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 02-13-2015, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,332 posts, read 10,448,010 times
Reputation: 7964

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
I do not claim the right to marry a woman, thus I am not withholding any right I claim for myself from you.
Your husband claims the right to marry a woman.
You claim the right to marry a man.

Why should I not have the same right to marry a woman?
Why should a man hot have the same right as you to marry a man?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-13-2015, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,332 posts, read 10,448,010 times
Reputation: 7964
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
Really? Then gays pushing for marriage is based on their need for affirmation from society that they are not engaging in mortal sins. They cannot handle the shame of their sins, so they need government to force approval on everyone else.

Isn't it fun to play armchair psychologist.
No one cares about your affirmation.
No one cares about your belief of what is or isn't a sin.

What we care about is the constitution. and the constitutional guarantee to equal protection of the laws.

In the US legal system the constitution trumps your beliefs about sin, and what you find icky, or what you personally approve of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 11:13 AM
 
920 posts, read 503,104 times
Reputation: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoopLV View Post
And I didn't call you a holocaust denier. I said that I lump homophobes, holocaust deniers, moon-landing hoaxers and supply-side economists together. They're all part of the same tribe. These very disparate groups all display the same kind of blind, faith-based ignorance. And there's no way to "make" them see how awful and wrong they are. The best society can do is make sure that their poison doesn't hurt others.
Really? So based on your logic, homosexuals, pedophiles and those who engage in bestiality are all of the same tribe because these groups all display the same kind of dedication to demanding that society embrace their proclivities and use bullying, demeaning and vitriol to force their morality and beliefs on society, without care or concern to other people's personal beliefs and values.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,332 posts, read 10,448,010 times
Reputation: 7964
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
The special treatment is seeking additional rights based solely on sexual attraction. Today all men and all women, regardless of their sexual attraction are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex. Gays seek to expand that right to allow them the special privilege of marrying the same sex. That is seeking to change the existing social norm to meet their personal proclivities.
And at one time blacks and whites were free to marry someone of their same race.

That argument didn't work then either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 11:18 AM
 
920 posts, read 503,104 times
Reputation: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
No one cares about your affirmation.
No one cares about your belief of what is or isn't a sin.

What we care about is the constitution. and the constitutional guarantee to equal protection of the laws.

In the US legal system the constitution trumps your beliefs about sin, and what you find icky, or what you personally approve of.

What I find icky...isn't that the latest term that you guys like to use to demean those of us who actually have a strong moral value system.

Trust me, my feelings about whether or not engaging in homosexual acts has nothing to do with "being icky." I understand why you have to deflect the real issue by making a ridiculous assumption. You really sound like a spoiled child, acting out because you can't have your way.

I would love for you to have lived during slavery and given the same speech: :In the US legal system the constitution trumps your beliefs about sin, and what you find icky, or what you personally approve of."

Just because something is a law, does not make it moral.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 11:22 AM
 
920 posts, read 503,104 times
Reputation: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
And at one time blacks and whites were free to marry someone of their same race.

That argument didn't work then either.

Again, that is nothing but a straw man argument. The issue related to the right to marry (any man can marry any woman), and a law that denied a black MAN from marrying a WHITE woman. The right to marry a person of the opposite sex was the same for everyone, but black men in Virginia, who sought to marry a white woman. They were denied the privilege based on their skin color and not on their sexual attraction.

THAT is why that argument didn't work and that is why that argument is not related to what you want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 11:25 AM
 
920 posts, read 503,104 times
Reputation: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Your husband claims the right to marry a woman.
You claim the right to marry a man.

Why should I not have the same right to marry a woman?
Why should a man hot have the same right as you to marry a man?

I don't "claim" anything. Society/laws/the government/religion states that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't claim the right. You have the same rights as any man. You don't want to marry a woman, so you waive those rights. But, you want to create new rights based on your sexual preference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
4,444 posts, read 4,611,095 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
The special treatment is seeking additional rights based solely on sexual attraction. Today all men and all women, regardless of their sexual attraction are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex. Gays seek to expand that right to allow them the special privilege of marrying the same sex. That is seeking to change the existing social norm to meet their personal proclivities.
Wait a minute here - you cannot say that we're seeking "special rights" when we're seeking the right everyone else has - to marry the one we love - whether it be the same sex or the opposite. And you cannot dictate to others as to what's "moral" or not when it comes to sexual attraction. Gay people are just like everyone else, with the exception of being attracted to someone of the same sex.

Let me ask you this - what do YOU have to lose by allowing same sex marriage? How does this affect YOU?

That's right - it doesn't.

End of discussion. There's nothing more to be said on this matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 11:32 AM
 
8,852 posts, read 5,132,953 times
Reputation: 10118
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
The special treatment is seeking additional rights based solely on sexual attraction. Today all men and all women, regardless of their sexual attraction are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex. Gays seek to expand that right to allow them the special privilege of marrying the same sex. That is seeking to change the existing social norm to meet their personal proclivities.
You can have the same right, loriinwa.

I notice you ignored my post about SS benefits. Do you recognize that a civil union does not bestow the right to collect SS benefits on a spouse's work record? Only marriage bestows that right.

If I die and leave my IRA to my spouse, they may treat it as their own. Any other person must treat it as an inherited IRA, title it as such, and immediately begin taking RMDs. It doesn't matter if there is a civil union or not, only my spouse has the superior option of treating my IRA as their own.

These are pretty important benefits when one is planning one's retirement. I know about these two, and I'm not even gay. If I were gay, I imagine these inequities would be much more on my radar screen.

At least two people in this thread have stated there are 1100+ federal benefits available only to spouses. Washington's "everything but marriage" law cannot change that. If all 50 states adopted "everything but marriage" laws, it would not change that.

Do you see why a gay person in a committed relationship would want access to the same benefits that others are free to enjoy? Do you see how it has nothing to do with "forcing" others to think or do anything, but everything to do with wanting equal access to the same benefits available to others?

If you cannot understand why gay people want to be treated equally, oh well. The world is changing with or without you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Here.
13,889 posts, read 12,636,070 times
Reputation: 16259
Have there been any cases of LBGTs being fired for their LGBTness? Please post if you know of any.

I'm wondering if the designation as "protected class" is an attempt to institute some type of Affirmative Action for LGBTs. For example, LGB and/or Ts may say they make up x% of the population, therefore any employer with less than x% is presumed to be discriminating.

Also, I hear the Lesbians & Gays argue they should have the same rights as heterosexuals, but what about the Bi-sexuals? What if a person has a husband and a wife. Should all the benefits extended to a spouse include multiple spouses? And what about polygamists? Why aren't they included in the LBGT classification? Are they not also an acceptable variation in human sexuality? Surely they've been around just as long and even have some biblical sanctioning. So, if a guy has 20 wives, should his employer be required to extend benefits to all of them?

Last edited by Retroit; 02-13-2015 at 11:43 AM..
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.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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