Why Do People Care About Gay Marriage?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
801

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Standndeliver wrote:
Someone brought up a good point earlier — why are the traditions of other people sacred but the traditions of americans not? Marriage is traditionally between a man and woman here, no? If it is anyone but americans, then their traditions are to be honored and respected. That is wrong.

Because the liberals (mainly liberal judges) are placing the rights of a very small minority over the rights of a very long standing tradition and something that the overwhelming majority of Americans DO NOT want changed.[/quote]

Actually, it’s not a small minority of judges forcing their beliefs on the population at large. An increasing number of Americans people have the right to engage in private consensual relationships they may not agree with or endorse. The split is almost even now between people who would ban gay marriage or civil unions and those who think they should have the right. Except in California. Personally, I don’t particularly agree with that decision. I think it is unconstitutional discrimination to deny gay couples the same LEGAL benefits straight couples get, but I don’t think that the view of the people in a given state should be overuled until and unless the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutuional. (though I suppose you could say state courts have the right to defend the constitution and defend against tyranny of the majority just as the Supreme Court does)

802

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I cannot really believe that people can honestly compare a private consensual relationship in the privacy of a home with walking around naked in public for everyone 4 yr old to see.

Let me quickly bring you up to date so you don’t look so stupid in your next post…I mean that in the nicest way.

HH posted that disgusting photo and we all commented on it.

But…

those of us who are against gay marriage have repeatedly stated that we don’t care what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

Okay?

Next time I’m not going to bring you up to date you’ll have to do that for yourself.

Your welcome.

[/quote]

Thanks. I am eternally grateful. Don’t know how I can repay you. Then, what is your beef then? Hasn’t been articulated very well in this thread. How is it your goals can’t be achieved by laws keeping propr boundaries between the private and public sphere rather than denying a class of couples legal benefits entirely>

803

The only one on the opposition side of this thread who has really made sense is Boston Barrister. He makes a valid argument that extending the same benefits to homosexual would so degrade and alter the institution of marriage, that it’s unnacceptable. It’s not a position I agree with, but it’s at least defensible. IF true, it would be a justifiable reason to discriminate and fail to extend the benefits and entitlements tradtionally enjoined by married couples to homosexual couples. But even then, they should still get them if there are other less restrictive ways of achieving the goal of safeguarding marriage.

806

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
How is it your goals can’t be achieved by laws keeping propr boundaries between the private and public sphere rather than denying a class of couples legal benefits entirely>

Oh boy…I just told you in the previous post those are two different arguments…

Here’s what you should do…go back over this thread and actually read it. What you are asking has already been asked and answered a multitude of times.

But…if you can bring something new to this debate I’d love to read it…really[/quote]

There’s really no debate despite this 30+ page thread. There’s a fundamental disagreement whether extending the benefits to homosexuals would degrade or destroy the institution of marriage. If it does, it MAY be defensible to deny them. If it won’t, it’s NOT. But the two sides are never going to agree on this fundamental principle. Now, I have to go do work. The shitfest can carry on without me.

807

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
But even then, they should still get them if there are other less restrictive ways of achieving the goal of safeguarding marriage.

That’s nothing new.

Here is your answer which has been stated many times:

Polygamists should get those benefits too. Why do YOU want to discriminate aginst Polygamists?

Please don’t answer me…all you have to do is scroll back and see the answer to your answer and save time.

Thank you.[/quote]

I explained the diffence between polygamy and gay marriage some 20 pages ago when I was still actively participating in this thread. YOU can scroll up and check it out.

809

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
But even then, they should still get them if there are other less restrictive ways of achieving the goal of safeguarding marriage.

That’s nothing new.

Here is your answer which has been stated many times:

Polygamists should get those benefits too. Why do YOU want to discriminate aginst Polygamists?

Please don’t answer me…all you have to do is scroll back and see the answer to your answer and save time.

Thank you.

I explained the diffence between polygamy and gay marriage some 20 pages ago when I was still actively participating in this thread. YOU can scroll up and check it out.

Some people are just not tolerant of Polygamists rights. Fortunately we have plenty of liberal activists judges that will end this horrific discrimination.

Bye. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Doubt it. Polygamy won’t be legal. Rightly so. I suspect that one day gay couples will be able to file joint tax returns and that one partner will be treated as a spouse for the purpose of hospital visitation and the like. The current generation of recalcitrant bigots will just have to die off first. But it’ll happen. Tolerance increases every day.

811

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
But even then, they should still get them if there are other less restrictive ways of achieving the goal of safeguarding marriage.

That’s nothing new.

Here is your answer which has been stated many times:

Polygamists should get those benefits too. Why do YOU want to discriminate aginst Polygamists?

Please don’t answer me…all you have to do is scroll back and see the answer to your answer and save time.

Thank you.

I explained the diffence between polygamy and gay marriage some 20 pages ago when I was still actively participating in this thread. YOU can scroll up and check it out.

Some people are just not tolerant of Polygamists rights. Fortunately we have plenty of liberal activists judges that will end this horrific discrimination.

Bye. :slight_smile:

Doubt it. Polygamy won’t be legal.

Sure it will…they just don’t have the political clout that fags do yet. Do you honestly think that “gay marriage” would even be entertained as a serious topic in 1980? These things take time. First the fags get the right then the polyamists…then…well who knows? We’ll just have to wait and see what the perverts want next.

I suspect that one day gay couples will be able to file joint tax returns and that one partner will be treated as a spouse for the purpose of hospital visitation and the like. The current generation of recalcitrant bigots will just have to die off first. But it’ll happen. Tolerance increases every day.

But tolerance for Polygamists should not increase?

BIGOT.

[/quote]

Yup. I’m a bigot. Proud of it. Restrictions on polygamist marriage are not simply to protect the ‘institution’ of marriage. They are at least as much to protect the parties who would be PART of a marriage. Law does not exist in a vacuum. It’s a reflection of what’s necessary in society.

Almost all polygamist marriages are much older men married to some very young girls. Who have no real choice in the matter and no options even if of technically legal age. It is to prevent oppression and a miserable existence by preventing those who would take advantage from doing so.

It’s certainly seen in other areas of law too. Freedom of contract is highly respected. But courts will void unconscionable contracts and adhesion contracts where one party had grossly unequal bargaining power and used it to oppress the other party. By contrast to polygamous relationships, the average gay relationship is concensual.

At least no more or less so than our relationships. The offensiveness is to people outside the relationship, and that is being used as an excuse to deny them rights. There’s no additional element of preventing something that has proven to be an inherently oppressive insitution and tool as polygamy has proven to be in this country.

Maybe I’m a bigot. But you a real jackass, freely engaging in hate speech. Wow you really got your point across by calling them ‘fags.’ That truly added to the discussion and brought you a lot of credibility. Congratulations.

812

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
But exposing them to two hairy men humping each other is perfectly natural?[/quote]

When the hell did I suggest that?

813

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Ha ha more humor from the left…think about what you wrote.

If that were true then we are discriminating against polygamists, incestuous relationships, and a whole long list of other perverse combinations.[/quote]

If nobody is being harmed, then I don’t really care. Before you bring out the standard argument - incest = potentially damaging to offspring, bestiality = no consent

[quote]I guess it doesn’t matter what you and I believe. There is no “gay gene” and therefore there is no proof that people are born that way.

Also, according to your theory why haven’t child molesters been “weeded out years ago”?

You’re not thinking.[/quote]

Child molesters develop their sexual tendencies a lot later than gay people. Every gay person I’ve met says they always knew. Every child molester seems to have a specific trigger within their later childhood (or even later than that).

[quote]What happens when the popular liberal view turns full tolerance for those who really, really want to show their love for each other in the street?

Then you become a bigot.

I guess it’s where you draw the line.[/quote]

When they want to do something where someone may be psychologically (or physically) damaged, then I’ll be right there protesting against it.

815

[quote]Makavali wrote:

When they want to do something where someone may be psychologically (or physically) damaged, then I’ll be right there protesting against it.[/quote]

Exactly. Your rights end where my nose begins. But that shouldn’t extend to my right to simply not be offended by a concept. Liberties and benefits should not be curtailed or denied a class of people unless it would affirmatively interfere with the lives and rights of another or cause cognizable harm. There’s just not enough showing that extending legal benefits to gay couples would do this.

816

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Maybe I’m a bigot.

Glad you can see your shortcomings…or at least one of them. Is your bigotry somehow acceptable because it is against Polygamists? Three people cannot somehow fall in love with each other? But two men should be respected as having fallen in love with each other? And all because the liberal talking heads have not yet told you to accept Polygamy.

You are truly a brainless drone.

But you a real jackass, freely engaging in hate speech.

Ha ha…“hate speech”. Um…where do I begin? Or should I just leave that silly phrase alone?..Hmmm …I’ll only say that you are a young brain washed idiot. One form of bigotry is perfectly fine in your book, while another kind is not so acceptable. Is there no end to the hypocrisy of the left?

Now why don’t you run along and fret about other non existent liberal issues like global warming.

[/quote]

You’re not very smart. I actually think. You can’t even see the difference between gay marriage and beastiality and polygamy despite being spoonfed. And you’re more brainwashed than anyone. Only it’s worse. You’re brainwashed to a dead and dying ideology. Guess what else. I’m not a liberal. Far from it. You have that annoying habit of tar and feathering everyone that disagrees with you on an issue as ‘liberal.’ People like you make me hate my own party.

818

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

You’re not very smart.

Or you’re not, how would you like to determine this? Income? Successful personal relationships? Academic awards? Let me know.

I actually think.

No…actually you don’t.

You can’t even see the difference between gay marriage and beastiality and polygamy despite being spoonfed.

And you’re not smart enough to know that I’ve never once mentioned “beastiality”? No not even one time. Are you confused junior? You have to try to focus just a little when your chatting with adults.

And no…there is no difference between bending the laws for gays or for polygamists…none.

BIGOT.

I’m not a liberal. Far from it. You have that annoying habit of tar and feathering everyone that disagrees with you on an issue as ‘liberal.’

I know exactly what you are. You’re a socially liberal, young idiot. That was an easy one.

People like you make me hate my own party.

There you go hating again…

[/quote]

Yawn. I’m done here. I won’t post again on this topic after this. Unless someone else has something worthwhile to say. Or you have a legitimate response to the fact that polygamy in this country has almost exclusively been an oppressive and cultish institution. And that the laws against polygamy are largely to protect individuals and not just uphold a cultural concept of what marriage should be for outsiders who are not party to the marriage. Have you looked at the legislative history? You can say that society is justified in prohibiting gay marriage because the potential societal consequences overide any right those who want it should have. Fine. That’s your opinion.

You might even TRY to say that it’s discrimination against healthy men and women who would freely enter polygamous marriage with EQUAL consent and desire (but where are they? where is this mass movement of men and WOMEN complaining that their rights to have mass partners is being infringed upon. I don’t see them anywhere). What you can’t say is that gay marriage and polygamy are the same and that there aren’t additional motivations behind the prohibition on polygamy that have nothing to do with society’s concept of polygamy and finding it offensive. Maybe it’s discriminatory to have a minimum age for marriage too. Maybe there are some 14 years who are mature enough and ready to be married. But the law is justified because the vast majority aren’t, and the measure is largely to protect them. The same applies for polygamy. Maybe there are some loving, mutual polygamous marriages that all parties enter into because of belief in the principle. But the vast majority in this country are NOT.

819

I oppose gay marriage.