U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:43 PM
 
920 posts, read 478,606 times
Reputation: 638

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
They very much tried to redefine marriage as it was considered in Virginia.

How did Virginia define marriage specifically. Was there a law that specifically stated that marriage was between one man/race and one woman/same race? I don't believe the issue in that case related to that specific definition of marriage that included specific race requirements, but you sure seem to know a lot about it, so please provide the language of that law. I always like to learn new things!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:45 PM
 
920 posts, read 478,606 times
Reputation: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian View Post
Well... since the government offers the benefits of marriage to heterosexuals, then it must to the same for homosexuals. NOW it's equal
Or government could get out of the business of telling people how to live, so that this is no longer an issue...like it was before they got their greedy, regulating hands on it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
19,463 posts, read 9,793,905 times
Reputation: 7551
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
You are projecting. I am not mad and I am not advocating turning anyone away from public services. I am explaining how gay marriage does effect other people (private business owners) to those individuals who claim it doesn't.
Those business owners were effected BEFORE same sex marriage was legal in that state. About 2 years before it was legal in one case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:51 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,270,198 times
Reputation: 17979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
I see you've found an anti-gay hero. They're getting harder to come by these days, aren't they? It must be very depressing, living in an age in which sanctioned discrimination against gays is being rolled back virtually everywhere. All this equality, justice - such developments must be difficult to live with for you people who loathe such concepts.

Oh - nice touch with the "But... but... I just care to much about the children!" shtick. It ain't much, and it's incoherent nonsense, but since there is no coherent rationale for your anti-gay animus, I guess you've got to throw something out there.

But, do tell me this:
How does it benefit the child of gay parents in Kansas, when one of those parents is fired from a job not for job performance but for no reason other than the fact that he or she is gay? Or, when that parent is not hired in the first place for precisely that reason? Of course, it doesn't - it harms that child. And you don't care one bit.

Stop pretending you care at all about children. You don't. You're just upset that this generation is not raising another generation that shares your irrational dislike of gays.
Harder to come by/ Then there is no reason to be classified as a protected class is there. But the I recall California vote o gay marriage being called a sure thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:52 PM
 
920 posts, read 478,606 times
Reputation: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74 View Post
No, it's special treatment for the people who like and can eat ice cream, and unequal treatment for the people who don't like or can't eat ice cream. You mistake being in the majority for the right to have everything your way all the time and assume that other people also wanting things their way are seeking "special treatment." But from their point of view, you are the one getting special treatment. Just because you happen to like ice cream doesn't mean you are more entitled to a tax-payer funded special treat than someone who doesn't.

See, I understand analogies just fine. The problem is that yours lack logic.
There was no issue with regard to people being unable to eat ice cream. That was the point. Heterosexuals do not desire sex with the same sex. Homosexuals do not desire sex with the opposite sex... in the simplest terms it is a matter of taste.

If a heterosexual individual was on a desert island with only members of the same sex, they could either choose to remain abstinent or engage in same sex relations if there desires were so strong as to overcome their lack of desire.

In the analogy, people who don't desire free ice cream are free to abstain, or overcome their distaste and eat free ice cream. Instead, they seek the special privilege of free frozen yogurt by demanding that the receive something not offered to everyone else, based solely on their tastes/desires.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Central Florida
2,063 posts, read 1,736,444 times
Reputation: 1901
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
I have also seen how legal marriage protects people. My mom had legal protections when my father died. My mother didn't pay estate taxes on the property they acquired during their marriage. My mother had access to his pension. My mother was able to make medical decisions for him when he couldn't do so himself.
My mother was granted automatic equal custody of their children. My mother still has access to the military base as a dependent. My mother was able to be on dads medical insurance. My mom automatically inherited dads part of the estate when he died.

I don't have those protections neither does my fiancee. No amount of legal documents protects a couple as well as a marriage license does.

And a legal marriage protects both parties in the event of a divorce too. My mom couldn't have just taken off with us if her and my dad had split up. My dad couldn't have just kicked her out of the house, and emptied the bank accounts.

It sounds like you had a nasty divorce, and I'm sorry if you had to go through that. But to me having those legal protections is worth the risk.

I have never married but came close once to making a big mistake and marrying the wrong person. Something I wanted to protect others from doing as well.

Interesting you mention estate tax as your children may someday get stuck paying it but that is another subject.

I think what you are saying is that even in your bible belt state where you know many people don't respect or take seriously your marriage as much as they would one between a man and a woman they should at least give you the same legal right to have it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:54 PM
 
920 posts, read 478,606 times
Reputation: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian View Post
lol! This argument is so IGNORANT! It's not about which ice cream people prefer. It's about who people are CAPABLE OF FALLING IN LOVE WITH
It is not an argument, it is an analogy. It does not involve falling in love, it involves seeking special privileges based on personal preferences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:56 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
19,463 posts, read 9,793,905 times
Reputation: 7551
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
How did Virginia define marriage specifically. Was there a law that specifically stated that marriage was between one man/race and one woman/same race? I don't believe the issue in that case related to that specific definition of marriage that included specific race requirements, but you sure seem to know a lot about it, so please provide the language of that law. I always like to learn new things!
Quote:
It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this act, the term "white person" shall apply only to the person who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this act.
Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924

Quote:
"All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process."
(Code Ann. A7 20-57) Virginia law from 1750.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:00 PM
 
920 posts, read 478,606 times
Reputation: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdroplet76 View Post
They are all victims of prejudice. Prejudice will always exist because there will always be people that need someone to hate to make them feel better about themselves - but gradually these things become less and less acceptable. It's scary for those that hate because they want to feel that it is okay - even right- for them to hate - but it isn't.

It's scary that people refuse to see that hate and scariness play no role in this discussion. You use those terms in order to dismiss any logical discussion out of your own fear and bigotry.

It's okay, sometimes it's hard to understand that people with valid opposing opinions from you are neither scared nor hate you, they merely have different values and positions on certain issues. If you hate me and are scared of me because of my values or opinions, that must by why you assume I hate you or am scared of you for yours.

But, you are wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
19,463 posts, read 9,793,905 times
Reputation: 7551
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
I have never married but came close once to making a big mistake and marrying the wrong person. Something I wanted to protect others from doing as well.

Interesting you mention estate tax as your children may someday get stuck paying it but that is another subject.

I think what you are saying is that even in your bible belt state where you know many people don't respect or take seriously your marriage as much as they would one between a man and a woman they should at least give you the same legal right to have it.
Yep. That is kind of what the 14th amendment say has to happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top