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)
 
Old 06-12-2010, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Northeast NE
696 posts, read 1,498,850 times
Reputation: 283

Advertisements

^^^

hehe

He said muster and comport.

HEH EH
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-13-2010, 12:37 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,681,889 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Their reasons for wanting same sex marriage recognized are well documented and since you've now taken the stance of actively arguing against that being granted, the burden most certainly is on you to defend your belief.

Quit dancing around and answer the question.
I have answered the question. Currently, no one is being denied any rights, and I think it's poor precedent to set to create a new class of marriage to suit a small minority. Perhaps that's not good enough for you....but honestly, I don't really care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2010, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,929 posts, read 19,142,988 times
Reputation: 9155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
I have answered the question.
No you haven't. I've asked you repeatedly why same sex marriages should not be recognized and you have failed to provide one single answer.

I'm still waiting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2010, 03:46 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,681,889 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
No you haven't. I've asked you repeatedly why same sex marriages should not be recognized and you have failed to provide one single answer.

I'm still waiting.

Currently, no one is being denied any rights, and I think it's poor precedent to set to create a new class of marriage to suit a small minority. Perhaps that's not good enough for you....but honestly, I don't really care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2010, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,929 posts, read 19,142,988 times
Reputation: 9155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Currently, no one is being denied any rights, and I think it's poor precedent to set to create a new class of marriage to suit a small minority. Perhaps that's not good enough for you....but honestly, I don't really care.
Why shouldn't these marriages be recognized Calvin? I'm asking you a very specific question, now answer it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2010, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Downtown Omaha
1,362 posts, read 4,199,438 times
Reputation: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Currently, no one is being denied any rights, and I think it's poor precedent to set to create a new class of marriage to suit a small minority. Perhaps that's not good enough for you....but honestly, I don't really care.
You keep mistating that people are pushing for a new class of marriage. There is only one class of marriage available and that's marriage. Certain people are being denied the right to marry. We aren't pushing for a "new" kind of marriage, we're pushing for people to be able to enter what is already in place. Creating a "new class of marriage" would be things like civil unions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2010, 10:41 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,929 posts, read 19,142,988 times
Reputation: 9155
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTO Luv View Post
You keep mistating that people are pushing for a new class of marriage. There is only one class of marriage available and that's marriage. Certain people are being denied the right to marry. We aren't pushing for a "new" kind of marriage, we're pushing for people to be able to enter what is already in place. Creating a "new class of marriage" would be things like civil unions.
He's not misstating anything. He's backed into a corner now and doing a very **** poor job of trying to weasel his way out of it, but we both know why he won't answer the question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2010, 09:13 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,681,889 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Why shouldn't these marriages be recognized Calvin? I'm asking you a very specific question, now answer it.
I don't consider those "marriages" to be valid marriages. Why should they be recognized?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
He's not misstating anything. He's backed into a corner now and doing a very **** poor job of trying to weasel his way out of it, but we both know why he won't answer the question.

I'm stating my opinion, but apparently you are trying for an emotional response that you think will be generated by bigotry or hate. Sorry...not gonna get it.

Bottom line is that currently, no one is being denied any rights, and I think it's poor precedent to set to create a new class of marriage to suit a small minority. Perhaps that's not good enough for you....but honestly, I don't really care. Despite your's and other people's attempts to deconstruct my motivation, I don't hate you or anyone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DTO Luv View Post
You keep mistating that people are pushing for a new class of marriage. There is only one class of marriage available and that's marriage. Certain people are being denied the right to marry. We aren't pushing for a "new" kind of marriage, we're pushing for people to be able to enter what is already in place. Creating a "new class of marriage" would be things like civil unions.
Get married if you want--I don't care. The marriage laws that apply to me apply to you, too. Guess what? I can't marry anyone of the same gender either, no matter how much I love them. The fact that I don't want to is irrelevant, as I'm not guaranteed the right to marry anyone I want--I have to follow certain rules/regulations.

You people are like a broken record. Frankly, it's getting old.

Last edited by Calvinist; 06-14-2010 at 09:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2010, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
1,048 posts, read 2,142,839 times
Reputation: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen View Post
No, the state cannot just arbitrarily assign benefits to one group and not another. Based on your logic it would be ok to assign benefits to whites, but not blacks. The point is in order to assign asymmetric benefits the state must have at least a rational basis, and maybe a heightened level of scrutiny depending on the issue at hand. That's the whole conversation. The state can not call a union a marriage with one group and then award that group benefits and then not do it to another group unless their reasoning passes Supreme Court muster.

There is no doubt that you would agree that it would be unconstitutional for Nebraska to deny marriage benefits to an interracial couple. And that emanates from the federal constitution. So you have little support for your "benefits are treated differently" theory. They are not. And if the Supreme Court rules that its a fundamental right to engage in ANY marriage (be it gay or straight) then they will also rule that its unconstitutional to deny marriage benefits to gays.

Now, you're right to say that the State can define what benefits come with marriage (to some degree), but they are not freely allowed to determine who and who doesn't get to have those benefits. Their basis for discriminating must fall within Constitutional doctrine. And the argument by those supporting gay marriage claims that denying marriage benefits to gay couples does NOT comport with Constitutional law.

By your logic the state should give an employed person unemployment, or a non-US citizen welfare. You have to meet the qualifications to get benefits. It's not that gay people are doing something illegal by getting married, they are just not doing something that qualifies them for state recognition or benefits. The state absolutely has the right to determine benefits and what qualifies a person to get them. They can take marriage benefits away from everyone if they want. Marriage benefits are essentially a gift from the state, not a civil right.

I know that you and a few others like to try and put this on the same level as interracial marriage. From the outside looking in, it has some similaraties, but when you dig into the way the law works, they are nothing alike, not even close.

You are comparing anti-miscegenation laws that were not part of the jurisprudence that American law inherited from the English courts to a state benefit requirement. They are totally different. This comparison is soooo far off base you would stand a better chance comparing animal cruelty laws to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2010, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
175 posts, read 389,703 times
Reputation: 45
I can't believe this thread is still going, give it a rest already.
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.

© 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