NationStates Jolt Archive

So what are your thoughts on gay righs?

Need more to go on.

Explain. Thoughts about what?

Not as good as gay lefts.

Gay rights good.

Human rights good.

Discrimination bad.

Homophobia bad.

Any questions?

Gays should have the same rights as anyone else. Whether someone is gay or not should not affect their rights, or how they are treated by others.

The only right I know of that gays have yet to acquire in the US is the right to serve in the military. They should be given this right. Other than that, they already have all of the rights everyone else has, the only thing left to do is to penalise those people who discriminate against them.

The single most idiotic crock of feces ever strewn across mainstream media. A bad joke that half the people don't get and take far to seriously and the other half does get but isn't laughing. An embarrassment to "civil rights" and a haven for the worst kind of bigots.

The single most idiotic crock of feces ever strewn across mainstream media. A bad joke that half the people don't get and take far to seriously and the other have does get but isn't laughing. An embarrassment to "civil rights" and a haven for the worst kind of bigots.
Eh?

What about gay marriage LH?

Gay fellas and dames are swell.

Not as good as gay lefts.
BAHHHAHAHHAHAAA!!!

Thanks...I needed a good fun moment to cheer me up!

The single most idiotic crock of feces ever strewn across mainstream media. A bad joke that half the people don't get and take far to seriously and the other have does get but isn't laughing. An embarrassment to "civil rights" and a haven for the worst kind of bigots.
You lost us all here. What are you talking about?

You lost us all here. What are you talking about?

"Gay Rights."

"Gay Rights."

if gay rights are a joke then what is the punchline?

"Gay Rights."
It's true, the naming is bad. It should be "equal rights for gay people" not "gay rights".

if gay rights are a joke then what is the punchline?

It doesn't have one, it's a terrible freaking joke.

It's true, the naming is bad. It should be "equal rights for gay people" not "gay rights".

There should be NO legal distinction made to represent homosexuality.

There should be NO legal distinction made to represent homosexuality.
Gay rights means gays would have the same rights as non-gays. Period. Meaning the legal distinction that now exists would NOT.

There should be NO legal distinction made to represent homosexuality.
Bingo.

What about gay marriage LH?

Gay fellas and dames are swell.

Gay marriage is not a case of "rights" per se. Gays are not discriminated against in marriage. Gays have the same right to get married as everyone else. When you get married, no one asks you if you are gay. No one refuses you marriage because you are gay. Even if you come out and say Im gay and I want to get married, no one will refuse to marry you. If a person wants to marry someone then they are free to do so regardless of their sexual orientation.

The case with marriage is that there are those who want to broaden the definition of marriage to include unions between people of the same sex. That is a whole nother issue. Whether we should change marriage to include people of the same sex or not is a discussion all its own. It has nothing to do with discrimination or violation of rights, its purely a legislative question (should the laws be changed?).

Discrimination would be if a gay wanted to marry a woman and he was refused the marriage license because he is gay. That is not the case here. The case here is that neither gays nor straights are allowed to marry people of the same sex. Therefore it isnt a case of discrimination or violation of rights. Its simply a case of figuring out whether it is time to make new laws that allow these types of unions to happen or whether we want to change the existing ones to allow this type of union to happen (or whether we dont want them to happen at all).

There should be NO legal distinction made to represent homosexuality.


Yay! You just endorsed gay rights!

There should be no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender.

That is "gay rights."

Gay marriage is not a case of "rights" per se. Gays are not discriminated against in marriage. Gays have the same right to get married as everyone else. When you get married, no one asks you if you are gay. No one refuses you marriage because you are gay. Even if you come out and say Im gay and I want to get married, no one will refuse to marry you. If a person wants to marry someone then they are free to do so regardless of their sexual orientation.

The case with marriage is that there are those who want to broaden the definition of marriage to include unions between people of the same sex. That is a whole nother issue. Whether we should change marriage to include people of the same sex or not is a discussion all its own. It has nothing to do with discrimination or violation of rights, its purely a legislative question (should the laws be changed?).

Discrimination would be if a gay wanted to marry a woman and he was refused the marriage license because he is gay. That is not the case here. The case here is that neither gays nor straights are allowed to marry people of the same sex. Therefore it isnt a case of discrimination or violation of rights. Its simply a case of figuring out whether it is time to make new laws that allow these types of unions to happen or whether we want to change the existing ones to allow this type of union to happen (or whether we dont want them to happen at all).


I think of it in this way: Gays don't have the right to marry someone of the same gender as themselves. Therefore it's a gay rights issue.

Gay marriage is not a case of "rights" per se. Gays are not discriminated against in marriage. Gays have the same right to get married as everyone else. When you get married, no one asks you if you are gay. No one refuses you marriage because you are gay. Even if you come out and say Im gay and I want to get married, no one will refuse to marry you. If a person wants to marry someone then they are free to do so regardless of their sexual orientation.

The case with marriage is that there are those who want to broaden the definition of marriage to include unions between people of the same sex. That is a whole nother issue. Whether we should change marriage to include people of the same sex or not is a discussion all its own. It has nothing to do with discrimination or violation of rights, its purely a legislative question (should the laws be changed?).

Discrimination would be if a gay wanted to marry a woman and he was refused the marriage license because he is gay. That is not the case here. The case here is that neither gays nor straights are allowed to marry people of the same sex. Therefore it isnt a case of discrimination or violation of rights. Its simply a case of figuring out whether it is time to make new laws that allow these types of unions to happen or whether we want to change the existing ones to allow this type of union to happen.

Utter bullshit.

It is either discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender (or both).

Your cute little argument is one of the same one used to defend laws against interracial marriage.

It was said there was no discrimination. A black man could marry a black woman. A white man could marry a white woman. Each had the "same right to get married as everyone else." They could marry anyone of the same "race."

You are just saying the same thing but substituting "opposite gender" for "same race."

So, yes, it is discrimination. It is a denial of a fundamental right.

Very well said, Cat Tribe.

Human Rights are what people need to fight for, not Gay Rights, Black Rights, Asian Rights, or whatever. All human beings deserve the same inalienable (unalienable?) rights and respect.

Utter bullshit.

It is either discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender (or both).

Your cute little argument is one of the same one used to defend laws against interracial marriage.

It was said there was no discrimination. A black man could marry a black woman. A white man could marry a white woman. Each had the "same right to get married as everyone else." They could marry anyone of the same "race."

You are just saying the same thing but substituting "opposite gender" for "same race."

So, yes, it is discrimination. It is a denial of a fundamental right.
Thank you. Good example.

I liken it to the idea that outlawing abortion would not discriminate against women, even though only women can actually go through such a procedure.

Gay rights means gays would have the same rights as non-gays. Period. Meaning the legal distinction that now exists would NOT.

Well you see, that is the problem.

Today in the instance of something like adoption, child custody, military service, etc, etc, you get screwed big time by the mere presence of any word that represents homosexuality. This, I personally despise along with the constitutional amendment Bush proposes. I simply don't like the method he is using.

However, in the context of a "civil rights" movement, Gay Rights as it is proposed is laughingly similar to something like a civil rights movement for Bikers. Both are a choice of lifestyle made by adults (even if the choice vs. nature argument is never resolved it will always be a choice of lifestyle), both have a negative stereotype associated with them, both are a deviation from a social norm, some people are scared shitless by even the idea of riding a motorcycle while others will claim to be "born to ride," etc, etc, etc... The movement itself is no more or less satirically absurd as a Biker civil rights movement, but the massive media portrayal has given way to the first rule of propaganda; "If you say it enough times, people will believe it."

Ideally, there would be two types of people in a country. Citizens and non-citizens. There would be absolutely nothing to legally distinguish one citizen from another. This "Gay Rights" movement IS NOT going to achieve anything even close to this. Unfortunately, neither will Bush's amendment. I will however, continue to support the lesser of two quagmires.

Very well said, Cat Tribe.

Human Rights are what people need to fight for, not Gay Rights, Black Rights, Asian Rights, or whatever. All human beings deserve the same inalienable (unalienable?) rights and respect.
That's right. Unfortunately, certain groups are refused certain rights. Therefore, those groups fight so that they share in the rights that other groups have allowed themselves. Black rights, Gay rights, whatever rights ARE human rights. Focusing on one group (ie, homosexuals) doesn't change that. It simply defines a purpose and a goal.

However, in the context of a "civil rights" movement, Gay Rights as it is proposed is laughingly similar to something like a civil rights movement for Bikers. Both are a choice of lifestyle made by adults (even if the choice vs. nature argument is never resolved it will always be a choice of lifestyle),
Pray tell, what is this "gay lifestyle" you are referring to?

Gay marriage is not a case of "rights" per se. Gays are not discriminated against in marriage. Gays have the same right to get married as everyone else. When you get married, no one asks you if you are gay. No one refuses you marriage because you are gay. Even if you come out and say Im gay and I want to get married, no one will refuse to marry you. If a person wants to marry someone then they are free to do so regardless of their sexual orientation.

The case with marriage is that there are those who want to broaden the definition of marriage to include unions between people of the same sex. That is a whole nother issue. Whether we should change marriage to include people of the same sex or not is a discussion all its own. It has nothing to do with discrimination or violation of rights, its purely a legislative question (should the laws be changed?).

Discrimination would be if a gay wanted to marry a woman and he was refused the marriage license because he is gay. That is not the case here. The case here is that neither gays nor straights are allowed to marry people of the same sex. Therefore it isn't a case of discrimination or violation of rights. Its simply a case of figuring out whether it is time to make new laws that allow these types of unions to happen or whether we want to change the existing ones to allow this type of union to happen (or whether we don't want them to happen at all).

*shakes head*

The right to marry whomever you want is all part of being discriminated against in regards to marriage. People should be free to marry whomever they love, regardless of race, color or sexual orientation.

Answer me this:

You live in a state that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. You are a woman and you fiance is a man who went through a sex change operation and is now a woman who has a woman's name, body and everything that goes with it...except for the birth certificate. The state says that the gender cannot be changed on a birth certificate. To further complicate the issue, the woman who had the sex change operation was born with ambiguous genitalia and the doctors assigned her the gender of Male. They were wrong and she was actually supposed to be female.

Now, the two women approach the courthouse to get a marriage license. After all, the birth certificates say that they are man and woman. At the court house, they are confused. Should they give a marriage license to these two women? If they do, then they are in effect supporting two women getting married. If they refuse, then they are accepting the fact that people can actually be born into one gender and live life in the the wrong body. Which way would you go? (and this is no hypothetical situation)

Yay! You just endorsed gay rights!

There should be no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender.

That is "gay rights."

What I personally object too is the usage of the words discrimination, sexual orientation, and gender. In legal terms, those mere words make a HELL of a lot of difference.

Well you see, that is the problem.

Today in the instance of something like adoption, child custody, military service, etc, etc, you get screwed big time by the mere presence of any word that represents homosexuality. This, I personally despise along with the constitutional amendment Bush proposes. I simply don't like the method he is using.

However, in the context of a "civil rights" movement, Gay Rights as it is proposed is laughingly similar to something like a civil rights movement for Bikers. Both are a choice of lifestyle made by adults (even if the choice vs. nature argument is never resolved it will always be a choice of lifestyle), both have a negative stereotype associated with them, both are a deviation from a social norm, some people are scared shitless by even the idea of riding a motorcycle while others will claim to be "born to ride," etc, etc, etc... The movement itself is no more or less satirically absurd as a Biker civil rights movement, but the massive media portrayal has given way to the first rule of propaganda; "If you say it enough times, people will believe it."

Ideally, there would be two types of people in a country. Citizens and non-citizens. There would be absolutely nothing to legally distinguish one citizen from another. This "Gay Rights" movement IS NOT going to achieve anything even close to this. Unfortunately, neither will Bush's amendment. I will however, continue to support the lesser of two quagmires.

So, are you against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or not?

It appears you are. But you are also against anyone complaining about it. Or doing anything about it.

That makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

Pray tell, what is this "gay lifestyle" you are referring to?

Your choice of actions that make up your time between birth and death. What you drive, where you live, where you work, what you fuck, etc, etc, etc... :)

Your choice of actions that make up your time between birth and death. What you drive, where you live, where you work, what you fuck, etc, etc, etc... :)
Hold the phone...where you work, live and what you drive is different depending on your sexuality?? I'm confused...I'm a teacher...is that a gay profession or not? What are the gay professions? And what about bis...do they only get to drive hybrids?

So, are you against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or not?

It appears you are. But you are also against anyone complaining about it. Or doing anything about it.

That makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

Hardly... I just dislike the method people today use.

What I personally object too is the usage of the words discrimination, sexual orientation, and gender. In legal terms, those mere words make a HELL of a lot of difference.

Cute.

You object to the words discrimination, sexual orientation, and gender.

I'm fully aware of the legal significance of those terms, but I have no idea to what you think you think you are referring.

The existence of sexual orientation and gender are facts. Live with it.

I'm against discrimination on the basis of gender.

I'm against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Seem like pretty useful words to me.

Your choice of actions that make up your time between birth and death. What you drive, where you live, where you work, what you fuck, etc, etc, etc... :)Oh, I see. So then there's an "SUV driving heterosexual corporate accountant" lifestyle, or a "Chevy Vega driving bisexual healthcare worker" lifestyle, etc.?

Hardly... I just dislike the method people today use.
Hate to burst your bubble, but there is no one method when it comes to fighting for human rights.

Hold the phone...where you work, live and what you drive is different depending on your sexuality?? I'm confused...I'm a teacher...is that a gay profession or not? What are the gay professions? And what about bis...do they only get to drive hybrids?

Your choice of actions that make up your time between birth and death. What you drive, where you live, where you work, what you fuck, etc, etc, etc... :)

:)

Oh, I see. So then there's an "SUV driving heterosexual corporate accountant" lifestyle, or a "Chevy Vega driving bisexual healthcare worker" lifestyle, etc.?
I bet all Vegans are gays too, but Vegetarians are just 'experimenting'. :p

Utter bullshit.

It is either discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender (or both).

Your cute little argument is one of the same one used to defend laws against interracial marriage.

It was said there was no discrimination. A black man could marry a black woman. A white man could marry a white woman. Each had the "same right to get married as everyone else." They could marry anyone of the same "race."

You are just saying the same thing but substituting "opposite gender" for "same race."

So, yes, it is discrimination. It is a denial of a fundamental right.

Not at all. the cases are very different. In the case of Loving vs Virginia, there was a law in the books prohibiting marriage by people of different races. It was this law that was found unconstitutional because it discriminated against people based on race. This is very different from what we have now which is that gays are asking for something that does not exist (a civil union between people of the same sex). There is no law in the books discriminating against gays by preventing them from marrying. Marriage is simply a law that is designed for people of the opposite sex and if anyone wants to marry people of the same sex a new law will have to be made (or the laws on marriage will have to be amended). The cases are very different. Gay marriage seeks to create something that does not currently exist.

:)
What you fuck...I missed that distinction...please...tell me which inanimate objects I may insert so that I avoid the gay lifestyle....

what method woudl you prefer they use then Elky?

I think I get what you are saying. Lets drop all labels and speak in terms of somethign else. LIke um.... errr. ... I dunno... what are you ssaying?

I bet all Vegans are gays too, but Vegetarians are just 'experimenting'. :p
Lol.

Your choice of actions that make up your time between birth and death. What you drive, where you live, where you work, what you fuck, etc, etc, etc... :)

Ah, yes. All those bad choices gays make:

The gay automobile.

The gay suburb.

The gay profession.

You are free to choose what consenting adults you fuck without losing any of your fundamental rights. Why should it be different for anyone else?

Ekland- being gay is no choice...well I guess everything in the world is a choice, but maybe not a very practical one. I gave you a choice. You can either cut off your arms and legs and live the rest of your life as a quadriplegic or you can go one living as you are now...how you were born. Now, you see...this is a very special choice that you have been given. Many people do it, and only the special few who can handle it are chosen. It is both an honor and a privilege...sure it would inconvenience you, but that is beside the fact... you will be adored for it. Anyone who chooses not to do this is considered crazy and no one will understand why. Your life would be made a living hell.

Now "choosing homosexuality" is much like that. You are born into this orientation...but the world makes you out to be a lunatic for actually trying to be who you are. They expect you to conform to their norms and if you don't you are ostracized.

Not at all. the cases are very different. In the case of Loving vs Virginia, there was a law in the books prohibiting marriage by people of different races. It was this law that was found unconstitutional because it discriminated against people based on sex. This is very different from what we have now which is that gays are asking for something that does not exist (a civil union between people of the same sex). There is no law in the books discriminating against gays by preventing them from marrying. Marriage is simply a law that is designed for people of the opposite sex and if anyone wants to marry people of the same sex a new law will have to be made (or the laws on marriage will have to be amended). The cases are very different. Gay marriage seeks to create something that does not currently exist.
A law does not have to exist in order for there to be discrimination. If there is no law saying that blacks have no rights, but there is no law GRANTING them any rights, is there then no discrimination?

Not at all. the cases are very different. In the case of Loving vs Virginia, there was a law in the books prohibiting marriage by people of different races. It was this law that was found unconstitutional because it discriminated against people based on race. This is very different from what we have now which is that gays are asking for something that does not exist (a civil union between people of the same sex). There is no law in the books discriminating against gays by preventing them from marrying. Marriage is simply a law that is designed for people of the opposite sex and if anyone wants to marry people of the same sex a new law will have to be made (or the laws on marriage will have to be amended). The cases are very different. Gay marriage seeks to create something that does not currently exist.
Actually, gays are asking for marriage. It is usually straights who propose civil unions.

A law does not have to exist in order for there to be discrimination. If there is no law saying that blacks have no rights, but there is no law GRANTING them any rights, is there then no discrimination?

When something happens that is discriminatory then that event is discrimination. The absense of laws is not discrimination.

Not at all. the cases are very different. In the case of Loving vs Virginia, there was a law in the books prohibiting marriage by people of different races. It was this law that was found unconstitutional because it discriminated against people based on sex. This is very different from what we have now which is that gays are asking for something that does not exist (a civil union between people of the same sex). There is no law in the books discriminating against gays by preventing them from marrying. Marriage is simply a law that is designed for people of the opposite sex and if anyone wants to marry people of the same sex a new law will have to be made (or the laws on marriage will have to be amended). The cases are very different. Gay marriage seeks to create something that does not currently exist.

Um, no. Your little new law/old law sophistry doesn't hold water.

In Loving vs. Viriginia, there was a law prohibiting marriage by people of different races. It discriminated on the basis of race.

We have laws on the books now that restrict marriage to people of different genders. That discriminates on the basis of gender.

No new law need be created. Marriage simply need not be prohibited to those of the same gender. QED.

When something happens that is discriminatory then that event is discrimination. The absense of laws is not discrimination.
You are incorrect. If a man can be charged for murder for killing a man, but no law exists making it a crime for a man to kill a woman, discrimination exists.

When something happens that is discriminatory then that event is discrimination. The absense of laws is not discrimination.

Not necessarily the case, but irrelevant.

Are you telling me there are no laws limiting marriage to those of opposite genders?

So same-sex marriages aren't prohibited?

Or did you just trip over your own attempt at a distinction?

Um, no. Your little new law/old law sophistry doesn't hold water.

In Loving vs. Viriginia, there was a law prohibiting marriage by people of different races. It discriminated on the basis of race.

We have laws on the books now that restrict marriage to people of different genders. That discriminates on the basis of gender.

No new law need be created. Marriage simply need not be prohibited to those of the same gender. QED.

There are now some laws that specifically discriminate against gays, and those laws are unconstitutional. But that is not the issue, everyone knew those laws were unnecessary and unconstitutional when they enacted them. They were enacted for political purposes.

The fact remains that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. That is what marriage is. The legal entity of marriage is a union by a man and a woman.

Gays seek to create something that does not exist (a legal entity also called marriage composed of two men or two women). That is a very different case from Loving vs Virginia. It will not and should not hold up in court because its a legislative matter, it is not an infringement on rights to refuse to create a new legal entity that has never existed.

Gays seek to create something that does not exist (a legal entity also called marriage composed of two men or two women). That is a very different case from Loving vs Virginia. It will not and should not hold up in court because its a legislative matter, it is not an infringement on rights to refuse to create a new legal entity that has never existed.

huh? Well, there was no legal entity regarding "blacks and whites" marrying either. It did not exist...until someone CREATED it.

As far as the bolded part, many things did not legally exist in this country. They were created as needed. PLUS the Bill of Rights is one such document created to address needs such as these. Laws protecting homosexuality DID exist...just not here in the US...just look at the Ancient Greeks!

There are now some laws that specifically discriminate against gays, and those laws are unconstitutional. But that is not the issue, everyone knew those laws were unnecessary and unconstitutional when they enacted them. They were enacted for political purposes.

The fact remains that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. That is what marriage is. The legal entity of marriage is a union by a man and a woman.

It does not matter why or when a law was created.

If it discriminates, it discriminates.

Gays seek to create something that does not exist (a legal entity also called marriage composed of two men or two women). That is a very different case from Loving vs Virginia. It will not and should not hold up in court because its a legislative matter, it is not an infringement on rights to refuse to create a new legal entity that has never existed.

No new legal entity need be created. Your artificial definition simply needs to go away because it is discriminatory.

Nor is this different from Loving in any substantive way.

Are you under the impression that interracial marriage had been legal in Virginia before they passed a specific law prohibiting it? Not so.

Feel free to argue that we ought to discriminate because marriage ought to be only for those of different genders. But to deny that the current state of the law is not discrminatory is simply disingenuous.

And, btw, what about the thousands of legal rights and privileges that we have grafted onto the legal institution of marriage? They are not inherent in the definition of marriage. And they are denied same-sex couples. Isn't that further discrimination?

You are incorrect. If a man can be charged for murder for killing a man, but no law exists making it a crime for a man to kill a woman, discrimination exists.

Good example.

This may be words from the uneducated, so please tolerate a little more... :p

If 'marriage' as a term is seen as purely male with female, then why do you want that? Why not create a new legal term that is not gender specific... instead of changing the old, create the new...

Not to mention that the piece of paper saying you are married is the smallest fraction of what it is to be married..... unless you are in it for tax breaks or something???????? (that will cost me :p )

I say, if you feel you are married, and your partner feels you are married, then have a 'wedding', invite your friends, wear rings (all the other symbols not dictated by law)..... and know to yourself you are together.... even if its not legal blah blah blah.... you have love, and that is what counts....right? ;)

What you fuck...I missed that distinction...please...tell me which inanimate objects I may insert so that I avoid the gay lifestyle....

If you wish to sodomize the tailpipe of a Buick you are free to do so, do not expect the government to legally recognize your choice.

There is a massive differences between social classification and legal classification. You can socially categorize people as generally or as specifically as you like (e.g. "SUV driving heterosexual corporate accountant" or "Urban Lifestyle") but these classifications have no place in law.

what method woudl you prefer they use then Elky?

I think I get what you are saying. Lets drop all labels and speak in terms of somethign else. LIke um.... errr. ... I dunno... what are you ssaying?

Elky? o_0

As I said before, Citizen would be ideal with no distinction between any two. If you are going to equalize "rights" don't do it specific piecemeal basis. Do it broadly as to not divide the populous by definition.

For some reason, conversations about Gay Mariiage and Gay Rights seem to turn into some of the strangest on NS...

Like the fact that I believe Cat-Tribe is really the only one here who is making any sense whatsoever... who'd of thunk it? ;)

Quit the symantic games people. It's lame, and annoying. You know who you are.

To deny someone access to priveleges 90% of the population enjoys based on gender and sexual orientation is a clear-cut case of a civil rights stompfest.
Anything else is bullshit, pure and simple.

I also agree that 95% of these arguments disintegrate when the interracial marriage comparison is brought up. It's obviously a view askew.

So what are your thoughts on gay righs?

no. if they want to be equal, they should shut the f... up.

new legal entity need be created. Your artificial definition simply needs to go away because it is discriminatory.

It is not artificial. It is the actual legal definition of marriage.


Nor is this different from Loving in any substantive way.

Loving vs Virginia did not seek to create a new legal entity, gays do.


Are you under the impression that interracial marriage had been legal in Virginia before they passed a specific law prohibiting it? Not so.

It was legal but not possible.


Feel free to argue that we ought to discriminate because marriage ought to be only for those of different genders. But to deny that the current state of the law is not discrminatory is simply disingenuous.

I have not presented my views on marriage, Ive only dealt with the legal definition. It is not discriminatory for reasons I have already stated.


And, btw, what about the thousands of legal rights and privileges that we have grafted onto the legal institution of marriage? They are not inherent in the definition of marriage. And they are denied same-sex couples. Isn't that further discrimination?

Not at all. But that is all done through legislation or privately by institutions (health care institutions for example). Thats the way to go about changing the law, through the legislative process.

no. if they want to be equal, they should shut the f... up.
Your brilliance is blinding me! Turn it down, lest I die of envy, please.

If you wish to sodomize the tailpipe of a Buick you are free to do so, do not expect the government to legally recognize your choice.

There is a massive differences between social classification and legal classification. You can socially categorize people as generally or as specifically as you like (e.g. "SUV driving heterosexual corporate accountant" or "Urban Lifestyle") but these classifications have no place in law.

Elky? o_0

As I said before, Citizen would be ideal with no distinction between any two. If you are going to equalize "rights" don't do it specific piecemeal basis. Do it broadly as to not divide the populous by definition.

And when the law contains such classifications, then what?

When some have less rights than others, then what?

It makes perfect sense for those facing legal discrimination and inequality to seek equality. In seeking equality for all, of course, they focus on raising up those who are denied equality. Would you rather they seeking to lower the rights of everyone so as to avoid acting on a "piecemeal basis"?

As the complacent majority does nothing about it or actively finds for discrmination, this inevitably means the discriminated against appear to be acting piecemeal.

But that is a Through the Looking Glass way of placing the blame for the inequality on the discriminated againsts rather than the discriminators.

Your brilliance is blinding me! Turn it down, lest I die of envy, please.

*g*
This forum is so amusing.

Everyone for democracy and freedom. I'm special what can I say...
[before anyone states it, I will state it for myself... SHORT BUS SPECIAL]

Like the fact that I believe Cat-Tribe is really the only one here who is making any sense whatsoever... who'd of thunk it? ;)

Uh-oh. I think us agreeing is one of the signs of the Apocalypse! And me without a clean suit! ;)

no. if they want to be equal, they should shut the f... up.
I agree with you completely! If those black people had just shut the hell up during segregation they wouldn't have had any problems establishing themselves as first class citizens. :rolleyes:

Why is there so many gays in 2005. What has happened in 50 years that has people turning into gays. Is it an illness?

I agree with you completely! If those black people had just shut the hell up during segregation they wouldn't have had any problems establishing themselves as first class citizens. :rolleyes:

This sounds vaguely similar to what Booker T. Washington proposed... o.0

Why is there so many gays in 2005. What has happened in 50 years that has people turning into gays. Is it an illness?

A change in social climate, we are turning Greek! :eek:

Why is there so many gays in 2005. What has happened in 50 years that has people turning into gays. Is it an illness?

Random person:
i think the reason is that the people aren't afraid to admit it. It is because we have evolved and now it's ok.

Another random person:
It might be because our culture is so different now.

Me:
I for one, don't have an oppinion, I didn't live before 50y.

It is not artificial. It is the actual legal definition of marriage.

The discriminatory definition.

Thank you for conceding the point that there is, in fact, a law here. And, as I have explained, it is a discriminatory law.

Loving vs Virginia did not seek to create a new legal entity, gays do.

No. Gays seek to marry.

That is a change in the law, yes. But not a whole new institution.

That is the same as interracial couples sought. Protection of the fundamental right to marriage against invidious discrimination.

It was legal but not possible.

What on earth makes you say that?

I have not presented my views on marriage, Ive only dealt with the legal definition. It is not discriminatory for reasons I have already stated.

And you are wrong for the reasons I have already stated.

The "legal definition" doesn't get you anywhere because that definition comes from discriminatory laws.

Not at all. But that is all done through legislation or privately by institutions (health care institutions for example). Thats the way to go about changing the law, through the legislative process.

WTF?

An argument for changing the law through the legislative process is that the current law is discriminatory. Happy?

All statutes come from legislation. The legal definition of marriage you keep going on about comes from legislation. There is nothing magical about the legislative process.

But the Constitution trumps all other legislation. So, just as in Loving, it is entirely proper to challenge the constitutionality of discriminatory legislation. It's this little thing called judicial review that is built into the Constitution and has been around since the Founding of the Republic.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be the summary of the thread:

Definition of marraige: union between male and female recognized by the state

Definition of civil untion: union of two citizens recognized by the state


Now, can someone please describe to me the differences in rights between these two unions?

The right to do what one wishes in the privacy of one's own home is beyond the realm of this distinction. Often taxes are worse for combined income, so it would be advantageous to file seperately anyway. The entire arguement, as I see it, is that gays state, "We want this name, although it gives us nothing."

Do we remove the distinction of being an infant (minor) in states because it creates inequality in voting rights and contractual obligations? What about distinctions of felony versus citizen in good standing.

Take a colony of gay men and isolate them on an island. In a hundred years their population will become extinct. If it is biological, homosexuals are evolutionary dead ends. They cannot procreate among themselves. Is there a gay mutation?

did I make anyone mad? I was just having fun.

Homosexuals have the same rights as any heterosexual does. Marriage is not a right, it's a priviledge of government.

Why is there so many gays in 2005. What has happened in 50 years that has people turning into gays. Is it an illness?
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that more people are feeling less scared to come out so that it would be the number of gay people who are 'out' that is increasing rather than the number of actual gay people.

But that would make too much sense, obviously, so im going to have to agree with you and say illness.

Take a colony of gay men and isolate them on an island. In a hundred years their population will become extinct. If it is biological, homosexuals are evolutionary dead ends. They cannot procreate among themselves. Is there a gay mutation?

did I make anyone mad? I was just having fun.

Homosexuals have the same rights as any heterosexual does. Marriage is not a right, it's a priviledge of government.
Take any colony of men and put them on an island and they will become extinct. Humans can't spontaneously change sex.

As far as genes go, ever hear of a recessive gene? Both parents must have to gene in order to pass the condition on to a child, but any children they have will have the recessive gene whether or not they have the condition it brings. Besides that, no medical proffesional is even suggesting that gayness it totally genetic, simply that it has a genetic component.

Take a colony of gay men and isolate them on an island. In a hundred years their population will become extinct. If it is biological, homosexuals are evolutionary dead ends. They cannot procreate among themselves. Is there a gay mutation?

did I make anyone mad? I was just having fun.

Homosexuals have the same rights as any heterosexual does. Marriage is not a right, it's a priviledge of government.

I'll ignore your opening drivel.

Marriage is a fundamental right. See Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html ), 388 US 1 (1967):

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

what's legal and right are two different things. Gays can't win elections so they run to the courts and beg for power from activist judges.

Someone hurry....I haven't been called a Blackshirt all day long

Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be the summary of the thread:

Definition of marraige: union between male and female recognized by the state

Definition of civil untion: union of two citizens recognized by the state


Now, can someone please describe to me the differences in rights between these two unions?

The right to do what one wishes in the privacy of one's own home is beyond the realm of this distinction. Often taxes are worse for combined income, so it would be advantageous to file seperately anyway. The entire arguement, as I see it, is that gays state, "We want this name, although it gives us nothing."

OK. You are wrong.

But let's get more specific.

If the only difference is the name, why should it be denied on the basis of gender or sexual orientation? Hmmm?

And, as marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, the only semantics being played here are on the part of the apologists for discrimination.


Do we remove the distinction of being an infant (minor) in states because it creates inequality in voting rights and contractual obligations? What about distinctions of felony versus citizen in good standing.

Meh. Strawmen.

The age for voting rights happens to be in the Constitution itself. And the protection for minors against contracts is a benevolent protection. None the less, those are distinctions that are not based on invidious categories and are well justified by compelling state interests. Either way, they pass both rational and Constitutional muster.

Same with the distinctions between felons and non-felons. A rational, non-discriminatory distinction -- one group has been convicted of committing a felony.

Even you can see the distinctions. Are you so desperate you have to rely on such flimsy arguments?

what's legal and right are two different things.

Yes. Like the laws restricting marriage to opposite genders are legal in most states, but very very wrong.

Gays can't win elections so they run to the courts and beg for power from activist judges.

Darn that Constitution! If only we had a pure democracy, then we could discriminate and trample rights as we pleased!

You must really hate the Founding Fathers.

dont gays already have equal rights?

what's legal and right are two different things. Gays can't win elections so they run to the courts and beg for power from activist judges.
Yeah totally. They're all like, "This is a representative democracy with a system of checks and balances to protect the rights of minorities against tyranny of the majority! Waaa!" :rolleyes:

Do you even know what country this is? The fact that you aren't part of the party in power does not negate your rights as a citizen.

I think of it in this way: Gays don't have the right to marry someone of the same gender as themselves. Therefore it's a gay rights issue.

Well, he has a point though.... A heterosexual does not have the right to marry someone as the same gender as themselves either... So it's not directly a "gay rights" issue. And is more of a legislative point of order on the legal definition of "marriage".

Well, he has a point though.... A heterosexual does not have the right to marry someone as the same gender as themselves either... So it's not directly a "gay rights" issue. And is more of a legislative point of order on the legal definition of "marriage".

<sigh>

No. It's not a valid point. It is a semantic game.

A heterosexual has the right to marry someone to whom they are sexually attracted and with whom they have a sexual relationship. Homosexuals are denied this right.

Simply defining something in a way that discriminates doesn't avoid the discrimination.

If I say marriage is only between two people of the same race, I discriminate on the basis of race. It could be argued -- and was argued -- that it does not discriminate because a white can marry a white and black can marry a black, but neither can marry someone of another race. But that is pure sophistry.

Restricting marriage to two people of opposite genders discriminates on the basis of gender.

That people go to such great lengths to try to deny that their definition of marriage is discriminatory only exhibits a consciousness of discrimination they are unwilling to defend.

I'm obviously not as concerned about this as the rest of you, and remove any and all remarks out of respect for the people having an intelligent debate, rather than voicing their own off-topic opinions.

Good use of the word sophistry, and way to call 'em on the b.s.

dont gays already have equal rights?
No.

There are now some laws that specifically discriminate against gays, and those laws are unconstitutional. But that is not the issue, everyone knew those laws were unnecessary and unconstitutional when they enacted them. They were enacted for political purposes.

The fact remains that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. That is what marriage is. The legal entity of marriage is a union by a man and a woman.

Gays seek to create something that does not exist (a legal entity also called marriage composed of two men or two women). That is a very different case from Loving vs Virginia. It will not and should not hold up in court because its a legislative matter, it is not an infringement on rights to refuse to create a new legal entity that has never existed.

Eh, you had me till the end...

You see, the US system operates based off of what is known as "common law" and not civil law (which requires all things be codified)... A court can in fact overturn legislation if it violated the "common law" principles (the "unwritten law" as it is called).. And courts can in fact set precedent and make rullings upon this law (written or unwritten)... Which is also why the Judiciary has the power to hear all cases that arise under the power of the Constitution... Including hearing cases AGAINST the legislative body of the nation, and in fact overrule them (including legislative definitions such as 'marriage')...

I've noticed many people in this country do not even understand how this country operates... It is clear they believe the US is a "Civil" system, like most of Europe.... It is not... It is Common Law.... as is England, New Zealand, Australia and Canada... The courts exist to interpret the common law, even agaisnt the codified law.

My only complaint against gay rights are when they stop being "persons who happen to like persons of the same sex" and become "gay people." If you don't understand what I'm talking about, you've never spent a year living with a total queen. Honestly, it gets old real fast when everything has to be compared and guaged against "the agenda."
Yeah you have a point, but thats true of anyone who defines themselves by a single characteristic.

There are none...no more to tell. :p

No, actually, I think the gays deserve some rights, but to a certain extent. Marriage is the only thing I don't think we should allow. Otherwise, gays should have any other right straight people have by the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

No.
What havent they got?

There are none...no more to tell. :p

No, actually, I think the gays deserve some rights, but to a certain extent. Marriage is the only thing I don't think we should allow. Otherwise, gays should have any other right straight people have by the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Why should marriage be any different?

What havent they got?
Marriage for one, and about a thousand or so rights that come with that.

<sigh>

No. It's not a valid point. It is a semantic game.

A heterosexual has the right to marry someone to whom they are sexually attracted and with whom they have a sexual relationship. Homosexuals are denied this right.

Simply defining something in a way that discriminates doesn't avoid the discrimination.

If I say marriage is only between two people of the same race, I discriminate on the basis of race. It could be argued -- and was argued -- that it does not discriminate because a white can marry a white and black can marry a black, but neither can marry someone of another race. But that is pure sophistry.

Restricting marriage to two people of opposite genders discriminates on the basis of gender.

That people go to such great lengths to try to deny that their definition of marriage is discriminatory only exhibits a consciousness of discrimination they are unwilling to defend.

Well, what you're missing is modification of cultural basics... Not mere laws passed to discriminate... Marriage is a cultural descendent... That is, it exists in its pure form from history as a "familial union of a male and female person"... So the argument at its core is symantical and not "discriminatory"...

I think that it would be a valid point in which to change this definition... But he is more or less right... As the "word" exists presently in definition it cannot be done.... Much like wanting to make it possible to "geld" females.... or "Spay" males... The definition needs to be changed... And it is in the process of doing it at present.... Since it is merely a word, society in general is capable of applying the definitions they see fit... And with "gay marriage" being tossed around, its meaning is starting to change at present.

More or less what is being interpreted at present is that two males are asking for "[a] legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife"... or two women are asking for "[a] legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife"...

And to hit it hard to the anti-gay-rights people in here.... The courts themselves are capable of setting precedent so as to alter that definition, thanks to the principles behind the common law... It's occurance is not an "if" but a certain "when"... They are fighting the fundamental principles of Common Law upon which this nation was founded, that essentially considers all persons equal in matters of law and equity.

Well, im no expert on the subject, but isnt it kinda discriminating to denie people to marry the person they choose to be their "life mate," becouse that person is of the same sex. Becoues thats what being gay means. if we allow straight people to marry, how is it fair to not allow gays that very same option.


allso, i saw someone bringing up as a fact that being gay isnt a choice, and that its somthing static. Something thats from birth.
well, this is not been scientificly proven, no ones found a "gay gene." experts belive that the homosexual orientation might be a product of society, as there are noe evolutionary explonation to its purpuse or its ability to survive.


...No new law need be created. Marriage simply need not be prohibited to those of the same gender. QED.

roflcopter!!! do you know what Q.E.D. means?

Marriage for one, and about a thousand or so rights that come with that.

So they cant get married?.
Is that it?
And what are these rights that go with marriage?

If you wish to sodomize the tailpipe of a Buick you are free to do so, do not expect the government to legally recognize your choice.

There is a massive differences between social classification and legal classification. You can socially categorize people as generally or as specifically as you like (e.g. "SUV driving heterosexual corporate accountant" or "Urban Lifestyle") but these classifications have no place in law.


As I said before, Citizen would be ideal with no distinction between any two. If you are going to equalize "rights" don't do it specific piecemeal basis. Do it broadly as to not divide the populous by definition.
Ok, nice packpeddling. You specifically said there was a sort of 'gay' lifestyle loosely defined by how you dress, where you work, what you drive and what you fuck. You then refuse to define that lifestyle further. If it is in fact such a recognizable pattern, you should be able to tell us what it is. Otherwise, withdraw your statement.

What havent they got?

Try to follow along ...

The right to marry.

The over 1,000 benefits, rights, and protections associated with heterosexual marriage.

In 34 states, individuals may be fired or otherwise discriminated against in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation.

Immigration laws do not allow for immigration of same sex partners of citizens.

Until 2 years ago, laws making homosexual sex a crime were considered constitutional. Such laws are still on the books in most states.

Gays and lesbians are forbidden from serving openly in the military.

Need I continue?

Try to follow along ...

The right to marry.

The over 1,000 benefits, rights, and protections associated with heterosexual marriage.

In 34 states, individuals may be fired or otherwise discriminated against in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation.

Immigration laws do not allow for immigration of same sex partners of citizens.

Until 2 years ago, laws making homosexual sex a crime were considered constitutional. Such laws are still on the books in most states.

Gays and lesbians are forbidden from serving openly in the military.

Need I continue?

No.
Thats enough thankue.

Just look at it this way... You only need to get one state to redefine the term "marriage" and make the entire conept legal.... Once it happens in one, all others are automatically forced to recognize it by Article IV Section 2.

*snip*
roflcopter!!! do you know what Q.E.D. means?

Yes. "quod erat demonstrandum"

Perhaps you are unaware of its use outside of math.

Although less technically correct, QED is commonly used for "quite easily done."

Either way, my use was proper.

I personally think that all institutions of power in the world should be relinquished to gay groups, as they are our natural superiors. They should then begin a sexuality-based "cleansing" of the earth, using concentration camps.

Yes. "quod erat demonstrandum"

Perhaps you are unaware of its use outside of math.

Sorry i dont do latin

I personally think that all institutions of power in the world should be relinquished to gay groups, as they are our natural superiors. They should then begin a sexuality-based "cleansing" of the earth, using concentration camps.
Heh. :D

What havent they got?

Marriage
Spousal death benefits.
Any spousal benefits for that matter.
The right to uphold your signifigant other's death wishes.
The right to adopt (in some states)
The right to attend any church they choose
The right to be free from harrassment
The right not to be discriminated against in public places (Thinking specifically of a city in Ohio here)
and many more.

Gays should have the same rights as anyone else. Whether someone is gay or not should not affect their rights, or how they are treated by others.

Heterosexuals have the right to marry people of the opposite sex.
I think homosexuals should have that right too.

Homosexuals should have the right to marry people of the same sex.
I think heterosexuals should have that right too, but for obvious reasons they don't do much campaigning for it.

i have no problem with gay people getting civil unions and THOSE coming with all the perks of marriage... but to call it "marriage" is incorrect, inasmuch as the Bible defines marriage as the union between a woman and a man.

my only caveat, hence, is with that definition... that the definition be respected/not changed.

as far as job discrimination, discrimination walking down the street, etc, that is crap and must stop.

Marriage
Spousal death benefits.
Any spousal benefits for that matter.
The right to uphold your signifigant other's death wishes.
The right to adopt (in some states)
The right to attend any church they choose
The right to be free from harrassment
The right not to be discriminated against in public places (Thinking specifically of a city in Ohio here)
and many more.

Only in the U.S., not Europe.
apart from the right to adopt and spousal benefits, i am quite sure the others apply, but i must check them up.

So they cant get married?.
Is that it?
And what are these rights that go with marriage?

According to the Government Accounting Office, there are 1,138 federal benefits, rights, or protection reserved for married couples.

Here (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf) and here (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf) are the two GAO reports on this.

i have no problem with gay people getting civil unions and THOSE coming with all the perks of marriage... but to call it "marriage" is incorrect, inasmuch as the Bible defines marriage as the union between a woman and a man.
It's quite irrelevent how the Bible defines marriage, as our nation's laws aren't based upon the Bible, nor should they be.

Yes. "quod erat demonstrandum"

Perhaps you are unaware of its use outside of math.

Although less technically correct, QED is commonly used for "quite easily done."

Either way, my use was proper.
blimy, no, im familiar with QED from math but still
"quad erat demonstrandum" means "it is hearby proven"
you shure of its use as "quite easily done" couse that would just prove to be hilarius.

i have no problem with gay people getting civil unions and THOSE coming with all the perks of marriage... but to call it "marriage" is incorrect, inasmuch as the Bible defines marriage as the union between a woman and a man.

my only caveat, hence, is with that definition... that the definition be respected/not changed.

Perhaps you should not seek to have a religious institution confused with a legal one.

If you want to change the law so that no one gets a marriage recognized by the state and the government recognizes only civil unions, then fine.

Otherwise, that ship has sailed. You cannot justify discrimination on the basis of that you wish to futher intermingle Church and State. That would be 2 seperate wrongs.

i have no problem with gay people getting civil unions and THOSE coming with all the perks of marriage... but to call it "marriage" is incorrect, inasmuch as the Bible defines marriage as the union between a woman and a man.

my only caveat, hence, is with that definition... that the definition be respected/not changed.

A civil union = marriage.... The "bible" does not define words, it uses normative words of the language it is translated into.

Most languages make no distinction... the actual literal word "union" is used in most latin based languages... In those tongues "civil union" does not avoid the issue... it's the same thing as saying "civil marriage"... French, however, borrowed the term from the nautical terminology of "binding two ropes in a weave"... The term was 'mariage' of ropes... This passed into Middle English, and this became modern "marriage"... The definition altering with time... "Redefining" the term back to "union" which is what it was a synonym of in the first place, is not all that odd... Language does evolve with time... And sometimes can go back to restore archaic forms of it... Which is what is happening now.... Arguing symantecs does not solve the issue... Which is all that the whole "marriage"/"civil union" debate is... Arguing symantecs that really have no bearing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sphinx the Great
Marriage
Spousal death benefits.
Any spousal benefits for that matter.
The right to uphold your signifigant other's death wishes.
The right to adopt (in some states)
The right to attend any church they choose
The right to be free from harrassment
The right not to be discriminated against in public places (Thinking specifically of a city in Ohio here)
and many more.

Only in the U.S., not Europe.
apart from the right to adopt and spousal benefits, i am quite sure the others apply, but i must check them up.
norwegian here(part of europe), there are several simular rights bound to marrige in just about every European country.

allso, i saw someone bringing up as a fact that being gay isnt a choice, and that its somthing static. Something thats from birth.
well, this is not been scientificly proven, no ones found a "gay gene." experts belive that the homosexual orientation might be a product of society, as there are noe evolutionary explonation to its purpuse or its ability to survive.


Most likely, that would have been me. The truth is that no one really knows for sure either way. I believe that most, if not all, members of the GLBT are that way from birth. Others believe that it is purely a lifestyle. Both sides are trying to find proof to substanciate their claims.


Actually, there are quite a few theories as to why the GLBT community exists and why. One why that come to mind is "population control". Basically, two women or two men cannot have women, so this is nature's attempt to control the population. Many would disagree with that theory...including the GLBT community, but it's only a theory. Ya know?

As for one being born gay, there one widely popular theory going around now. In the first trimester of pregnancy, there is a hormone wash that the fetus undergoes that helps in the development of the body and mind. Around this time, the sexual organs also develop. if the hormonal wash is mistimed, many many things can happen...from birth defects to brain disorders to genetal "defects" to sexual identity and orientation that do not match the body's gender. Pregnancy is full of things that can go wrong...especially in the first trimester. It really is a wonder that any of us are alive...really.

i have no problem with gay people getting civil unions and THOSE coming with all the perks of marriage... but to call it "marriage" is incorrect, inasmuch as the Bible defines marriage as the union between a woman and a man.

my only caveat, hence, is with that definition... that the definition be respected/not changed.

Well, does that mean that if you are Indian, Native American, Hindu, Muslim, Pagan, atheist, agnostic (or anything else not judeao-christian) then you should not be considered married because you do not follow the words of the "bible"?

Most likely, that would have been me. The truth is that no one really knows for sure either way. I believe that most, if not all, members of the GLBT are that way from birth. Others believe that it is purely a lifestyle. Both sides are trying to find proof to substanciate their claims.


Actually, there are quite a few theories as to why the GLBT community exists and why. One why that come to mind is "population control". Basically, two women or two men cannot have women, so this is nature's attempt to control the population. Many would disagree with that theory...including the GLBT community, but it's only a theory. Ya know?

As for one being born gay, there one widely popular theory going around now. In the first trimester of pregnancy, there is a hormone wash that the fetus undergoes that helps in the development of the body and mind. Around this time, the sexual organs also develop. if the hormonal wash is mistimed, many many things can happen...from birth defects to brain disorders to genetal "defects" to sexual identity and orientation that do not match the body's gender. Pregnancy is full of things that can go wrong...especially in the first trimester. It really is a wonder that any of us are alive...really.
:p , yea kinda tired of hearing people talking like they know what couses homosexuality,

I say, if you feel you are married, and your partner feels you are married, then have a 'wedding', invite your friends, wear rings (all the other symbols not dictated by law)..... and know to yourself you are together.... even if its not legal blah blah blah.... you have love, and that is what counts....right?

Emotionally, yes. But there are certain benefits granted to a legally married couple (ie, the ability to vote/visit your spouse if he/she is hospitalized and not responding) that gay couples, not being allowed to "legally" marry in many states, do not have.

It makes me worry about the impending election up here in Canada--if the Conservatives are voted in, the chance of gay marriage being legalized up here will go down the toilet.

Only in the U.S., not Europe.
apart from the right to adopt and spousal benefits, i am quite sure the others apply, but i must check them up.

I can understand you looking it up. As far as my point of view, I live in the US. I am also very close to this issue, so that I am only refering to US discrimination. I have no idea how it is in other countries. ;)

:p , yea kinda tired of hearing people talking like they know what couses homosexuality,

;) Probably just about as tired as I am of hearing that it is a lifestyle choice.

Actually, gays are asking for marriage. It is usually straights who propose civil unions.

:headbang: Ok, this has probably already been covered but the idea of making a distinction between civil union and marriage is absurd. All that matters is how the union is viewed in terms of the law. So often people opposed the idea of gay or same-sex "marriage" because they believe that marriage is a sacred religious institution. For certain people that may be true, and in a country of religious freedom they are entitled to that opinion. However, that opinion has no place in the American governement or in the interpretation of it's laws. Marriage, like it or not, is a SOCIAL institution. Plain and simple. I have never heard a sound logical arguement why two people of the same-sex should not be allowed to marry and live thier lives as they choose with all the same legal protections of a male/female marraige.

:headbang: Ok, this has probably already been covered but the idea of making a distinction between civil union and marriage is absurd. All that matters is how the union is viewed in terms of the law. So often people opposed the idea of gay or same-sex "marriage" because they believe that marriage is a sacred religious institution. For certain people that may be true, and in a country of religious freedom they are entitled to that opinion. However, that opinion has no place in the American governement or in the interpretation of it's laws. Marriage, like it or not, is a SOCIAL institution. Plain and simple. I have never heard a sound logical arguement why two people of the same-sex should not be allowed to marry and live thier lives as they choose with all the same legal protections of a male/female marraige.
I couldn't have said it better myself.

Not reading all the replies, I say that gay people are no different than straight people except what they find sexually attractive. Really, some guys like blonds and some like brunettes, but are we to say that guys can only find blonds or brunettes attractive? If a man finds another man attractive and they love each other enough to get married, let it be. How would you like to be told you couldn't marry someone of the opposite gender? Now you're standing in their shoes.

Marriage is not only about procreation as I've heard many religious fundamentalists use against gay rights, it is about love and it is about family. Same sex parents should be allowed to adopt children and give them a good home. Right now the lawes are just inane, land of the free? Bullshit.

@funkosaurus - Exactly.

Yes. "quod erat demonstrandum"

Perhaps you are unaware of its use outside of math.

Although less technically correct, QED is commonly used for "quite easily done."

Either way, my use was proper.

"That which was to be demonstrated."

From the Greek oper edei deixai.

"That which was to be demonstrated."

From the Greek oper edei deixai.

"Which has been demonstrated", surely?

"Which has been demonstrated", surely?

I don't know. I pulled it out of my Webster's dictionary.

;) Probably just about as tired as I am of hearing that it is a lifestyle choice.
yes :D :D

"That which was to be demonstrated."

From the Greek oper edei deixai.
basicly its used in math at the end of a mathematical proof. just to say that the proof is over and done.

basicly its used in math at the end of a mathematical proof. just to say that the proof is over and done.

Yes, that's one of its uses.

Ok, I see the word 'Constitution' used a lot here. Namely, that marriage is constitutional.

However, I'm not finding it in either the Constitution: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

*or* in the Bill Of Rights: http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm

Where exactly is it written that marriage is a constitutional right? I'm sure I'm missing it. Please help!

Ok, I see the word 'Constitution' used a lot here. Namely, that marriage is constitutional.

However, I'm not finding it in either the Constitution: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

*or* in the Bill Of Rights: http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm

Where exactly is it written that marriage is a constitutional right? I'm sure I'm missing it. Please help!

Here, you must have broken your glasses. Let me help you with that.

Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Right from your own link, cutie pie.

"blinks" big

maybe its in that there patriot act. :D

I personally think that Homosexuality is like a crime against nature and/or humananity since it hurts humanity (Sorry if you take offense about this). This is how. Sex is supposed to be used for reproduction to help keep the species alive, and is more beneficial then asexual reproduction since in asexual reproduction everysingle organism in that species is a clone (except the mutated ones) and another species (Especially contagious disease) would kill them (except some mutants but we dont care about them for now). That is why there are two genders required for reproduction for humans, male and female. Male and male and female and female sex has no purpose besides pleasure but that was made in three species of animals (Humans, Dolphins and some species of african monkey) so that the mates would stay together longer so they can both take care of the offspring. A man was evolved to only stay with a woman for 4 years but that length later changed.

I personally think that Homosexuality is like a crime against nature and/or humananity since it hurts humanity (Sorry if you take offense about this). This is how. Sex is supposed to be used for reproduction to help keep the species alive, and is more beneficial then asexual reproduction since in asexual reproduction everysingle organism in that species is a clone (except the mutated ones) and another species (Especially contagious disease) would kill them (except some mutants but we dont care about them for now). That is why there are two genders required for reproduction for humans, male and female. Male and male and female and female sex has no purpose besides pleasure but that was made in three species of animals (Humans, Dolphins and some species of african monkey) so that the mates would stay together longer so they can both take care of the offspring. A man was evolved to only stay with a woman for 4 years but that length later changed.
By your definition then, all sexual acts not performed for procreation are a crime against nature and/or humanity.

Which makes the majority of use criminals.

I personally think that Homosexuality is like a crime against nature and/or humananity since it hurts humanity (Sorry if you take offense about this). This is how. Sex is supposed to be used for reproduction to help keep the species alive, and is more beneficial then asexual reproduction since in asexual reproduction everysingle organism in that species is a clone (except the mutated ones) and another species (Especially contagious disease) would kill them (except some mutants but we dont care about them for now). That is why there are two genders required for reproduction for humans, male and female. Male and male and female and female sex has no purpose besides pleasure but that was made in three species of animals (Humans, Dolphins and some species of african monkey) so that the mates would stay together longer so they can both take care of the offspring. A man was evolved to only stay with a woman for 4 years but that length later changed.

OK... I assume that you are against any form of birth control as well, since it prevents a baby from being created?

By your definition then, all sexual acts not performed for procreation are a crime against nature and/or humanity.

Which makes the majority of use criminals.

For the most part. We now have marriage and civil unions to keep people together and some places/organizations have divorce to take them apart.

OK... I assume that you are against any form of birth control as well, since it prevents a baby from being created?

Yes

For the most part. We now have marriage and civil unions to keep people together and some places/organizations have divorce to take them apart.
So pleasure isn't the only factor that can keep people together, therefore it is no longer needed? Sex should be for procreation only, and not for pleasure? I don't think you'll find many people who would agree to that.

Yes
Does that include sexual acts that couldn't possibly end in procreation? Are men who have had a vacectomy or are otherwise sterile not allowed to have sex because they can't possibly father children? Can barren women have sex, or is that wrong too?

Ok, I see the word 'Constitution' used a lot here. Namely, that marriage is constitutional.

However, I'm not finding it in either the Constitution: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

*or* in the Bill Of Rights: http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm

Where exactly is it written that marriage is a constitutional right? I'm sure I'm missing it. Please help!

<sigh>

You might wish to read the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Ninth Amendment is one of the many reasons that the Supreme Court has held that the list of fundamental rights in the first 8 Amendments is not to be taken as exhaustive.

Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth Amendments protect against deprivations of life, liberty and property. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments protect substantive liberties not expressly stated in the Constitution.

Before you make some argument about what the Fourteenth Amendment literally says, you might wish to consider that, without incorporation through the 14th, you have no protection under the Constitution against state infringement of free speech, free press, freedom of religion, etc.

An insistence on "explicit" Constitutional rights is inconsistent with: (a) the original Bill of Rights (i.e., the 9th Amendment), (b) the intentions of the Founding Fathers (e.g., the motives behind the 9th Amendment), (c) the 14th Amendment, (d) the intentions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, and (e) well over 100 years of Supreme Court decisions.

Here is a quote from a Supreme Court opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

Second, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution but that are taken for granted by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity


Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

So pleasure isn't the only factor that can keep people together, therefore it is no longer needed? Sex should be for procreation only, and not for pleasure? I don't think you'll find many people who would agree to that.

I, for one, strongly disagree.

I think we'll find that Jibea is either a middle-aged or teen-aged Catholic male who knows next to nothing about relationships, love, or modern culture. :P

But that's just my take on the situation.

As for the rest of the thread, good work on the 'human rights' issue, guys.

"That which was to be demonstrated."

From the Greek oper edei deixai.

Yes. That is what the Latin means. And how I used it.

Yes. That is what the Latin means. And how I used it.

I know. I felt like showing off. :)

Does that include sexual acts that couldn't possibly end in procreation? Are men who have had a vacectomy or are otherwise sterile not allowed to have sex because they can't possibly father children? Can barren women have sex, or is that wrong too?

Yes
Not allowed
not allowed

Yes
Not allowed
not allowed
Wow. That sucks. I'm a criminal against humanity and nature too...I happen to enjoy non-procreative sex. Oh well...we can't all be perfect!

I personally think that Homosexuality is like a crime against nature and/or humananity since it hurts humanity (Sorry if you take offense about this). This is how. Sex is supposed to be used for reproduction to help keep the species alive, and is more beneficial then asexual reproduction since in asexual reproduction everysingle organism in that species is a clone (except the mutated ones) and another species (Especially contagious disease) would kill them (except some mutants but we dont care about them for now). That is why there are two genders required for reproduction for humans, male and female. Male and male and female and female sex has no purpose besides pleasure but that was made in three species of animals (Humans, Dolphins and some species of african monkey) so that the mates would stay together longer so they can both take care of the offspring. A man was evolved to only stay with a woman for 4 years but that length later changed.

Sorry if you take offense at this, but your theory is complete bullshit and utterly disgusting.


If it were not so pathetic, this would be funny.

No scientific basis whatsoever. Completely made up.

Ignores that homosexuality and non-procreative sex are found in nature and serve multiple evolutionary purposes.

Ignores overpopulation.

Makes masturbation, oral sex, contraceptives, and "night-time emissions" into "crimes against humanity."

So, pretty much everyone on the planet that has reached puberty is a criminal. :rolleyes:

Wow. That sucks. I'm a criminal against humanity and nature too...I happen to enjoy non-procreative sex. Oh well...we can't all be perfect!

I know how you feel. I'm gay, and I feel that same way - about not everyone being able to be perfect.

Ahaha.

Yes
Not allowed
not allowed

Oh great and powerful Jibea.

Please explain why sex remains pleasurable past the age of menopause.

And why animals have non-procreative sex.

And why it is "unnatural" and therefore wrong to have non-procreative sex, but not a crime against humanity to be celibate.

i have no problem with gay people getting civil unions and THOSE coming with all the perks of marriage... but to call it "marriage" is incorrect, inasmuch as the Bible defines marriage as the union between a woman and a man.
The Bible doesn't matter!

I know how you feel. I'm gay, and I feel that same way - about not everyone being able to be perfect.

Ahaha.
Bumhead:)

Here's an example of how the marriage laws as they are are discriminatory.

Jill is a nice, intelligent girl. As a male, If we are in a relationship, I can marry her.
Jessica cannot marry Jill. Jessica is being discriminated against on the basis of her gender.

The Bible doesn't matter!
Wow, that's a great way to get the ultra-conservatives on your side. :rolleyes:

Here's an example of how the marriage laws as they are are discriminatory.

Jill is a nice, intelligent girl. As a male, If we are in a relationship, I can marry her.
Jessica cannot marry Jill. Jessica is being discriminated against on the basis of her gender.

Yet, if they so chose, Jessica and Jill could make hundreds of thousands of dollars videotaping their "unnatural" and "immoral" love and selling it to men all across the Bible Belt.

Wow, that's a great way to get the ultra-conservatives on your side. :rolleyes:

So long as they have the right to read their bible in their church, and the right to express their views that are in it, who cares what they think, presuming that they do?

Gays should have the same rights as anyone else. Whether someone is gay or not should not affect their rights

BINGO!

The only reason why people even give gays the attention they crave (as a minority interest group) is because they feel as though more should be done for them.

Gays have their rights and that is enough. Even you crazy Leftists out there have to admit that the only true way to make it so that we have equality; is to give them the exact same fundamental human rights as every one else has.

They are people and should be treated as such. Just because they have a disorder does not mean that we can't treat them as human beings.

Yet, if they so chose, Jessica and Jill could make hundreds of thousands of dollars videotaping their "unnatural" and "immoral" love and selling it to men all across the Bible Belt.

Ha.

HAHA.

AHAHAHAHAHA! *starts roffling*

Very well said, Cat Tribe.

Human Rights are what people need to fight for, not Gay Rights, Black Rights, Asian Rights, or whatever. All human beings deserve the same inalienable (unalienable?) rights and respect.
Rights are unalienable. Respect must be earned on an individual basis.

My personal take on human rights for gays is that no one should be denied rights guaranteed by the Constitution, regardless of race, age, sex, sexual orientaton, religion, or any of the other numerous categories into which people may be pigeonholed. If you're human, you're protected from loss of guaranteed rights ... period.

Now ... whether there is a "right" to marriage, for anyone, is another matter entirely.

Rights are unalienable. Respect must be earned on an individual basis.

My personal take on human rights for gays is that no one should be denied rights guaranteed by the Constitution, regardless of race, age, sex, sexual orientaton, religion, or any of the other numerous categories into which people may be pigeonholed. If you're human, you're protected from loss of guaranteed rights ... period.

Now ... whether there is a "right" to marriage, for anyone, is another matter entirely.
9th...Cat Tribe has already touched upon this.

Yes, people are gay. Notice how the word "people" was used? That means gay people are still people. Wow, whoda thunk. Hehe... gay lefts *laughs*

-Hine

I personally think that Homosexuality is like a crime against nature and/or humananity since it hurts humanity (Sorry if you take offense about this). This is how. Sex is supposed to be used for reproduction to help keep the species alive, and is more beneficial then asexual reproduction since in asexual reproduction everysingle organism in that species is a clone (except the mutated ones) and another species (Especially contagious disease) would kill them (except some mutants but we dont care about them for now). That is why there are two genders required for reproduction for humans, male and female. Male and male and female and female sex has no purpose besides pleasure but that was made in three species of animals (Humans, Dolphins and some species of african monkey) so that the mates would stay together longer so they can both take care of the offspring. A man was evolved to only stay with a woman for 4 years but that length later changed.

As a biologist and a gay man I take serious offense to this post.

First of all, you're crude definition of procreation is more or less correct. However, not entirely true.

Many microscopic organisms use asexual reproduction to reproduce because it is energetically easier for them than it would be for a more complex organism. What I mean is, micro-organisms do not have the capacity to produce metabolic reactions in the quantites and rates that mammals and other complex, sexually reproducing animals are capable of. The same can be said of plants that have separate sexes. In biology, the term is dioecious, or separate houses/sexes. Some organisms, like earthworms, are hemaphroditic, and sexually reproduce while still having both male and female reproductive parts. We call this monoecious.

Another reason smaller organisms use asexual reproduction, is because it's a much faster way of reproducing. 1 bacterium becomes 2, becomes 4, becomes 8, becomes 16, etc. As you can see, their reproduction is exponential. Why? Well, because the environments they live in are sometimes difficult for them to get by with, so they reproduce in huge numbers. Many parasitic organisms reproduce in higher numbers as well (although they tend to reproduce sexually).

However, it has been scientifically proven that some bacteria are capable of sexual reproduction. It's called conjugation. Bacteria have extensions called pili, (pilus is singular) that allow them to connect to other bacteria. But because they have DNA molecules that are 1000 base pairs long (maybe more), they can't duplicate their entire DNA molecule, and trade, because the pili connections are weak, and can be easily broken with the jostling of just 1 of the bacteria involved. So, these bacteria have developed what is called a plasmid, which is a section of DNA that is separate from the bacteria's chromosomal DNA. It's not important to growth or survival, but can carry important traits, such as antibiotic resistance. And it is these plasmids that they trade out with one another, because their smaller.

Now, you ask, why the hell did I go through all that? Simple. Your explanation needed some substance to it.

If you look at all the different animals that exist on the planet, and even look at the all the different plant species that exist, the human population is a drop in the bucket, compared to all the other forms of life on our planet. And we haven't even found them all yet! Birds alone have over 400,000 or more species. Homo sapiens, which is our species, is just 1 of several thousand primate species on the planet. But it's the only one that's as evolved as it is.

My point is, the human population is out of control. There are currently 6 billion humans on the planet. And we all have to compete for the same resources. Although I firmly believe there is a genetic connection to homosexuality, I also believe that it's not the only reason for its existence. I think social behavior/experiences influence how prominent homosexuality is in a person's life. For those of us that are out, it's prominent enough to where we consider it a part of who we are. Not all gay men and women purely define themselves on their sexual orientation, as several of you have accused us of being.

As a result, it is discriminatory to tell two men or two women they cannot marry, as well as denying us the basic rights of every human being on the planet. And until you've lived in the shoes of a homosexual, bisexual, or transgendered person, you have no right to dictate to us what we can and cannot have/do in our private lives. It would be the same as me telling heterosexual men what they can and cannot do to their girlfriends/wives.

I applaud everyone who has supported same-sex marriage in this thread, especially Cat Tribe, because they've been most adamant about their position, and properly defining the terms.

LazyHippie: Aristotle and the ancient Greeks would have termed you a Sophist, because you're doing nothing but blowing hot air outta yer hole. And the same goes for Elkland.

Anyone else got a problem with gays having equal rights? Tough cookies! Get over it. WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER, GET F'IN USED TO IT!

BINGO!

The only reason why people even give gays the attention they crave (as a minority interest group) is because they feel as though more should be done for them.

Gays have their rights and that is enough. Even you crazy Leftists out there have to admit that the only true way to make it so that we have equality; is to give them the exact same fundamental human rights as every one else has.

They are people and should be treated as such. Just because they have a disorder does not mean that we can't treat them as human beings.

Sorting through the name-calling and hate, your position is the same as mine: gays are entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

So WTF is your problem?

Just because they have a disorder does not mean that we can't treat them as human beings.

I love how you feel that you're more qualified to diagnose disorders than the American Psychologists' Association.

Congratulations on your ultimate knowledge of the brain's biochemistry and biophysics.

Moron.

Rights are unalienable. Respect must be earned on an individual basis.

My personal take on human rights for gays is that no one should be denied rights guaranteed by the Constitution, regardless of race, age, sex, sexual orientaton, religion, or any of the other numerous categories into which people may be pigeonholed. If you're human, you're protected from loss of guaranteed rights ... period.

Now ... whether there is a "right" to marriage, for anyone, is another matter entirely.

OK. Setting aside the caselaw and the 9th and 14th Amendments ....

Do you think North Carolina could ban all marriage tomorrow? Or would that violate any rights?

So long as they have the right to read their bible in their church, and the right to express their views that are in it, who cares what they think, presuming that they do?
The U.S.A. is a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules. The majority of Americans, if I'm not mistaken, are conservatives. Therefore, what they think is extremely important.

-long, biological snip-
Get over it. WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER, GET F'IN USED TO IT!

That's getting old. Even I wouldn't use that line. But good work on the biological portion. If only you had stopped a line or two sooner.

The U.S.A. is a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules. The majority of Americans, if I'm not mistaken, are conservatives. Therefore, what they think is extremely important.

Sorry, incorrect. The U.S.A. is a *limited* democracy. In a pure democracy, the rights of the few can be trampled by the rights of the many. But there are protections for the few, created specifically to prevent that, making the democracy 'limited'.

But nice try.

The U.S.A. is a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules. The majority of Americans, if I'm not mistaken, are conservatives. Therefore, what they think is extremely important.

The USA is a federal republic. In a federal republic, the majority rules, but it must respect the rights of the minority. The majority of Americas cannot be determined to be conservative or liberal. What they think IS important, but only so far as their personal opinions do not become law.

9th...Cat Tribe has already touched upon this.
Yes. I read her post. Very well-written and accurate, as far as I could tell. The question still remains ... is the option to marry or not to marry an "inalienable right" ( a fundamental human right )?

The U.S.A. is a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules. The majority of Americans, if I'm not mistaken, are conservatives. Therefore, what they think is extremely important.

*Ahem*
America is NOT. NOT a true democracy. In the words of Winston Churchill, a true democracy is "Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch."
In America, MINORITY RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED. That's what the bill of rights are for. Otherwise 51% of the populace could band together and descide to enslave the other 49%.

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe[

<-snip->

[/QUOTE]

See what I mean about these "civilists" on the right... They think everything needs to be "written" in order for it to exist in law....

The USA is a federal republic. In a federal republic, the majority rules, but it must respect the rights of the minority. The majority of Americas cannot be determined to be conservative or liberal. What they think IS important, but only so far as their personal opinions do not become law.

*ginuflects*

*Ahem*
America is NOT. NOT a true democracy. In the words of Winston Churchill, a true democracy is "Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch."
In America, MINORITY RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED. That's what the bill of rights are for. Otherwise 51% of the populace could band together and descide to enslave the other 49%.
Okay, don't get all cranky.


EDIT: Wow, everyone's attacking me all at once. I never claimed to know everything. I don't care enough about anything.

The USA is a federal republic. In a federal republic, the majority rules, but it must respect the rights of the minority. The majority of Americas cannot be determined to be conservative or liberal. What they think IS important, but only so far as their personal opinions do not become law.
Relatively minor correction: "opinion" can indeed become law, so long as such "opinion" does not conflict with the Constitution.

The U.S.A. is a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules. The majority of Americans, if I'm not mistaken, are conservatives. Therefore, what they think is extremely important.

Actually, the USA is a constitutional Republic.

There are strict limits on majority rule.

The Founding Fathers were not particularly enamoured with democracy.

Your switch from ultra-conservatives to conservatives was noted.

Whether the majority of Americans are conservative rather depends on how you look at it.

The majority of Americans are liberal on some issues and conservative on others.

And, anyone who says gays cannot be married because the Bible says so is not likely to be persuaded to support gay marriage, are they?

Relatively minor correction: "opinion" can indeed become law, so long as such "opinion" does not conflict with the Constitution.

You're right.

It is relatively minor.

The U.S.A. is a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules. The majority of Americans, if I'm not mistaken, are conservatives. Therefore, what they think is extremely important.

The USA is a democratic republic centered on a social-contract... And the "majority" does not "rule"... You can get as many people as you wish to "rule" but I can gunrantee in the end, it will not stand against the Constitution... And if they try to, their will always be a Court to overrule attempts by the legislature to violate the fundamental principles.

I personally think that Homosexuality is like a crime against nature and/or humananity since it hurts humanity (Sorry if you take offense about this). This is how. Sex is supposed to be used for reproduction to help keep the species alive
There are 6.3 billion people in the world. There is not enough food to feed all the people in the third world. If anything we need MORE homosexuality. We don't need more people.

See? What a conservative majority thinks really doesn't matter. :P

There are 6.3 billion people in the world. There is not enough food to feed all the people in the third world. If anything we need MORE homosexuality. We don't need more people.


<3

They are people and should be treated as such. Just because they have a disorder does not mean that we can't treat them as human beings.

Actually, according to the American Psychological Association, homosexuality is neither an illness nor a disorder. I should know considering I researched homosexuality for my intro to psych course a few years ago. Your position was true about 50 years ago. Not today. GET WITH THE TIMES!

See? What a conservative majority thinks really doesn't matter. :P
I'd still think it'd be benificial to the cause if instead of writing off our fellow human beings we attempted to persaude them to our way of thinking.

OMG-I'm an annoying missionary type person! :D

I'd still think it'd be benificial to the cause if instead of writing off our fellow human beings we attempted to persaude them to our way of thinking.

OMG-I'm an annoying missionary type person! :D

I don't like expending effort on a 'cause' that I know is futile.

Yes. I read her post. Very well-written and accurate, as far as I could tell. The question still remains ... is the option to marry or not to marry an "inalienable right" ( a fundamental human right )?

Actually, I'm a "he." But it is impossible to keep track of these things on here and I definitely take no offense.

Anyway, I'll repeat a variation of my question: Could Congress ban and nullify all marriages tomorrow?

Could North Carolina ban and nullify all marriages within the state?

Why not?

A civil union = marriage.... The "bible" does not define words, it uses normative words of the language it is translated into.

Most languages make no distinction... the actual literal word "union" is used in most latin based languages... In those tongues "civil union" does not avoid the issue... it's the same thing as saying "civil marriage"... French, however, borrowed the term from the nautical terminology of "binding two ropes in a weave"... The term was 'mariage' of ropes... This passed into Middle English, and this became modern "marriage"... The definition altering with time... "Redefining" the term back to "union" which is what it was a synonym of in the first place, is not all that odd... Language does evolve with time... And sometimes can go back to restore archaic forms of it... Which is what is happening now.... Arguing symantecs does not solve the issue... Which is all that the whole "marriage"/"civil union" debate is... Arguing symantecs that really have no bearing.

it has a bearing if perks are based upon those symantics... IE, "civil union" vs. "marriage" ... two separate (non-equal) terms in terms of how they are treated.

But yeah.

To sum up my point of view: homosexual 'marriage' is inevitable, right up to the point where governments realize that 'marriage' carries too much religious baggage and converts all existing marriages into civil unions in order to further distance themselves from churches.


And kudos to them when it happens.

I don't like expending effort on a 'cause' that I know is futile.
Hey, I grew up in Alabama, I know the religious right like the back of my hand. It is not futile. You cannot take away one's prejudice but you can bring them to see how foolish their prejudice is.

Okay, don't get all cranky.


EDIT: Wow, everyone's attacking me all at once. I never claimed to know everything. I don't care enough about anything.


No worries.

You came on rather strong. And then made an invalid statement.

I will recognize that your underlying point about not deliberately dismissing the opinions of those we may wish or need to persuade is valid.

But you have to recognize a degree of frustration at being told to validate the opinions of those who refuse to recognize the common humanity of an entire segment of the population.

But yeah.

To sum up my point of view: homosexual 'marriage' is inevitable, right up to the point where governments realize that 'marriage' carries too much religious baggage and converts all existing marriages into civil unions in order to further distance themselves from churches.


And kudos to them when it happens.

yeah, only God will be pissed... but He'll get over it, hopefully.

There are 6.3 billion people in the world. There is not enough food to feed all the people in the third world. If anything we need MORE homosexuality. We don't need more people.
*drags out the CoE signs*
http://teutonia.mur.at/coe02.gif

No worries.

You came on rather strong. And then made an invalid statement.

I will recognize that your underlying point about not deliberately dismissing the opinions of those we may wish or need to persuade is valid.

But you have to recognize a degree of frustration at being told to validate the opinions of those who refuse to recognize the common humanity of an entire segment of the population.
Okay. *Shrugs*

You're right.

It is relatively minor.
Actually, the statement was directed at Sdaeriji, but that's ok.

Hey, I grew up in Alabama, I know the religious right like the back of my hand. It is not futile. You cannot take away one's prejudice but you can bring them to see how foolish their prejudice is.

It's futile, because if they're rational people, they'll have a religious crisis when their Bible-based prejudice is shown to be foolish. But then again, if they were rational people, they wouldn't have turned to a spurious, repeatedly edited and mistranslated, allegedly '2000 year old' book.

And don't lecture me on the religious right. My community had just over 8000 people in it and over 11 churches.

it has a bearing if perks are based upon those symantics... IE, "civil union" vs. "marriage" ... two separate (non-equal) terms in terms of how they are treated.

True.

Every pair of consenting adults should be entitled to a state-sanctioned marriage or no one should.

Or every pair of consenting adults should be entitled to a state-sanctioned civil union with all of the legal rights, privileges and protections of marriage.

Neither "seperate but unequal" nor "separate but equal" is acceptable.

It's futile, because if they're rational people, they'll have a religious crisis when their Bible-based prejudice is shown to be foolish. But then again, if they were rational people, they wouldn't have turned to a spurious, repeatedly edited and mistranslated, allegedly '2000 year old' book.

And don't lecture me on the religious right. My community had just over 8000 people in it and over 11 churches.
I'm not lecturing anyone.

yeah, only God will be pissed... but He'll get over it, hopefully.


meh - your God only matters to those who believe in it anyway.

My God s bigger, nicer, more powerful and loving than your God and will take care of those that our God smites.

it has a bearing if perks are based upon those symantics... IE, "civil union" vs. "marriage" ... two separate (non-equal) terms in terms of how they are treated.

True about that... But my point is the argument of symantecs (that is arguing for "civil union" vs. "marriage") is rediculous...

As for "seperate perks"... Such would be unlikely... Since that would in effect be codified descrimination.... We all saw how well "seperate but-equal" held up in the 1960's holding against the integration of schools.... It would be a nice try though.... It wouldn't last very long...It would actually provide so much damn legal precedent were it to be created, so as to make the slide into "gay marriage" and no "gay civil unions" a purely Judicial matter; thanks to the Civil Rights movements and ruling from the 60's...

yeah, only God will be pissed... but He'll get over it, hopefully.
You would guess so being a suposedly forgiving deity and all

no big deal, but... bear with me. To the person who said that the bible is not a basis for law:

Wasn't English Common Law based largely on the bible?

Because I'm fairly certain that American law is at least loosely based on English Common Law.

I don't like expending effort on a 'cause' that I know is futile.
Hmm. Isn't that rather like writiing off a significant percentage of all humankind as being unworthy of your efforts? Isn't that the same thing many of those who oppose gay marraige do?

Hmm. Isn't that rather like writiing off a significant percentage of all humankind as being unworthy of your efforts? Isn't that the same thing many of those who oppose gay marraige do?
Thank you, that's exactly what I was thinking. *Kiss, kiss!*

Okay, don't get all cranky.

EDIT: Wow, everyone's attacking me all at once. I never claimed to know everything. I don't care enough about anything.
Welcome to the club. That seems to happen to me on a regular basis on here. It seems to be a sort of "group think."

Hmm. Isn't that rather like writiing off a significant percentage of all humankind as being unworthy of your efforts? Isn't that the same thing many of those who oppose gay marraige do?

They expend effort in an active attempt to write off a large section of the population; they attempt to crush, destroy, repress.

I merely ignore.

Hmm. Isn't that rather like writiing off a significant percentage of all humankind as being unworthy of your efforts? Isn't that the same thing many of those who oppose gay marraige do?

Slight difference between:

A) Finding it futile to persuade a group of something.

B) Denying a group fundamental rights and equal protection of the laws.

Thank you, that's exactly what I was thinking. *Kiss, kiss!*
[ blushes ] :D

So what are your thoughts on gay righs?


They are good. If anyone says that it is a "sin", what about a gay Buddist? Or a gay athiest? If the Pope wants to say that all good Catholics can't be gay, he can go right ahead, but it won't affect America.

Slight difference between:

A) Finding it futile to persuade a group of something.

B) Denying a group fundamental rights and equal protection of the laws.
A. Translates to being unworthy of your efforts.

B. Translates to being unworthy of virtually anything.

And the difference between these is???

Welcome to the club. That seems to happen to me on a regular basis on here. It seems to be a sort of "group think."

I'm sorry, but a basic understanding of our system of government hardly qualifies as "group think."

They expend effort in an active attempt to write off a large section of the population; they attempt to crush, destroy, repress.

I merely ignore.
Being opposed to gay marriage is an "attempt to crush, destroy, repress?" Hmm. Something wrong with this picture.

A. Translates to being unworthy of your efforts.

B. Translates to being unworthy of virtually anything.

And the difference between these is???

The difference is:

I realize that they're still human and have opinions - I just don't give a crap. I understand they have an opinion, and I realize they have a right to express it. Notice how I didn't say that they can't have an opinion, that they can't go to church, that they can't profess an allegiance to God? I may not like or respect them, but I respect the fact that they're human, too.

I'm sorry, but a basic understanding of our system of government hardly qualifies as "group think."
Kindly quit putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort.

The difference is:

I realize that they're still human and have opinions - I just don't give a crap. I understand they have an opinion, and I realize they have a right to express it. Notice how I didn't say that they can't have an opinion, that they can't go to church, that they can't profess an allegiance to God? I may not like or respect them, but I respect the fact that they're human, too.
But if, in your opinion, they're wrong, are they not worthy ( humans qua human ) of your efforts to correct their misapprehensions?

Being opposed to gay marriage is an "attempt to crush, destroy, repress?" Hmm. Something wrong with this picture.

Christian fundamentalists would rather that gay people didn't exist, but if we have to exist, we should be quiet, not express opinions, follow God, and never, ever have sex or look lustfully at another member of the same gender.

How is that not precisely what I said?

But if, in your opinion, they're wrong, are they not worthy ( humans qua human ) of your efforts to correct their misapprehensions?
No.
I'm not a teacher.

A. Translates to being unworthy of your efforts.

B. Translates to being unworthy of virtually anything.

And the difference between these is???

Being deliberately obtuse hardly becomes you.

Even using your twisted wording, "being unworthy of your efforts" to persuade causes no harm to those not targeted for persuasion.

"Being unworthy of virtually anything" causes harm to those denied virtually everything.

Are we done with semantics now?

Whether or not I wish to spend an afternoon in conversation with an ultra-conservative religious zealot is a tad different than enacting legislation that treats such zealot as sub-human and denies him fundamental rights. Correct?

The case here is that neither gays nor straights are allowed to marry people of the same sex. Therefore it isnt a case of discrimination or violation of rights. The flaw here is that the deffinition of being gay or straight means that the straights wouldn’t want the right to marry the same gender, and gays wouldn’t be so appreciative of being able to marry opposite genders.

and know to yourself you are together.... even if its not legal blah blah blah The point is that it needs to be legaly recognised - they can’t be recognised as family and be allowed visitation in hospital, for example.

Homosexuals have the same rights as any heterosexual does. Marriage is not a right, it's a priviledge of government. really, don’t be stupid.

The right to attend any church they choose Ah, but that’s up to individual churches, wouldn’t you say?

Well, does that mean that if you are Indian, Native American, Hindu, Muslim, Pagan, atheist, agnostic (or anything else not judeao-christian) then you should not be considered married because you do not follow the words of the "bible"? Don’t laugh, some of them think that. :/

Sex is supposed to be used for reproduction to help keep the species alive And to bring a couple closer together.

Kindly quit putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort.

Zotona made rather strident and erroneous statements about our system of government. Several people corrected those statements.

You commented on those corrections:
That seems to happen to me on a regular basis on here. It seems to be a sort of "group think."

So, you did equate a basic understanding of our system of government with "group think."

Feel free to remove my words and insert foot.

Gays should have the same rights as anyone else. Whether someone is gay or not should not affect their rights, or how they are treated by others.

I agree...BUT, I don't believe gays should be able to get married. Marriage is traditionally a union between a man and a woman, and has been for thousands of years. It should stay that way.

Being deliberately obtuse hardly becomes you.

Even using your twisted wording, "being unworthy of your efforts" to persuade causes no harm to those not targeted for persuasion.

"Being unworthy of virtually anything" causes harm to those denied virtually everything.

Are we done with semantics now?

Whether or not I wish to spend an afternoon in conversation with an ultra-conservative religious zealot is a tad different than enacting legislation that treats such zealot as sub-human and denies him fundamental rights. Correct?

besides you are expending your efforts here on this thread right nowin order to help enlighten those who spew religious hatred

I agree...BUT, I don't believe gays should be able to get married. Marriage is traditionally a union between a man and a woman, and has been for thousands of years. It should stay that way.

Ha.
HAHAHAHAHAH.

You sir, need to be edumacated. I'll leave that to someone better able.

besides you are expending your efforts here on this thread right nowin order to help enlighten those who spew religious hatred

Yes. Thank you.

The fact that one person said that the Bible wasn't relevant hardly requires this much hand-waving.

besides you are expending your efforts here on this thread right nowin order to help enlighten those who spew religious hatred

No, we're bitching and raving. There's a bit of difference.

no big deal, but... bear with me. To the person who said that the bible is not a basis for law:

Wasn't English Common Law based largely on the bible?

Because I'm fairly certain that American law is at least loosely based on English Common Law.

English Common Law has closer relations with the Code of Hammurabi from Babylon than with the Bible.... Actually the "Common Law" was unique... It only views "Crimes commited against an individual by another or others"... As crimes... for example initially "sex-outside of marriage" was a crime, based on common law, only in the sense that "women" were considered property of their father, untill marriage, at which point "ownership" is transfered to the father... However, once the common-law principle of individual liberty was upheld on this issue... That no longer became a crime... Since women were no longer property... Homosexuality has never been part of the common law (ex-scriptura)... The only operations which made attempts at making it such, were under Roman Civil Law... Whereby anything can be contested, even if it is non-damaging to others...

This is where the "right" gets their problems at... They seem to adopt this "Roman Law" idea.. Whereby anything can be codified, and that determins all law.... That is not "Common Law".. Common Law is both written and unwritten, and the courts can uphold and find against crimes, that don't even exist... In a sense, they can create precedent where the law is silent... And they can over-rule codifications, where precedent shows violation. They don't actually need a law to make a ruling... They only need a principle to make their rulings... The Constitution's Amendment IX is a perfect example of this "Common Law" idea... It creates a textual merger between the "written" and "unwritten" laws... The principle by which all US law is founded upon is that all people are equal before the law, and share the same rights.... If a codification violates this principle, whether it be municipal, state, of federal... The courts can rule against the code, in favor of the principle.... This is why the Courts in the US, being based upon Common Law, are a seperate branch, and not inferior to the law making body, as is the case where Civil Law rules.... You could get every single legislative member to approve a bill, and have the president sign it, but if the Supreme Court can find precedent against that law, and over-rule it... Because they are bound to the principles, and not the letter...

I agree...BUT, I don't believe gays should be able to get married. Marriage is traditionally a union between a man and a woman, and has been for thousands of years. It should stay that way.

So you agree with gay rights BUT you'd keep gays as second-class citizens.

How nice.

And marriage should "stay that way" because .....

I agree...BUT, I don't believe gays should be able to get married. Marriage is traditionally a union between a man and a woman, and has been for thousands of years. It should stay that way.
For a long, long time, people believed the Earth was flat. Should it have "stayed that way"?
Slavery is gross violation of human rights which is STILL practiced in some countries in the world. We abolished it in America, but at the time, it was a common practice. Should it have "stayed that way"?

For a long, long time, people believed the Earth was flat. Should it have "stayed that way"?
Slavery is gross violation of human rights which is STILL practiced in some countries in the world. We abolished it in America, but at the time, it was a common practice. Should it have "stayed that way"?

Well said.

Well said.
He-he. I just wanted to quote you on that. :p

Well said.
Ditto.

No, we're bitching and raving. There's a bit of difference.


i was actually speaking of Cat-Tribes - he isn't bitching and raving; merely spreading the good knowledge for all to partake

Christian fundamentalists would rather that gay people didn't exist, but if we have to exist, we should be quiet, not express opinions, follow God, and never, ever have sex or look lustfully at another member of the same gender.

How is that not precisely what I said?
I suspect that's a bit of an oversimplification. You take one particular group and deamonize it, which is the very thing of which you accuse all members of that same group.

Being deliberately obtuse hardly becomes you.

Even using your twisted wording, "being unworthy of your efforts" to persuade causes no harm to those not targeted for persuasion.

"Being unworthy of virtually anything" causes harm to those denied virtually everything.

Are we done with semantics now?

Whether or not I wish to spend an afternoon in conversation with an ultra-conservative religious zealot is a tad different than enacting legislation that treats such zealot as sub-human and denies him fundamental rights. Correct?
Essentially it's just a matter of degree.

i was actually speaking of Cat-Tribes - he isn't bitching and raving; merely spreading the good knowledge for all to partake
And he was talking about me. :P Who is bitching and raving.

aren't the christian fundies the main opponents of gay marriage? since we are talking of gay marriage, what is so wrong with pointing out who it is causing the ruckus here?

Zotona made rather strident and erroneous statements about our system of government. Several people corrected those statements.

You commented on those corrections:


So, you did equate a basic understanding of our system of government with "group think."

Feel free to remove my words and insert foot.
I'm sorry if I was unclear. Zotona stated that she felt as if everyone was attacking her. I merely observed that the same thing had happened to me several times on NS General. Surely there's no contridiction or implication in that, yes?

The expression "gay rights" is misleading.

Unless I'm mistaken, gay people have the same rights as other people in modern democracies. They don't have the right to freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? They don't have the freedom to start a club that is recognized by Chapter I of the Fundamental law of Germany? They do? Then what am I missing?

It's true that in some places there are "sodomy laws" and other such nonsense which regulates what people do in the privacy of their homes. I'm opposed to that.

But more generally, I am for the equality of all citizens before the law and, therefore, it makes me cringe to see groups being singled out and being granted specific rights. People should (and do) have the freedom to lead their life any way they damn choose, and who they choose to have sex with is their own business. However, I don't see how one's sexual orientation should grant one special rights.

I suspect that's a bit of an oversimplification. You take one particular group and deamonize it, which is the very thing of which you accuse all members of that same group.

When I don't specify an amount of a specific group, I generalize and mean 'most, but there are exceptions'. Because doing otherwise is flat idiocy.

besides you are expending your efforts here on this thread right nowin order to help enlighten those who spew religious hatred
I certainly hope you're not referring to me! Even when I was attending church on a regular basis ( about nine years ago ), I was never guilty of "spewing religious hatred."

When I don't specify an amount of a specific group, I generalize and mean 'most, but there are exceptions'. Because doing otherwise is flat idiocy.
Ok. :)

I certainly hope you're not referring to me! Even when I was attending church on a regular basis ( about nine years ago ), I was never guilty of "spewing religious hatred."

not at all - i know you are above that.

i am speaking of the virilent homosexuality is a sin crowd who have some very misguided views on homosexuality

The expression "gay rights" is misleading.

Unless I'm mistaken, gay people have the same rights as other people in modern democracies. They don't have the right to freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? They don't have the freedom to start a club that is recognized by Chapter I of the Fundamental law of Germany? They do? Then what am I missing?

It's true that in some places there are "sodomy laws" and other such nonsense which regulates what people do in the privacy of their homes. I'm opposed to that.

But more generally, I am for the equality of all citizens before the law and, therefore, it makes me cringe to see groups being singled out and being granted specific rights. People should (and do) have the freedom to lead their life any way they damn choose, and who they choose to have sex with is their own business. However, I don't see how one's sexual orientation should grant one special rights.

Equal rights are not special rights.

Seeking equal rights for gays is "gay rights" -- nothing misleading about it.

The only misleading term is "special rights" -- which apparently applies to any rights that you have but wish to deny to someone else.

No. Homosexuals do not have the same rights in the US as other citizens.

I listed some of the rights denied homosexuals in the US earlier, but I'll repeat a few:

They don't have the right to marry.

They are denied the over 1000 rights, benefits, and privileges that federal law affords to married, heterosexual couples.

In 34 US states, they can be fired based solely on their sexual orientation.

They are discriminated against in immigration.

They are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

Although the Supreme Court finally struck down laws against gay sex in 2003, such laws are still on the books in most states.

The list goes on and on ...

None of these are "special rights." They are rights that heterosexuals enjoy but are denied to homosexuals on the basis of sexual orientation.

I just realized something. Gay marriage IS a moral issue.

Now before you drop your mouth and wonder if my account has been hijacked, keep reading. I have an explanation.

I just thought of an argument that I've heard against gay marriage a million times, and yet now I finally realize it's technically correct. Straight people are not allowed to marry the same sex, and gay people are perfectly well allowed to marry the opposite sex. We do, actually, have the same exact legal right. If two people stood in front of you, one straight and one gay, both of the same gender, and you presented each of them with the same ten people, they would say they can legally marry the exact same people from that pool. The only reason they would each view these potential marriages differently is because the homosexual would obviously not be as happy in those marriages. THAT is the issue. Constitutionally, the current system may actually be fine. The pursuit of happiness is defined as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence, but not in the Constitution.

So, the issue is that homosexuals have the same MORAL right to marry a person they will be equally HAPPY with. Legally, we already have the same rights. Morally, though, gays are deprived of the right to realize a certain aspect of happiness.

I'm sorry if I was unclear. Zotona stated that she felt as if everyone was attacking her. I merely observed that the same thing had happened to me several times on NS General. Surely there's no contridiction or implication in that, yes?

OK. Gotcha.

Been there. You should see me in one of the gun threads. Merely mention the Second Amendment caselaw and they go nuts. :D

I just realized something. Gay marriage IS a moral issue.

Now before you drop your mouth and wonder if my account has been hijacked, keep reading. I have an explanation.

I just thought of an argument that I've heard against gay marriage a million times, and yet now I finally realize it's technically correct. Straight people are not allowed to marry the same sex, and gay people are perfectly well allowed to marry the opposite sex. We do, actually, have the same exact legal right. If two people stood in front of you, one straight and one gay, both of the same gender, and you presented each of them with the same ten people, they would say they can legally marry the exact same people from that pool. The only reason they would each view these potential marriages differently is because the homosexual would obviously not be as happy in those marriages. THAT is the issue. Constitutionally, the current system may actually be fine. The pursuit of happiness is defined as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence, but not in the Constitution.

So, the issue is that homosexuals have the same MORAL right to marry a person they will be equally HAPPY with. Legally, we already have the same rights. Morally, though, gays are deprived of the right to realize a certain aspect of happiness.

Um.

I agree with you on the MORAL right.

But the flaw in your logic regarding the LEGAL right has been explained several times.

OK. Gotcha.

Been there. You should see me in one of the gun threads. Merely mention the Second Amendment caselaw and they go nuts. :D
Um ... case law is not determinative at the SCOTUS level. :D

-moral debatibility-

You're absolutely correct. People have the right to marry for reasons other than happiness, but that defeats the purpose of the institution. It's not within the spirit of the law. *shrug* It's an awful line of reasoning; awful because the logic is, well, logical.

Essentially it's just a matter of degree.

Not really.

Ignoring vs. actively discriminating.

Not even close to a matter of degree.

I just realized something. Gay marriage IS a moral issue.

Now before you drop your mouth and wonder if my account has been hijacked, keep reading. I have an explanation.

I just thought of an argument that I've heard against gay marriage a million times, and yet now I finally realize it's technically correct. Straight people are not allowed to marry the same sex, and gay people are perfectly well allowed to marry the opposite sex. We do, actually, have the same exact legal right. If two people stood in front of you, one straight and one gay, both of the same gender, and you presented each of them with the same ten people, they would say they can legally marry the exact same people from that pool. The only reason they would each view these potential marriages differently is because the homosexual would obviously not be as happy in those marriages. THAT is the issue. Constitutionally, the current system may actually be fine. The pursuit of happiness is defined as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence, but not in the Constitution.

So, the issue is that homosexuals have the same MORAL right to marry a person they will be equally HAPPY with. Legally, we already have the same rights. Morally, though, gays are deprived of the right to realize a certain aspect of happiness.
Hmmm! Not bad. Not bad at all! :D

I just realized something. Gay marriage IS a moral issue.

Now before you drop your mouth and wonder if my account has been hijacked, keep reading. I have an explanation.

I just thought of an argument that I've heard against gay marriage a million times, and yet now I finally realize it's technically correct. Straight people are not allowed to marry the same sex, and gay people are perfectly well allowed to marry the opposite sex. We do, actually, have the same exact legal right. If two people stood in front of you, one straight and one gay, both of the same gender, and you presented each of them with the same ten people, they would say they can legally marry the exact same people from that pool. The only reason they would each view these potential marriages differently is because the homosexual would obviously not be as happy in those marriages. THAT is the issue. Constitutionally, the current system may actually be fine. The pursuit of happiness is defined as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence, but not in the Constitution.

So, the issue is that homosexuals have the same MORAL right to marry a person they will be equally HAPPY with. Legally, we already have the same rights. Morally, though, gays are deprived of the right to realize a certain aspect of happiness.


But legaly Straits are allowed to mary thoes that they are attracted to not so with homosexuals

Again likened back to segragation it is JUST like saying whites can only marry whites and blacks blacks

They both have the same rights they can both marry within the race... but does that still make it racism? YES

You're absolutely correct. People have the right to marry for reasons other than happiness, but that defeats the purpose of the institution. It's not within the spirit of the law. *shrug* It's an awful line of reasoning; awful because the logic is, well, logical.

The logic is flawed.

Restricting marriage to members of the opposite gender discriminates on the basis of gender.

Just as restricting marriage to members of the same race discriminates on the basis of race.

The "homosexuals can still marry a member of the opposite gender" argument has no more validity than the "whites can still marry whites and blacks can still marry blacks" argument.

The logic is flawed.

Restricting marriage to members of the opposite gender discriminates on the basis of gender.

Just as restricting marriage to members of the same race discriminates on the basis of race.

The "homosexuals can still marry a member of the opposite gender" argument has no more validity than the "whites can still marry whites and blacks can still marry blacks" argument.

*wince*
Ouch, yeah. I forgot.

I just thought of an argument that I've heard against gay marriage a million times, and yet now I finally realize it's technically correct. Straight people are not allowed to marry the same sex, and gay people are perfectly well allowed to marry the opposite sex. We do, actually, have the same exact legal right. If two people stood in front of you, one straight and one gay, both of the same gender, and you presented each of them with the same ten people, they would say they can legally marry the exact same people from that pool. The only reason they would each view these potential marriages differently is because the homosexual would obviously not be as happy in those marriages. THAT is the issue. Constitutionally, the current system may actually be fine. The pursuit of happiness is defined as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence, but not in the Constitution.

There is a simple reason that this argument does not make sense:

Marriage is not an individual right. Marriage is a set of legal protections and rights given to a pair of individuals - a couple. If marriage were an individual right, I could get a marriage license all by myself and get all of the rights and protections thereof. I cannot.

As such, when we allow heterosexual marriage, but not homosexual marriage, we are discriminating against homosexual couples.

They don't have the right to marry.Gay people do have the right to marry. Any man and woman can get married, and whether they're gay doesn't change that.

You might think my point is facetious or stupid, but it's actually crucial: gay people aren't asking for an equal right (getting married), because they already have that right. They're asking for an additional right: the right to marry someone of their sexual orientation.

As far as discrimination is concerned, I agree that it's unfair and that there shouldn't be any. But that's not gay rights: it's citizen rights.

Gay people do have the right to marry. Any man and woman can get married, and whether they're gay doesn't change that.

Marriage is not an individual right.

You might think my point is facetious or stupid, but it's actually crucial: gay people aren't asking for an equal right (getting married), because they already have that right. They're asking for an additional right: the right to marry someone of their sexual orientation.

Marriage is not an individual right. An individual cannot get married without being part of a couple. Heterosexual couples can get married. Homosexual couples cannot.

Gay people do have the right to marry. Any man and woman can get married, and whether they're gay doesn't change that.

You might think my point is facetious or stupid, but it's actually crucial: gay people aren't asking for an equal right (getting married), because they already have that right. They're asking for an additional right: the right to marry someone of their sexual orientation.

As far as discrimination is concerned, I agree that it's unfair and that there shouldn't be any. But that's not gay rights: it's citizen rights.

Semantics are hardly appropriate when we are talking about fundamental human rights.

When a particular group -- gays -- are denied equal rights because of who they are -- gays -- then the fight for equal rights for that group is appropriate called "gay rights." But you can call it whatever you want -- AS LONG AS YOU STOP DISCRIMINATING. What the gay and lesbian community wants is human rights -- they won't quibble over the name.

As to your marriage argument, it is facetious. And it has been countered several times already.

I'll simply repeat this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8777420&postcount=21):

Utter bullshit.

It is either discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender (or both).

Your cute little argument is one of the same one used to defend laws against interracial marriage.

It was said there was no discrimination. A black man could marry a black woman. A white man could marry a white woman. Each had the "same right to get married as everyone else." They could marry anyone of the same "race."

You are just saying the same thing but substituting "opposite gender" for "same race."

So, yes, it is discrimination. And it is a denial of a fundamental right.