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.
Just admit you are bigoted, ingnorant homophobes. Because WE all know you are.
Just to be clear, and no offense to you - but no, sorry, I don't agree with this.
Do I think there is a lot of bigotry and even potential homophobia in some of those who argue against gay marriage? Yes. Do I think everyone who disagrees with gay marriage is bigoted or homophobic? No. Evidence does not back that up.
I know too many reasonable and intelligent people who really do believe, for a myriad of reasons, that gay marriage should not be made legal. They run the gamut from desiring civil unions across the board to even those who simply feel it is in conflict with their faith. They are entitled to those opinions.
Where I draw the line personally is when one person feels their faith gives them an inherent right to restrict the rights of another human being... giving them an unfair or unequal benefit over another.
I think that when these discussions take place online, it becomes a lot easier to NOT hear what "the other side" thinks, to get caught up in rhetoric or to react emotionally rather than logically to information presented. Points get missed, debates get sidetracked, and eventually degrade into flame wars - and nothing is settled.
But in my experience, having these same discussions, face-to-face, often leads to a very different outcome... and sometimes even a compromise on one or both sides. That's just something you rarely see happen online, however.
yes that is right who cares what he says hes against gay marriage. only gays have the right to force thier beliefs down everyones throat including innocent children of straight people using the school system, and we all have to accept it or else we are all bigots and rightwinged and bible thumper and conservatives and everything else that is bad and evil in this world screw religion screw morals we dont need them!
Oh, but its effing okay for you and other religious fundies to shove your beliefs down everyone else's throat? Why is that? Because you believe God is on your side....has HE told you directly, or did you just sit on it one day?
You're attitide is why I will never be a conservative, it's convaluted and so twisted that my head is spinning.
Bigots? Yes of course. A bigot by defintion is someone blatantly intolerant of anther group of people, based on unsubstantiated differences and not factual claims.
Just to be clear, and no offense to you - but no, sorry, I don't agree with this.
Do I think there is a lot of bigotry and even potential homophobia in some of those who argue against gay marriage? Yes. Do I think everyone who disagrees with gay marriage is bigoted or homophobic? No. Evidence does not back that up.
I know too many reasonable and intelligent people who really do believe, for a myriad of reasons, that gay marriage should not be made legal. They run the gamut from desiring civil unions across the board to even those who simply feel it is in conflict with their faith. They are entitled to those opinions.
Where I draw the line personally is when one person feels their faith gives them an inherent right to restrict the rights of another human being... giving them an unfair or unequal benefit over another.
I think that when these discussions take place online, it becomes a lot easier to NOT hear what "the other side" thinks, to get caught up in rhetoric or to react emotionally rather than logically to information presented. Points get missed, debates get sidetracked, and eventually degrade into flame wars - and nothing is settled.
But in my experience, having these same discussions, face-to-face, often leads to a very different outcome... and sometimes even a compromise on one or both sides. That's just something you rarely see happen online, however.
I'm only calling it as I see it. No one on the Christian right has made a valid arguement agianst gay marriage, as a legal matter. The Bible isn't a legal document in this nation.
You call them opinions, well that's why we have laws. They want to make their opinions law, for only reasons known unto them. But again, they haven't made a valid legal arguement, which is why they lost yesterday, quite stunningly in fact.
But frankly, I do agree with you. This forum is good for killing time, but rarely will it advance our society.
The Federal government shouldnt be involved in social security benefits.. Again, thats a welfare program which is what people are asking for.. welfare.. But why couldnt they open it up just like a child receives benefits from their parent? You dont need to change "marriage" to open up benefits.. Pensions are individual assets, again, there shouldnt be government involvement in who one leaves their own money to. It would get passed along in a will..
Examples? Most wills dont cost thousands of dollars to setup, and neither do trusts.. I own dozens of trusts, and they are created for free and run under a state jurisdiction. Again, no federal government involvement.
There are federal penalties for me to get married just like there are penalties for many who are unmarried. If the federal government was out of it completely, neither of these would be true..
No.. legal burdens exists on everyone to make sure that your wishes are carried out through your estate. This is true for married, unmarried, gays, or straights. Dont act like being responsible and taking the proper steps to make sure your wishes are carried out when you die is a burden.
I never stated I support denying gays the right to marry.. I said the federal government should have no involvement in the decision and that its a state regulatory issue. If you want to get married, get a marriage license in a state that allows it. You've been denied no liberty because getting married isnt a right. its a priviledge.. I equate this to a drivers license.. Do you have a right to drive, even though you've purchased a car? Hell, many dont even have the right to carry a gun, and now all of a sudden marriage is a right? Please...
I LOVE equating this to a drivers license. You can choose to get a drivers license or choose not to do so. Getting a drivers license affords you benefits and responsibilities. Not getting a drivers license also affords you benefits and responsibilities. But it's a choice. The state limits drivers licenses to people old enough to understand the laws and responsibilities of having a license, of driving a vehicle on public streets, and also limits people who are physically impaired so that their driving a vehicle would be a danger.
You can also choose to get married or not to get married. Getting married entails certain benefits and responsibilities. Some of those benefits are spousal rights. You can choose not to get married, but if you want your significant other to enjoy certain spousal benefits (not all, mind you, no amount of legal wrangling is going to get your significant other ALL the spousal benefits), you can be burdened with hiring a lawyer to draw up a number of contracts to extend some things to your non-legal "spouse". That's a burden, though. Laws change from state to state, lawyers are expensive, but as long as you can CHOOSE, then all is good. However, if you deprive a certain segment of society that right to CHOOSE, then you are discriminating.
Now, we do that. We do discriminate legally. We restrict felons from being able to vote. We restrict blind people from driving. We restrict people who are mentally ill from serving in certain professions, and so on. When we discriminate legally, we have to justify that discrimination. What is the justification of discriminating against gay people choosing to get married or not? It's not traditional? Really? That's a good justification?
gay marriage is not the same as interracial marriage
Maybe, maybe not. But the principles surrounding the issue are the same. Blacks were (and still are) a minority in this country and the SC said we could not discriminate in our marriage laws to keep blacks and whites from intermarrying. Homosexuals are a minority, not only in this country, but in the world and all we same sex marriage proponents are saying is that we should not discriminate in our marriage laws to keep gay and lesbian couples from marrying.
As far as the Supreme Court goes its likely going to come down to Kennedy.
Judge Walker quoted Kennedy from his own decisions in recent gay-rights cases at least 15 times in his Prop 8 ruling. Yep - he's the swing vote. Appointed by Reagan -
how ironic
It is a slam-dunk victory for same-sex couples and for the same-sex couples in this case,” says Suzanne Goldberg, director of Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law. “The decision recognizes that the legal battles against marriage rights for same-sex couples now no longer have a leg to stand on.”
And this isn’t just a victory for gays and lesbians. Walker’s ruling is made on explicitly feminist grounds. The restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples, he finds, “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.”
The religious right has always known that gay rights and feminism are deeply intertwined, because both threaten the idea that gender roles are God-given, sharply delineated and immutable. Part of the brilliance of Walker’s decision is the way it roots out the premises of the anti-gay marriage argument and demolishes them.
A new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute shows that a 51 percent majority of Californians now say they’d vote against a Proposition 8-type law. The more people learn about gay families—including the plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case—and the harm that discrimination causes them, the less credence they give to right-wing demonization.
Judge Walker quoted Kennedy from his own decisions in recent gay-rights cases at least 15 times in his Prop 8 ruling. Yep - he's the swing vote. Appointed by Reagan -
how ironic
It is a slam-dunk victory for same-sex couples and for the same-sex couples in this case,” says Suzanne Goldberg, director of Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law. “The decision recognizes that the legal battles against marriage rights for same-sex couples now no longer have a leg to stand on.”
And this isn’t just a victory for gays and lesbians. Walker’s ruling is made on explicitly feminist grounds. The restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples, he finds, “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.”
The religious right has always known that gay rights and feminism are deeply intertwined, because both threaten the idea that gender roles are God-given, sharply delineated and immutable. Part of the brilliance of Walker’s decision is the way it roots out the premises of the anti-gay marriage argument and demolishes them.
A new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute shows that a 51 percent majority of Californians now say they’d vote against a Proposition 8-type law. The more people learn about gay families—including the plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case—and the harm that discrimination causes them, the less credence they give to right-wing demonization.
To top it off Walker was appointed to the court by H. W Bush after originally being nominated by Reagan.
I'm only calling it as I see it. No one on the Christian right has made a valid arguement agianst gay marriage, as a legal matter. The Bible isn't a legal document in this nation.
I agree that I've yet to see what seems to me to be a valid, legal argument against gay marriage... but I admit that a) I may have missed it or b) interpreted the law differently than the person proposing the argument.
I also know that in the end, for me, I DO have an emotional response to the issue. ie: something inside of me simply says "of course gays and lesbians should have the right to marry! Duh!" And it is because of that emotional response,that feeling, that I try and work towards seeing that goal achieved.
Similarly, I believe there are many who have an opposite emotional response to the issue. ie: something inside of them simply says, "of course gays and lesbians should not have the right to marry! Duh!" And it is because of that emotional response, that feeling, that they try and work towards seeing their own goal achieved.
That's part of why this issue is so challenging, such a hot-button... because our feelings, emotions, beliefs ARE involved. We passionately feel that "our side is the right side," and can't understand why they don't see it the same way we do. We gather up whatever information we can to advance our side, and find ways to dismiss whatever their side presents in turn.
We all do this. We like to think that our arguments are logical, factual and thus correct... but in the end, on a person-to-person level, it is a gut feeling that drives us forward.
It is because our founding fathers understood this that they set up a system by which a team of people are responsible for stepping away from the emotions and doing their human best to interpret the facts, to understand how the law applies, NOT the emotions - because they understood that the emotions of the people would not always be in harmony with justice. And it's a good thing they had that foresight, or we'd still be trying to crawl out of the dark ages.
I LOVE equating this to a drivers license. You can choose to get a drivers license or choose not to do so. Getting a drivers license affords you benefits and responsibilities.
Not everyone can choose to get a drivers license.. Do you think people who are blind are now discriminated against because they are denied licenses? Can they help being blind? But if we were to apply your standards, they should be "entitled" to a license anyways right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Not getting a drivers license also affords you benefits and responsibilities.
like what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
But it's a choice.
not for everyone
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
The state limits drivers licenses to people old enough to understand the laws and responsibilities of having a license, of driving a vehicle on public streets, and also limits people who are physically impaired so that their driving a vehicle would be a danger.
not unlike the argument that "gays" might be an "impairment".. (not making that argument, just going along with your statement. Some people consider "gay" an impairment and not normal, just like we limit people who are "blind" from driving. Who is to determine what is an "impairment" and what isnt? Society determines this. We say its not ok to have poligamy marriage for example, but in the judges ruling, every argument to support gay marriage, can also be used to support poligamy.. I'm not asking if thats next, but is it fair that they are "discriminated against"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
You can also choose to get married or not to get married. Getting married entails certain benefits and responsibilities. Some of those benefits are spousal rights.
Would these be the same spousal rights that would exist with an "alternative" form of marriage like "partner"? How would they be different? Answer, they wouldnt be
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
You can choose not to get married, but if you want your significant other to enjoy certain spousal benefits (not all, mind you, no amount of legal wrangling is going to get your significant other ALL the spousal benefits), you can be burdened with hiring a lawyer to draw up a number of contracts to extend some things to your non-legal "spouse".
Just like some benefits get removed when one gets married. Do you think getting married is all about gaining benefits? Lots of people lose benefits when they get married. People give up former social security benefits when they get married, they give up the right to obtain social security disability, many give up "welfare" benefits like food stamps, just like there are benefits one gains when getting married, there are similar ones given up..
Hiring a lawyer to draw up contracts to extend some things to my "non legal" spouse isnt a burden, its my responsibility as taking her into my household and agreeing to support her. No different than one leaving an estate to unmarried individuals, like the wealthy leaving money to their butler.. (ok, who has one of those anymore, but you get the idea)..
Even with marriage, estates arent protected without those very same legal documents. Look at Anna Nicole Smith for eample.. The point being that EVERYONE needs those very same documents regardless of their marriage status so its not a burden simply for "gays"..
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
That's a burden, though. Laws change from state to state, lawyers are expensive, but as long as you can CHOOSE, then all is good.
Why stop there.. If all laws are going to be across the board nation wide, then why have states at all? Isnt that the point? You've now just deemed a state law illegal, so why not just abolish all states and have the federal government write laws that every state must comply with? I'm not being serious here, but with all of the federal mandates, and the fact that many states all have the same laws anyways, isnt this what you are asking for? One national policy for things like "marriage", even though the origination of the country was individual states would have individual laws..
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
However, if you deprive a certain segment of society that right to CHOOSE, then you are discriminating.
Boys and Girls clubs dont allow adults as members for example.. Seniors are entitled to "discounts", single individuals receive tax consequences.. People are discriminated against all the time.. Its not illegal, nor is it unconstitutional to discriminate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Now, we do that. We do discriminate legally. We restrict felons from being able to vote. We restrict blind people from driving. We restrict people who are mentally ill from serving in certain professions, and so on. When we discriminate legally, we have to justify that discrimination. What is the justification of discriminating against gay people choosing to get married or not? It's not traditional? Really? That's a good justification?
So now you've justified discrimination "legally", but isnt that what we are doing here with gays? Just because one disagrees with it, doesnt mean its illegal.. Clearly carrying a gun for example is legal per the Constitution, but neither you nor I could walk through DC with one without being arrested and charged. Not only do priviledges have standards but even our rights do, which is why not equating a priviledge is a right when its not is very important..
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.
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.
