U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-22-2009, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
90 posts, read 244,108 times
Reputation: 33

Advertisements

I'm a bit old fashioned, but I'm against gay marriage and things like that. I just wish gays would keep their private life private. Gay marriage opens the door to anything and everything goes, a man can marry his sister, have 3 wives, marry his dog whatever. Marriage is for a man & Lady only to raise a family and have a union. There is no need for gay marriage, a civil union or contract can do th same thing. I wonder what the state of Iowa will do now if some guy wanted to marry 2 women? Sounds to me they would have to allow it from what the law reads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-22-2009, 02:07 PM
 
109 posts, read 227,396 times
Reputation: 50
sauerkraut,

The slippery slope argument carries no water because things like marrying your sister, polygamy, and beastiality(sp) are against the law, pretty sure that marrying your sister is against the law, but I know the others are against the law. So, unless the laws change and our socitey says polygamy beastiality and inbreeding are not crimes, than these marriages can't and won't happen.

By the way the homosexuality was ruled not to be a crime by the Supreme Court in the decision of Lawrence v Texas. I like your idea of civil union but I would extend it further so that no one can be married by the State. Eveyone can only get a civil union, takes the whole religious and moral connotation out of the subject. Since the State has already ruled homosexuality to be morally acceptable (not a crime) by the Supreme Court in the Lawrence case I do not see why homosexuals should be denied the same benefits from the State that heterosexuals receive.

That is how the laws and the Consitution are interpreted today and I do not see how there cannot be any other logical path to follow but to allow gay marriage or gay civil union, unless the Courts reverse their stance on homosexuality which I do not see happening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2009, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Omaha
1,137 posts, read 2,046,622 times
Reputation: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omahabound View Post
It's unfortunate that you celebrate the right to have abortion (murder a baby) as a form of birth control (that's primarily what it's used for and legally protected as) so a woman can be inconvenienced with a living being because she failed to take precautions and not become pregnant.

I agree with you there. I think many things are not set in stone about gay marriage and items like that, but I have never understood why a human being inside someone has any less rights than one outside. These tend to be Nebraskan values. That being said, I recognize, there are extreme circumstances under which an abortion should be granted, and I certainly don't support religious nutjobs who protest by waving bloody photos in front of your face.

rant over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2009, 04:12 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,100,440 times
Reputation: 3888
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMinSWO View Post
The slippery slope argument carries no water because things like marrying your sister, polygamy, and beastiality(sp) are against the law, pretty sure that marrying your sister is against the law, but I know the others are against the law. So, unless the laws change and our socitey says polygamy beastiality and inbreeding are not crimes, than these marriages can't and won't happen.
I'm not sure you can make a very solid argument there.

Whether or not we call it a slippery slope, the fact is that a popular mantra is, "Stay out of my bedroom!" And because of public pressure, and (perhaps "activist") judges, that's now becoming reality.

So... If the law is changed to say that marriage is not just between "one woman and one man", then it MUST be redefined in a way that is rather broad and inclusive. And philosophically and practically, means that a man CAN marry his sister if he wants, or his horse if that's his pleasure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2009, 04:12 PM
 
Location: West Omaha
1,181 posts, read 3,646,232 times
Reputation: 477
I can't believe some of the ridiculously hateful posts I see on here.

Ya...you may think its cute to claim that a gay person is gay because "they haven't figured out basic human physiology" but the basic fact is that completely trivializes the matter. I can only wish that someday you have a gay child or gay grandchild.

And as far as gay marriage leading to "dog marriage" or "marrying your sister," well, maybe you should take an actual look at how the constitution supplies states with the ability to regulate that activity. State laws vary as to how the marriage statutes are written. Some say man and woman and some say two people. A state could very easily allow gay marriage by saying marriage includes "gay marriage." This liberalization would not include animal marriage or polygamy. To disallow things like "animal marriage" the state need only apply a "rational basis" for the law. This is a phenomenally easy barrier and about 90% of the time, when a court applies that test to the statute, the statute is upheld. So it is very easy to allow gay marriage but to disallow polygamy or animal marriage. The big question, touched on below, is what standard would the court apply to a gay marriage case. Rational basis or compelling interest? Even if they apply the very low rational basis standard, is there any rational basis for disallowing gay marriage? Further, the supreme court has also already ruled in previous cases that "mere laws of morality" do not pass this standard. So there has to be another rational basis for disallowing gay marriage. So what is it? Some have invoked "health risks." I don't buy it, but that would be an argument by a state and the court could buy it...who knows. If, however, the court applies a compelling interest standard the anti-gay marriage statutes have virtually no chance of being upheld. Besides the clash with religious morality what "compelling interest" is there against gay marriage?

As far as what your Constitutional rights are in regard to marriage. The Supreme Court has NOT ruled in the case of gay marriage. So to say you don't have a right to "marry who you love" is incorrect. As it stands now, marriage has been deemed a fundamental right. However, it is not clear whether that includes homosexual or only heterosexual marriage. What law a state passes has NO bearing as to whether its a U.S. Constitutional right. Nebraska can pass all the laws it wants defining marriage as only heterosexual, but that doesn't mean that law is Constitutional. The verdict is still out. And until a ruling one way or the other it is completely dishonest to say you only have a constitutional right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Your rights come from the Constitution...not state statutes and most of your rights are not enumerated in the Constitution.

And as far as what marriage rights are defined by the state, well, those change all the time. It wasn't long ago that blacks did not have the right to marry whites. It was not until the Supreme Court extended the fundamental right to marry to include interracial marriage did states finally have to stop doing this. Could the same happen in gay marriage? Maybe. Who knows. But that is their whole point! To just expect them to just not push for it because they "don't have the right" is just silly. If you were gay, you'd be doing the exact same thing.

As far a the Founders being religious, some were, but why does that matter? They also took great lengths to keep religion OUT of government, even if they themselves were religious. They were sophisticated enough to understand that even in 18th century America their was a diverse array of religious beliefs and to adopt one would lead to big problems. Further, there were many, including Franklin and Washington, who many today would classify as agnostic. Sure they referenced "Providence," but they also privately questioned a higher powers existence and openly stated how it was dangerous to inject religion into our government. So, whether or not there were some Founders that wanted more religion in our constitution doesn't really matter. The fact is our Founders went to great lengths to avoid injecting a religious preference. To suggest that this isn't the case is revisionary.

Last edited by mattpoulsen; 04-22-2009 at 04:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2009, 04:50 PM
 
1,156 posts, read 1,225,164 times
Reputation: 138
[quote=GMinSWO;8466056]sauerkraut,

The slippery slope argument carries no water because things like marrying your sister, polygamy, and beastiality(sp) are against the law, pretty sure that marrying your sister is against the law, but I know the others are against the law. So, unless the laws change and our socitey says polygamy beastiality and inbreeding are not crimes, than these marriages can't and won't happen. [quote]
Until someone decides it infringes on some perceived freedom. Don't forget that homosexuality was illegal via sodomy laws. So your rebuttal ignores evidence to the contrary and holds no water.

Quote:
By the way the homosexuality was ruled not to be a crime by the Supreme Court in the decision of Lawrence v Texas. I like your idea of civil union but I would extend it further so that no one can be married by the State. Eveyone can only get a civil union, takes the whole religious and moral connotation out of the subject. Since the State has already ruled homosexuality to be morally acceptable (not a crime) by the Supreme Court in the Lawrence case I do not see why homosexuals should be denied the same benefits from the State that heterosexuals receive.
And by the same logic neither should polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc. Maybe you could provide some legal logic as to why those crimes should not be overturned based on the concept of fairness/equality and that what goes on between consenting aduts, or in the case of bestiality, an adult and his property.

Quote:
That is how the laws and the Consitution are interpreted today and I do not see how there cannot be any other logical path to follow but to allow gay marriage or gay civil union, unless the Courts reverse their stance on homosexuality which I do not see happening.
And there's the problem. The way the Constitution "gets interpreted" as opposed to what is actually written and what was intended when it was written. As a country we have been supremely lazy in keeping true to the Constitution. When we encountered situations where the Constitution did not provide guidance, instead of amending the Constitution to address a problem, we instead practiced creative interpretation.

So when you have something like freedom of speech written to allow for political positions that may not be popular with the government we end up with a government that is pondering who should be allowed to speak and if they must present an opposing view completely contrary to original freedom of speech and then under the banner of free speech, public libraries cannot block access to porn on it's computers even when used by children.

Creative interpretation is slaughtering the Constitution and has been doing so for a long time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2009, 05:05 PM
 
Location: West Omaha
1,181 posts, read 3,646,232 times
Reputation: 477
If the Supreme Court were limited to merely "reading" the constitution, then YOU would not have a right to privacy, a black person could not marry a white person, and you would not have an individual right to own a gun (interestingly the supreme court just ruled on that - contrary to popular belief!).

And the Founders deliberately made the Constitution vague. The enumerated rights, the Bill of Rights, was a total compromise and was NOT intended to be put in place until the anti-Federalist states required it in exchange for ratification. The Founder expected future generations to apply the text of the constitution in the context of future times. They were smart enough to realize that what was occurring in 1787 probably would have little impact in 2009. Why do people so tightly cling to this hyper-textualists position? Originalists doctrine clearly indicates that the Founders did NOT want us using a hyper-textualist approach!

Its also worth noting that the original Constitution allowed for slavery, and even protected it. One of the supreme ideas encapsulated in the Constitution is the idea that the federal government should be in place to protect the minority from "the tyranny of the majority." This was nearly the entire reason for the constitution, and its biggest proponents were Madison, Adams, and Jefferson. All of whom I am convinced, if alive today, would approve of gay marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2009, 11:18 PM
 
Location: Midtown Omaha
605 posts, read 1,058,097 times
Reputation: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
I'm not sure you can make a very solid argument there.

Whether or not we call it a slippery slope, the fact is that a popular mantra is, "Stay out of my bedroom!" And because of public pressure, and (perhaps "activist&quot judges, that's now becoming reality.

So... If the law is changed to say that marriage is not just between "one woman and one man", then it MUST be redefined in a way that is rather broad and inclusive. And philosophically and practically, means that a man CAN marry his sister if he wants, or his horse if that's his pleasure.
Here's a simple solution: Keep religion at church!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 05:18 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,100,440 times
Reputation: 3888
Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfOmaha View Post
Here's a simple solution: Keep religion at church!
Here's a simple solution: KEEP YOUR HOMOSEXUALITY IN YOUR BEDROOM.



See how easy that is?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 06:16 AM
 
516 posts, read 1,210,049 times
Reputation: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
Here's a simple solution: KEEP YOUR HOMOSEXUALITY IN YOUR BEDROOM.



See how easy that is?
That's a double standard. See, I would love to keep my hetrosexuality in the bedroom, but being 7 months pregnant makes that a little difficult.

Every pregnant woman had to have SEX to get that way OMG!
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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 > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:39 PM.

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