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.
QUOTE: We want this to go before SCOTUS. We're anxious for this to be heard by them. Every appeal is a step closer to equality... these appeals do nothing but help us.
Are you familiar with the make-up of the Supreme Court? Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts--do you actually believe any one of them will rule that gays have a constitutional right to marriage??? Take a look at Scalia's scathing response to the Supreme Court's ruling on sodomy laws. I cannot imagine this court ruling in favor of gay marriage.
If civil unions and marriages were the same (i.e., equivalent), opponents would have no need to make a distinction between them. They would be synonyms, like the words "automobile" and "car." However, this is not the case with the words "civil union" and "marriage." Some people are fine with one but not the other because they are different.
Since opponents believe them to be different, so the judge argued, they must believe one to be inherently superior to the other. If one is inherently superior and it is denied to a certain group for no compelling reason, that is discrimination. It's the same as forcing blacks to sit in the back of the bus. If the seats were no better or worse than the seats at the front of the bus (separate but equal) why not let people sit where they want to sit? The fact is they're not the same; they're not equal.
If, on the other hand, civil unions and marriages are not different, why have two words? Why not call both marriage if the are so equal as to be indistinguishable from each other?
The argument is fundamentally flawed either way. Either civil unions and marriages are the same and can both be called marriage, or they are different, have inequivalent value, and constitute discrimination.
They are different.
His premise is flawed.
The basis of his premise is that since they are different, one is better. This is an assumption, also an ignorance of the issue.
What reasoning does he give to make such a statement that one is perceived as better? He doesn't, he assumes as such and without any logical precedence. He argues from a subjective position, inserting his own poor assumptions as a driver.
They are different, the reason?
Marriage is a union that was designed to accommodate the result of heterosexual unions. They produced bloodlines, family trees. With such came blood-right and birth-right. Families related in such also gained such through this. It merged lines and created new houses, joined countries, clans, etc...
Society in its civil laws merely recognized this process to function with in their legal systems.
Civil unions carry no component of birth-right or blood-right. They can never obtain such due to their limitations. Civil unions serve the purpose of recognizing the agreements between two people to establish similar contractual representation similar to that of marriage. They are different from their core though and serve specific purposes due to their makeup.
Is one better? To attempt to assess such is absurd, they are completely different and the judge attempting to claim one is superior shows the flaw in his logic. That is, for him to claim one is superior, he must see them as the same, when they are not. They result in "similar" end goals, but can not achieve the same process and reasoning due to their initial foundation. That is, they are completely different and follow different paths to achieve similar results. They can not be compared because they serve different functions.
Saying a homosexual couple can be married confuses the meaning of marriage. Marriage then loses its definition and purpose. Blood right, blood lines and the function of such unions get confused with those who have no ability to apply such. The result is bloodlines mean nothing in their formation of union and attempting to specify these differences is lost in the demand for a definition encompass them all.
What does a homosexual family tree look like? There is no tree. They do not produce anything between each other. There is no need to specify blood-right conditions as there is no joining of lines creating such.
This is a legal issue. If people wish to use idioms to define themselves, fine, they can do as such, but in the legal realms, we do not use slang, or vague words to encompass issues as they create conflicts, abuses, misunderstandings and the like. This is why they are different and why when it is recognized, it is done so based on their legal meaning.
Marriage is not a joining to create nothing. Love means nothing in legal sense and sexual act itself means nothing without a producing agent.
The separate but equal is a fallacious position that attempts to assume them both the same in intent and then argues from that false premise. his decision is invalid from the start because he does not apply any rational assessment of their differences. That is, he "speaks" as if they are different, but he means they are the same. He operates from a failed foundation of reasoning, a bias which specifically leads his path of conclusion as he wants it.
"Separate but equal." We settled that as being not ok in this country oh, some 40+ years back.
Your issue here is not applicable to your claim. It is not an issue of such and one must be ignorant or devious in their application to argue such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsy
Funny, in the nearly 25 years that I've been actively involved in the GLBT community and advocating for equal rights, I've yet to hear even one "rational argument" against gay marriage. I've heard a lot of "god hates teh homos" stuff, I've heard a lot of "think of teh childrenzzzz" hysteria, I've even heard every twist and take on "teh nature is not natural" garbage - but as yet, I have not seen a single "rational argument" whereby it is justified and right to deny equal state and federal recognition to gay couples as is granted to straight couples.
If you have one to share, please do... I'm always open to being surprised.
Then you live in a box and do not expose yourself to the rational arguments that exist. That or you choose to ignore them because they damage your position.
I have made such arguments in this very thread, one even discusses some of those points right above your response. I have discussed this issue countless times on this board, to the point where those arguing your position can only respond with attacks and fallacious mention.
You only believe you are correct because you are entrenched emotionally in your position and so therefore illogically dismiss all that does not allow you to easily knock them down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsy
You can "hope" as much as you want. The reality is, within the next 5-10 years at most, they will have identical rights and benefits to those now enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.
Maybe, maybe not. Your problem is that you take a very risky road right now. Someone made a comment that gays were gaining some support (or at least people stopped wanting to fight it) in the states. That is, in California alone, the vote went from around 60-70% against it down to 50-60% on the second vote. Over time, it is possible that such could be struck down and allowed.
Now, the issue goes before the courts. This judges ruling is irrelevant, legally his decision is flawed and those who argue the details of the cases understand and know this. The result if this does go to the supreme court could be a big win, or it could be a big loss. The point is, once it reaches there and if you lose. Its game over, your done. So I would be careful to be so arrogant in your claims, you may have a different demeanor come that time when it isn't simply a ruling by a judge in bias making decisions using poorly constructed conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsy
Yes, you've discovered our nefarious plans... we're gonna turn the entire country into a bunch of flaming homos. Just watch... we're already introducing gene therapy into the water you drink... one day, you're gonna wake up, and BOOM! Gay as a picnic basket! Mwahahahahahaha.
Nope, simply narccistic to the point that is often illogical. Homosexuals want acceptance, they could have more easily reached the same level of rights through civil unions, but it doesn't turn as many heads. The face of homosexuals (not all homosexuals, just those representing this action) are that of attention whores who lack the restraint and process of reasoning to discuss an issue past attacking.
1. I doubt it. Not in a country where there are places that still want to outlaw sodomy and oral sex.
Actually, many states already have laws for civil unions. California for instance is actually very close to marriage in its ability, though lacking in a few areas. DOMA is the largest objection by some, but states should not be dictated to by other states. Point is, their argument for equal responsibility contractually is a solid one (even two people who are not involved as such could make a solid argument). They choose to distort the meaning of a word that has a rich history, inflicting their demands for conformity. The result is that they have lost support from many even on the fence in some areas.
I believe they polled that since they have been pushing the issue for marriage, more have actually began to disagree. This direction will only lead to more contempt for the homosexual community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
2. I'd love to hear a rational argument about it. Haven't yet. Marriage has been changing in purpose and participants since the beginning of time.
Can't get rational arguments when you select the ones you wish to knock down. I have already discussed the issue and the only responses I get are "Times change", "words change", etc... or they simply ignore it and claim they have not ever heard such. Not a rational response to a rational argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
3. Please. Even you don't believe that.
Maybe not as a general rule, no. As a the movement front with key participants, organizations, etc... pushing the issue? Absolutely.
Everything else you posted is an argument to a point that is irrelevant to the issue.
That is, why should they have to defend the meaning of a word past its meaning across boundaries to which you contest?
You make a single point that is relevant right at the start. They contest because of what they lack in terms of legal recognition. This is what Civil Unions are for, this is what they serve. Everything else is simply attempting to demand conformity to a view.
I have said this is in past discussions like these. While there are some states that it might be an issue, if the homosexual community put even a 1/4 of the effort they do into demanding Marriage be changed to include homosexuals into Civil unions being up to par with the federal/state/civil responsibilities and legal protections that marriage has, this would have been over decades ago.
They chose a battle which lends itself far more to demanding acceptance and thumbing ones nose in the face of those who have rational arguments against their "marriage" position than it does to actually achieving what it claims it wants.
Due to this reason, I personally hope they get nothing. They are devious, narcissistic, and belligerent and they deserve nothing more than society giving them a hard kick in the teeth for their arrogant demands.
This issue is and always has been about complete and submissive acceptance of homosexual practice. Nothing more.
What planet do you live on? Devious? How so? Narcissistic? More narcissistic than what other group? Belligerent? You think that gay people asking for equal treatment under the law are belligerent? And that the people on this thread saying that discrimination is okay aren't belligerent? I have yet to see you actually answer my question. Or is this your answer? We should discriminate against gay people because "they are devious, narcissistic and belligerent and deserve nothing more than society giving them a hard kick in the teeth for their arrogant demands"? I really don't think I need to point out that there were a lot of racists in the 50's, 60's and 70's who thought the same thing about black people demanding their civil rights. And they justified their discrimination the same way, those black people were "sneaky" pretending to be just like white folks, and how dare they demand to be treated like equals. "Uppity" black people were arrogant to think they were the equals of the white people. And when women were demanding the right to vote, and equal pay in the workplace---women were manipulative, and mouthy, and man-hating.
The truth is that there is no justification for discriminating against gay people. I've asked you and others to provide some rational justification, and NONE of you have been able to provide any reasons except for fear and hatred. Thank goodness we live in a society that rejects fear and hatred as reasons to discriminate.
gays marrying makes you have to accept their gayness and relationship???
I think you're letting what gays do in their lives have too much power over you.. you make no sense.. it's like you're foaming at the mouth over what other people do that doesn't even impact you...
First off, they can't marry. You can change the word all you like, you can disregard the history of the word, the purpose and the design of it, but in the end all you are trying to sell me is slang that has no meaning.
They want to be accepted. Period. They want everyone to look at them as normal. They are not. They are abnormal, uncommon, deviant of the norm, etc...
They represent a very small percentage of the population, yet they demand most of the attention. They are either born with or socially develop actions of sexual deviant behavior and expect everyone to look at them as simply a normal process of life. What they choose to do such on their own is fine, but they have been pushing to inject their position into society for a very long time. They view themselves as if they are a race that is discriminated against, which is an insult to those who have had such hardships.
They want to be normal, they can not be. They must accept that not everyone accepts such deviant behavior. They have a right to live as they choose and not be attacked for it, but past that, they have no right to inject their position into every aspect of life by redefining the language, demanding equal placement and attention. They will never be such unless they force people and forced acceptance only breeds contempt.
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.
