head in the sand and wish these things would go away, they won’t. People do these things because for some there are very compelling reasons – reasons that are worth the risks involved.

Imagine how strongly you feel about your wife (since this is a predominently male crowd). Do you think you’d let anyone dictate to you how you can relate to her? Good luck.

You are trying to step between two people and tell them their love is wrong.

I know you can’t picture it or understand, it’s rejected before you can even get that far. You’d rather “throw rocks at them as they walk down the street”.

Everybody should act just like I act. Everyone should do just as I do. If anyone gets to decide on a rule to break, it must be me. Do as I say, not as I do.

Anyway, just a rant, this is not directed at anyone in particular. I don’t understand the need to persecute and discriminate against those that aren’t doing anything illegal. It smells like tyranny and oppression by the majority of a weaker minority.
[/quote]

vroom, nice rant but sort of off base. No one (at least on this thread) has stated that they want to prohibit homosexual behavior (even if they could). Prohibition didn’t work because people wanted to consume alcohol and they did regardless of the law.

Homosexuals had sex with each other even when there were laws prohibiting such behavior. Now it’s not illegal and I don’t think anyone on this thread is claiming it ought to be. However, there is a big difference between allowing two men to have sex together and also allowing them to marry.

I love the freedoms that this country offers and I am the last guy to want to curb any sort of freedom (unless it is proven to harm outside innocent parties). But…don’t try to make anyone feel badly because we (the majority) are not in favor changing 5000 years of tradition by not allowing homosexuals to marry.

[rainjack]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I in now way am supporting child rape, RJ. I see that you didn’t read my “ra-ra session” very well. The fact that NAMBLA supports gay marriage is another one of those ridiculous parallels I was talking about. Who knows, maybe NAMBLA supported John Kerry, too. I suppose JK is now a child rapist because of that. I’m no JK fan, but good lord… does that make any sense at all? Come on RJ you are better than this.
[/quote]

No - what is totally sickening about your position is that you do support gay child rape - if it will get gay marraige legalized.

Are you denying that you and the rest of the pro-gay marraige clan are standing on the same side of the street as NAMBLA?

If so, I call you a liar.

I love the way the gay side loves to throw around the “religion word” as if it is a bad thing. You are in lock-step with gay rapists - and religious beliefs are suddenly a bad thing?

My God - how fucked up can you be? I guess the new gay-marraige rally cry should be “10 year-old boys for everyone”.

[ZEB]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
vroom just owned all of you. Shame on you homophobes. Yes, I called you “homophobes”. After catching up with the four or so pages that got posted since I left this morning, I had to shake my head in amazement at numerous posts and their outright fearmongering and hostility and all the ridiculous parallels they were trying to draw.

vroom’s got it right. Look at your wife and just for one friggin’ second try as hard as you can to imagine (just for a second) that there are people who feel JUST LIKE YOU DO ABOUT HER about another guy. This will be impossible for some of you to do, because the hate/fear is so deep. And I think that’s sad.

Props to futuredave, good post dude. But you have to admit that talking about this with some of these people is very similar to talking to a brick wall. They have no ability to understand the feelings or situations of gay people because they don’t see gays as people. Gays to them are abstract symbols of something unnatural and wrong, and are not to be seen as somebody to trust or care about in the slightest way. And I am drawing this conclusion from some of the posts I have read on this thread.

You guys should know better than to be so weak as to hate on somebody because they are gay. Honestly, that’s friggin’ insecure.[/quote]

Ah, finally, we are being called “homophobes” because we are not in favor of Gays marrying. What took you so long lothario? That is usually the first hate word used when this topic is discussed. It’s the first bastion of the social liberal who is afraid of having his (or her) position on homosexuals questioned. I wonder who is really afraid.

This topic cannot be debated without one of you guys flying off the deep end and throwing that word around. lothario, it’s not “fear and hate” it’s respect! Respect for traditional values, respect for the actual purpose of marriage, and yes respect for religious customs as well, all of the things that you actually hate and fear. Perhaps I should call you a “traditionaphobe.”

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston, according to your own descriptions earlier, there isn’t much of a Pandora’s Box. Certain things can be discriminated against, fairly easily, while others cannot.

We are allowed to discriminate against other species (not races, species), for example.

Also, there is no need to be concerned about limiting the number of participatns in such a contract, as long as the limitations are not based on protected features of the prospective participants.

These are silly arguments at best, meant to whip the fearful into a frenzy at the mere thought.

Question though – isn’t there already a religious group out there that has allows multiple wives?[/quote]

vroom,

This is true – under current law. The Pandora’s Box would come if an activist court decided to “discover,” among the varied “pnumbras” of the Constitution that have heretofore been unknown, an individual right to marriage tied to privacy or freedom of association. Because then you have the Courts putting themselves in charge of reviewing every constraint on that right.

Under the current law, with no individual right, the analysis is pretty clear under Equal Protection doctrine. An activist court may also find a way to expand Equal Protection doctrine to include gays under the “suspect class” definition. This wouldn’t have the Pandora’s Box effect, because polygamists et al wouldn’t be included under the “suspect class” definition.

But as Thunderbolt has pointed out, even an inclusion under “suspect class,” if it goes along with the weaker-form “intermediate scrutiny,” may not be enough to overturn marriage.

However, I think that’s unlikely – I think that if a court were going to go through the trouble, and attract the potential negative attention and political battles, of creating a new definition or pushing out the boundaries of its “suspect class” definition, it would go all the way and find that discrimination against homosexuals in marital contracts violated whatever type of scrutiny they were puporting to apply. Weaker “intermediate scrutiny” would make the decision more susceptible to limitation in the future, but I don’t think an activist court would both expand “suspect class” and simultaneously find that heterosexual marriage satisfied the increased scrutiny (increased above current “rational basis” scrutiny).

[100meters]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
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.

I’ve got a little newsflash for you. Irrespective of what we believe now, pretty much the only minorities the majority of the Founders were concerned about treating fairly were religious and political minorities. The idea of racial equality was pretty much unknown (note: not the idea of being kind to all humans, but the idea that the races were equal in all respects) at that time, and definitely was not a concept embraced by the majority of people who ratified the Constitution. And if you really think that the Founders had gay rights in mind when the passed they ratified the Constitution, or even that the people who ratified the 14th Amendment had gay rights in mind, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you…

Now, all that means is that gay rights aren’t enshrined in the Constitution as it was originally intended. These days we let judges add things – but even now they have not yet managed to add that.

THis isn’t to argue you couldn’t go and get states to pass anti-discrimination laws that specifically protect gays and guarantee them equality under the law – you could probably also get Congress to pass something under its Commerce Clause authority, which apparently is just about, though is not quite, general power.

Just don’t claim stuff that isn’t there.[/quote]

Thanks for the newsflash! And yet still we have a republic that’s designed to protect minorities. It matters not what they then thought of other races. It also matters not if they could conceptualize gay rights. It doesn’t change the system we have, nor the intent of the constitution and all its amendments which last I checked belonged to americans (I think gays are americans)