[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Your argument holds no merit. If gays are a suspect class, they can get married to one another.[/quote]
Does that mean heterosexual same-sex roommates COULD receive such a status if they felt it would benefit them in some way? Even if they’re explicitly not intimately involved?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Your argument holds no merit. If gays are a suspect class, they can get married to one another.[/quote]
Does that mean heterosexual same-sex roommates COULD receive such a status if they felt it would benefit them in some way? Even if they’re explicitly not intimately involved?
[/quote]
It’s not up to state supreme courts or the Supreme Court to decide on the sincerity of a marriage on a case-by-case basis. The state that marries them would have no recourse for preventing this if gay marriage was completely codified. Who would have standing to bring the validity of this marriage to any court?
How would this sort of marriage (again, assuming that gay marriage is now legitimate in this hypothetical) represent a Constitutional violation of someone’s rights? The only way the Supreme Court could rule on whether or not this sort of marriage was Constitutional is if someone had standing to bring it before the Court in the first place, which would never happen.
The reality is that we see this all the time with heterosexual couples marrying the opposite sex for financial motives rather than romantic ones. And the Court has never stepped in to nullify a marriage of this sort between two consenting adults. I wouldn’t expect them to do so simply because it’s two men or two women getting married.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t know how much clearer I can make this. To say, well, you can marry anyone you want except for the person you love[/quote]
Who cares if they love each other. Why should the government reward them with a special status/recognition than that of Jim Bob and his best pal Bubba? Why the unjustifiable bigotry against other forms of human relationships (sexual or not, two or more persons)? What makes homosexuals so damned special that we’re all supposed put them on a pedestal held up by our representative government? What critical, irreplaceable, function does their bedroom behavior (which is supposedly private…but we have to recognize it at the government level) hold for humanity? What indisputable function does it serve in regard to the general welfare of this nation that would cause you to privilege homosexual relationships above a whole host of human relationships? If homosexuality has a biological aspect, it will be ‘cured.’
Even many of the most liberal expectant parents would end up selecting whatever hormonal or genetic therapy is developed, in order to give birth to heterosexual. I wouldn’t be surprised if more than half of the homosexual population wouldn’t end up choosing such for their unborn, if somehow put into that position. The population would all but vanish. And you know what? It would be a like whisper in a wind storm. The world wouldn’t even hiccup. So what exactly is the friggen all-important issue that justifies discriminating against other forms of human relationships, sexual or not, two or more persons? Besides an embarrassingly faddish, Oprah-like, emotionalism?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t know how much clearer I can make this. To say, well, you can marry anyone you want except for the person you love[/quote]
Who cares if they love each other. Why should the government reward them with a special status/recognition than that of Jim Bob and his best pal Bubba? Why the unjustifiable bigotry against other forms of human relationships (sexual or not, two or more persons)? What makes homosexuals so damned special that we’re all supposed put them on a pedestal held up by our representative government?
What critical, irreplaceable, function does their bedroom behavior (which is supposedly private…but we have to recognize it at the government level) hold for humanity? What indisputable function does it serve in regard to the general welfare of this nation that would cause you to privilege homosexual relationships above a whole host of human relationships?
[/quote]
The govt should “reward them with some special status” because it does so for heterosexual couples seeking to enter into a contract with one another. If entering into that particular contract is a fundamental right for heterosexuals, then it must be extended to homosexuals as well, by virtue of the Equal Protection Clause. This isn’t about seeking special privileges or status or recognition. It’s simply about seeking the same privileges, status and recognition that the state affords straight couples. This isn’t to elevate homosexual marriage above and beyond heterosexual marriage. Your bigotry is backing you into a theoretical corner you won’t be able to get out of.
The same could be said about straight couples who aren’t able to have children and/or have no intention of having children. What special purpose do they serve? Why should we reward them with a special status? What would cause you to privilege non-childbearing marriages above a whole host of other human relationships?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The govt should “reward them with some special status” because it does so for heterosexual couples seeking to enter into a contract with one another[/quote]
And why does the government see the need to discriminate against any and all other forms of human relationships? What could possibly be the critical, irreplaceable, function of the opposite sexes vowing to remain in intact households? Does anyone actually need to point it out? Take you cry-faced ‘bigotry’ elsewhere. You’re arguing for an unjustifiable discrimination, you emotionally self-contradicting bigot. If the crucial function, (of which I won’t name, you can’t be so stupid) of heterosexual marriages wasn’t a natural product of the institution, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation…BECAUSE THERE’D BE NO POINT TO STATE RECOGNIZED MARRIAGE, PERIOD! “I’m ‘married’ (completely private concept of marriage).” “Oh? I’m a life-long bachelor. And?”
A fundamental right to marriage would look like this: Some guy/gal of choice tells you you’re married. Big deal. Arrangements are made between the two (or ten…) just like Jim Bob and his pal Bubba would have to decide as to who gets to use the co-purchased fishing boat on what days. Edited: And why? Because your relationship isn’t anymore special than Jim Bob and Bubba’s.
We’re talking about discrimination, period, when we’re talking about STATE RECOGNIZED marriage. It doesn’t stop because homosexual marriages are recognized. Knock off the tired ‘bigotry’ crap.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The govt should “reward them with some special status” because it does so for heterosexual couples seeking to enter into a contract with one another[/quote]
And why does the government see the need to discriminate against any and all other forms of human relationships? What could possibly be the critical, irreplaceable, function of the opposite sexes vowing to remain in intact households? Does anyone actually need to point it out? Take you cry-faced ‘bigotry’ elsewhere. You’re arguing for an unjustifiable discrimination, you emotionally self-contradicting bigot. If the crucial function, (of which I won’t name, you can’t be so stupid) of heterosexual marriages wasn’t a natural product of the institution, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation…BECAUSE THERE’D BE NO POINT TO STATE RECOGNIZED MARRIAGE, PERIOD! “I’m ‘married’ (completely private concept of marriage).” “Oh? I’m a life-long bachelor. And?” [/quote]
Calm down. There’s no need to become emotional over this issue. You’re talking in gibberish now and in my stunted mental state I am having a hard time understanding whatever point it is you’re trying to make.
What sort of discrimination against other forms of human relationships are you talking about?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
This isn’t about seeking special privileges or status or recognition. [/quote]
Oh give me a break. “Guys we added a whole whopping one other form of human relationship to state recognized marriage. No more discrimination now!” C’mon already.
All I really know about what you’re saying for sure is that once I mentioned the word “bigot” you flew off the handle. I must have struck a nerve. You are a bigot who is disgusted by the thought of homosexuals enjoying the same rights as you and I are, aren’t you? That’s what this really comes down to and you’ve erroneously tried to distort your limited knowledge of the Constitution in a way that fits into your apparent bigotry. Try to think of this in a completely objective way and I think you’ll see that I’m far more right regarding this matter than you are.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Who cares if they love each other. Why should the government reward them with a special status/recognition than that of Jim Bob and his best pal Bubba? Why the unjustifiable bigotry against other forms of human relationships (sexual or not, two or more persons)? What makes homosexuals so damned special that we’re all supposed put them on a pedestal held up by our representative government? What critical, irreplaceable, function does their bedroom behavior (which is supposedly private…but we have to recognize it at the government level) hold for humanity? What indisputable function does it serve in regard to the general welfare of this nation that would cause you to privilege homosexual relationships above a whole host of human relationships? If homosexuality has a biological aspect, it will be ‘cured.’
Even many of the most liberal expectant parents would end up selecting whatever hormonal or genetic therapy is developed, in order to give birth to heterosexual. I wouldn’t be surprised if more than half of the homosexual population wouldn’t end up choosing such for their unborn, if somehow put into that position. The population would all but vanish. And you know what? It would be a like whisper in a wind storm. The world wouldn’t even hiccup. So what exactly is the friggen all-important issue that justifies discriminating against other forms of human relationships, sexual or not, two or more persons? Besides an embarrassingly faddish, Oprah-like, emotionalism?
[/quote]
Because this post was quoted before I edited it, and forgot to label it as such, I’ll repost it for completeness.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
All I really know about what you’re saying for sure is that once I mentioned the word “bigot” you flew off the handle. I must have struck a nerve. You are a bigot who is disgusted by the thought of homosexuals enjoying the same rights as you and I are, aren’t you? That’s what this really comes down to and you’ve erroneously tried to distort your limited knowledge of the Constitution in a way that fits into your apparent bigotry. Try to think of this in a completely objective way and I think you’ll see that I’m far more right regarding this matter than you are.[/quote]
No sir, you’re the bigot. An emotionally faddish, bigot. You’re a logical train wreck. “Fight bigotry by defining state recognized marriage to include a whopping one other form of human relationship.” Gosh, guess you’re that much incrementally better than my own ‘bigotry.’ Send out the parade! And, sir? I’m not the one who misrepresented the present status of homosexuals as determined by the Supreme court…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What critical, irreplaceable, function does their bedroom behavior (which is supposedly private…but we have to recognize it at the government level) hold for humanity? What indisputable function does it serve in regard to the general welfare of this nation that would cause you to privilege homosexual relationships above a whole host of human relationships?[/quote]
Common sense dictates that monogamy reduces the spread of STDs. While not all marriages may be monogamous, more will be. Something we should really be encouraging. It’s fairly well known that same-sex parents can raise a child just fine and there are plenty of children that are not being adopted. Your crap about room-mates getting married just for the benefits already happens - it’s just happening with heterosexual “couples”, who usually don’t end up having children.
There no reason not to allow gay marriage on a country-wide level. Your fears of marriage crumbling and dying while dragging society down are reasonable. What you link the the cause is not. Marriage has been dying for a very long time, allowing gay marriage isn’t going to affect the speed at which it falls apart.
At the very least, if we buy into your stereotypes that gays are rich and fickle and will simply get divorced anyway (well, actually that’s more ZEB territory) then you have a group of well off people boosting the wedding industry at a time we need jobs available.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What sort of discrimination against other forms of human relationships are you talking about?[/quote]
Are you serious? Polyamorous? Even non-intimate forms of arrangements. Any all possible forms of human relationships, regardless of gender, number of involved, or nature of relationship…Any form of state recognized marriage necessarily highlights/holds apart that relationship against all others. The only form of non-discriminatory marriage is the anarchist form…no state recognized marriages.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What sort of discrimination against other forms of human relationships are you talking about?[/quote]
Are you serious? Polyamorous? Even non-intimate forms of arrangements. Any all possible forms of human relationships, regardless of gender, number of involved, or nature of relationship…Any form of state recognized marriage necessarily highlights/holds apart that relationship against all others. The only form of non-discriminatory marriage is the anarchist form…no state recognized marriages.[/quote]
This is kinda my question, if gays are given marital rights…would that precedent give polygamists every right to do what they want?
/curious
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What sort of discrimination against other forms of human relationships are you talking about?[/quote]
Are you serious? Polyamorous? Even non-intimate forms of arrangements. Any all possible forms of human relationships, regardless of gender, number of involved, or nature of relationship…Any form of state recognized marriage necessarily highlights/holds apart that relationship against all others. The only form of non-discriminatory marriage is the anarchist form…no state recognized marriages.[/quote]
This is kinda my question, if gays are given marital rights…would that precedent give polygamists every right to do what they want?
/curious
[/quote]
I don’t think so. No one has the right to marry multiple people at once. I think my response to Pushharder in this respect may have been a little off-base, although his scenario wasn’t really polygamy. More like communal marriage.
If some people could legally enter into a polygamous marriage and others couldn’t, extending the privilege/right of marriage to gays could set a precedent that would allow EVERYONE to marry polygamously. But since it isn’t a right afforded to ANYONE, it’s a moot point as far as this discussion goes.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
All I really know about what you’re saying for sure is that once I mentioned the word “bigot” you flew off the handle. I must have struck a nerve. You are a bigot who is disgusted by the thought of homosexuals enjoying the same rights as you and I are, aren’t you? That’s what this really comes down to and you’ve erroneously tried to distort your limited knowledge of the Constitution in a way that fits into your apparent bigotry. Try to think of this in a completely objective way and I think you’ll see that I’m far more right regarding this matter than you are.[/quote]
No sir, you’re the bigot. An emotionally faddish, bigot. You’re a logical train wreck. “Fight bigotry by defining state recognized marriage to include a whopping one other form of human relationship.” Gosh, guess you’re that much incrementally better than my own ‘bigotry.’ Send out the parade! And, sir? I’m not the one who misrepresented the present status of homosexuals as determined by the Supreme court…[/quote]
What’s the “current state of homosexuals”? Sorry - I reread most of this and I was interested in that part, but I cannot find. Sorry if I just skipped over it, but would you please elaborate on that part?
[quote]twinexperience wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
All I really know about what you’re saying for sure is that once I mentioned the word “bigot” you flew off the handle. I must have struck a nerve. You are a bigot who is disgusted by the thought of homosexuals enjoying the same rights as you and I are, aren’t you? That’s what this really comes down to and you’ve erroneously tried to distort your limited knowledge of the Constitution in a way that fits into your apparent bigotry. Try to think of this in a completely objective way and I think you’ll see that I’m far more right regarding this matter than you are.[/quote]
No sir, you’re the bigot. An emotionally faddish, bigot. You’re a logical train wreck. “Fight bigotry by defining state recognized marriage to include a whopping one other form of human relationship.” Gosh, guess you’re that much incrementally better than my own ‘bigotry.’ Send out the parade! And, sir? I’m not the one who misrepresented the present status of homosexuals as determined by the Supreme court…[/quote]
What’s the “current state of homosexuals”? Sorry - I reread most of this and I was interested in that part, but I cannot find. Sorry if I just skipped over it, but would you please elaborate on that part? [/quote]
Suspect status.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
… it’s a moot point as far as this discussion goes.[/quote]
To heck it is. If you’re going to pull in ‘bigotry,’ then we’re going to acknowledge that ‘bigotry’ doesn’t end with a state recognition of just one more human relationship. State recognition of marriage would still be ‘bigoted.’ So you’re either for the anarchist view-no state recognition–or you’re going to admit that number and nature of relationship are also areas of ‘bigotry.’ “Well, we can define marriage as only involving two people!” Great, we can also define it (where the state is concerned) as involving a male and female.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]twinexperience wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
All I really know about what you’re saying for sure is that once I mentioned the word “bigot” you flew off the handle. I must have struck a nerve. You are a bigot who is disgusted by the thought of homosexuals enjoying the same rights as you and I are, aren’t you? That’s what this really comes down to and you’ve erroneously tried to distort your limited knowledge of the Constitution in a way that fits into your apparent bigotry. Try to think of this in a completely objective way and I think you’ll see that I’m far more right regarding this matter than you are.[/quote]
No sir, you’re the bigot. An emotionally faddish, bigot. You’re a logical train wreck. “Fight bigotry by defining state recognized marriage to include a whopping one other form of human relationship.” Gosh, guess you’re that much incrementally better than my own ‘bigotry.’ Send out the parade! And, sir? I’m not the one who misrepresented the present status of homosexuals as determined by the Supreme court…[/quote]
What’s the “current state of homosexuals”? Sorry - I reread most of this and I was interested in that part, but I cannot find. Sorry if I just skipped over it, but would you please elaborate on that part? [/quote]
Suspect status.
[/quote]
Thank you for clarifying.
[quote]twinexperience wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]twinexperience wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
All I really know about what you’re saying for sure is that once I mentioned the word “bigot” you flew off the handle. I must have struck a nerve. You are a bigot who is disgusted by the thought of homosexuals enjoying the same rights as you and I are, aren’t you? That’s what this really comes down to and you’ve erroneously tried to distort your limited knowledge of the Constitution in a way that fits into your apparent bigotry. Try to think of this in a completely objective way and I think you’ll see that I’m far more right regarding this matter than you are.[/quote]
No sir, you’re the bigot. An emotionally faddish, bigot. You’re a logical train wreck. “Fight bigotry by defining state recognized marriage to include a whopping one other form of human relationship.” Gosh, guess you’re that much incrementally better than my own ‘bigotry.’ Send out the parade! And, sir? I’m not the one who misrepresented the present status of homosexuals as determined by the Supreme court…[/quote]
What’s the “current state of homosexuals”? Sorry - I reread most of this and I was interested in that part, but I cannot find. Sorry if I just skipped over it, but would you please elaborate on that part? [/quote]
Suspect status.
[/quote]
Thank you for clarifying. [/quote]
Actually, that should’ve been “Suspect Status, as determined by the Supreme Court. Or, so it was claimed.”