U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:08 PM
 
26,467 posts, read 17,282,627 times
Reputation: 10393

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
Can you answer the question? Why do gay people need to marry?
The same reason that straight people feel the need to marry. It's not rocket science.

 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:09 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,159,607 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
If there is a right to marriage, it cannot be denied to anyone. Notice the last word. Yet, you're not arguing that's true, that it cannot be denied. Gay marriage AS A CONCEPT is discriminatory, in that refers only to people with certain sexual proclivities. But so is straight marriage. Both exclude polygamy - so, again, you're arguing that state marriage definitions, which, by law, discriminate against various people, are rights which cannot be denied anyone - your 'equal protection' argument.
We've just scratched the surface of this debate, and your argument above lacks nuanced understanding.

No Constitutional civil right is absolute - that includes the 14th Amendment. We do have a test for when you can discriminate and disallow equal access to laws and the legal rights they confer. The test is whether the discrimination prevents a harm to the people: if it prevents a harm, it's allowable; if not, the discrimination is unallowable.

Let's look at laws governing the driving on public roadways for example. It would be fine and dandy to have a law banning blind people from driving since it would prevent a harm to the people, but it would be unconstitutional and a violation of a civil right to have a law banning redheaded people from driving since the ban does not prevent a harm.

With civil marriage, you can make good arguments that allowing polygamous, incestuous, or pedophilic unions are harmful to the people. And you know what, if you can make an argument that allowing gay couples to obtain civil marriage harms the people, I'll hear it out.

Quote:
Oh, i see. Ok. So, to you, rights are just whatever our government feels like letting us do.
No, not at all. Constitutionally protected civil rights are what we, as a people, collectively agree upon. For instance, when we founded our nation, we defined the right to own slaves as a constitutionally protected civil right. Later, we changed that. The right not to be owned as a slave is now a constitutionally protected civil right.

Quote:
I would like you see you make this argument by quoting the Constitution for me, to show what you base it on.
No problem: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That language reflects another change we as a people collectively made as to what should be a Constitutionally protected civil right.

Quote:
Because you can't, for the life of you, figure out what the heck you're talking about.
I know very well what I'm talking about, thank you.
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:09 PM
 
Location: WA
4,246 posts, read 7,837,516 times
Reputation: 2364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red_Diamond View Post
You mean so they can start a family? Have children?

Good luck with that....last time I checked.
A lot of married heterosexual couples never raise children. And a lot of homosexual couples do raise children. Last time I checked, your point was invalid.
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Calgary, AB
3,401 posts, read 1,918,276 times
Reputation: 1072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red_Diamond View Post
You mean so they can start a family? Have children?

Good luck with that....last time I checked.
My cousin and her wife have three kids. Two carried by my cousin and one by her wife. I think they're going for another. I will convey your good wishes.
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:10 PM
 
1,519 posts, read 1,059,807 times
Reputation: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
I used to live in a small town with a few liberal activists, who were insufferably smug. At our annual summer festival (two weeks before labor day), he (the librarian) was off yammering at the Republican Women's tent, being his usual obnoxious self. I was picking through the tables of books for sale from the library right next to their booth and finally got tired of his screed.

He was going on about how "gay marriage" was a right just as I turned around. I said "no, it's not a right".

"YEs it is".

"No, it isn't. If marriage were a right, the state would have no say in who can get married - just like it can't decide who gets free speech and who doesn't". But you're not trying to make it a right, you just want to change who the state says is allowed and who isn't."

The guy stood there for a while, unable to find any response, while the old ladies at the booth snickered at him, and finally he stormed off to the Democrat tent, presumably looking for a retort.

Which is true. Democrats no more believe in marriage as a right, than conservatives do. They just disagree on WHO gets married.

When Democrats insist that ANYONE and EVERYONE can can get married, including siblings and other unsavory combinations, with the blessings of the state, THEN they can claim marriage is a right. Until then, they're just trying to demagogue the issue, making accusations of discrimination. Well, of course, marriage IS discrimination. After all, we deny it to lots and lots situations, and liberals generally support that idea.
I don't believe marriage is a right. I believe equality is. I believe a person's immutable trait should not be used to discriminate against him or her unless that trait causes him or her to harm others.
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:11 PM
 
1,519 posts, read 1,059,807 times
Reputation: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red_Diamond View Post
You mean so they can start a family? Have children?

Good luck with that....last time I checked.
You must not have checked in decades then.

Are all your opinions based on outdated ideas or just this one?
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Somewhere extremely awesome
3,024 posts, read 2,461,585 times
Reputation: 2312
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
I used to live in a small town with a few liberal activists, who were insufferably smug. At our annual summer festival (two weeks before labor day), he (the librarian) was off yammering at the Republican Women's tent, being his usual obnoxious self. I was picking through the tables of books for sale from the library right next to their booth and finally got tired of his screed.

He was going on about how "gay marriage" was a right just as I turned around. I said "no, it's not a right".

"YEs it is".

"No, it isn't. If marriage were a right, the state would have no say in who can get married - just like it can't decide who gets free speech and who doesn't". But you're not trying to make it a right, you just want to change who the state says is allowed and who isn't."

The guy stood there for a while, unable to find any response, while the old ladies at the booth snickered at him, and finally he stormed off to the Democrat tent, presumably looking for a retort.

Which is true. Democrats no more believe in marriage as a right, than conservatives do. They just disagree on WHO gets married.

When Democrats insist that ANYONE and EVERYONE can can get married, including siblings and other unsavory combinations, with the blessings of the state, THEN they can claim marriage is a right. Until then, they're just trying to demagogue the issue, making accusations of discrimination. Well, of course, marriage IS discrimination. After all, we deny it to lots and lots situations, and liberals generally support that idea.
As a [mostly] gay guy, I don't see any problem with you making the argument that you make. However, I don't know why you want to make it.

The fact of the matter is that I could find any female who is 1) over 18, 2) not already married, and 3) not a close relative of mine, and we could get legally married anywhere. She could be terrible for me and we could bring no benefits to each others' lives, but it would still be legal. That seems like a really low threshold. Do you agree? But if it involves another male, then suddenly it becomes a taboo. Whatever.

So if you want to define biological sex as intrinsic and capable of pigeonholing people's life decisions, then go right ahead. But do you really want to do that?
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,331 posts, read 10,437,970 times
Reputation: 7964
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
Tablemtn and I are having the same argument.

You both assert that under the 14th Amendment, Ssection 1, that allowing straight people to marry, but not gays is a violation of "equal protection". That's all fine and good, but why are you not arguing that polygamists and so on can't marry? After all, if you believe in equal protection, then you are asserting that being legally married is an individual right, akin to freedom of speech and so on.

Yet, EVERY state's laws describe who CAN get married and either explicitly or by default, who CANNOT. Yet you're not arguing that's wrong. So, why do gays possess that right, but not polygamists?
All rights have limitations. Voting is a right, yet felons and underage people can't vote.
Owning guns is a right, but there are age requirements and felons can not own guns.
If denying a group furthers a state interest then that has to be shown. There has not been a compelling state interest shown for the gender restriction in marriage, just like there was no compelling interesting the race restriction.
There may or may not be a compelling interest in the consanguinity restriction. The restriction will stand or fall based on it's own merits. The current legal framework is made for two people. If the legal framework is changed so that it can work for more than two, then go for it. But again that restriction will stand or fail based on it's own merits.

The existing marriage laws allow for marriage of TWO non related persons. You can not marry more than one person neither can I. You can not marry a sibling, neither can I. You can marry a non related woman (assuming your a male) I can not.
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:15 PM
 
Location: West Hollywood
2,223 posts, read 4,133,722 times
Reputation: 1767
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post

I married because I made a formal commitment to the woman I married. Whether any legal rights came with that was mostly irrelevant. It also almost didn't happen, because the county failed to record my marriage and we didn't even find out until 23 years later. We managed to find where it broke down and after all these years, we were finally legally married a couple of years ago.
This answer is so full of baloney.......(I'm struggling to keep this G-rated response).

"Irrelevant"? Yeah, okay. Why did the county fail to record your marriage anyway? Did you do some sort of 'top secret' ceremony where there was a virgin sacrifice?

I guess after not even bothering to inquire about joint bank accounts, mortgages, etc. after 20 years () you finally realized that your marriage wasn't recognized?

Can we make a Fox News report on your story and perhaps expose the faulty local municipality you live in?
 
Old 11-14-2013, 07:18 PM
 
9,472 posts, read 5,899,562 times
Reputation: 2162
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
We've just scratched the surface of this debate, and your argument above lacks nuanced understanding.
Translation: "I am obviously suffering from cognitive dissonance, but it can all be explained if you accept that there's shades of rights and penumbras and shadows and other gobbledygook, so I can have what I want, even when it's totally contradictory"

Quote:
No Constitutional civil right is absolute - that includes the 14th Amendment. We do have a test for when you can discriminate and disallow equal access to laws and the legal rights they confer. The test is whether the discrimination prevents a harm to the people: if it prevents a harm, it's allowable; if not, the discrimination is unallowable.
LOL!!!! Wrong. You do not have a right to harm someone. Thus, advocating someone be murdered is not "protected speech". "if discrimination prevents a harm" is utter nonsense. Did you watch the movie "the minority report"? What they did was based on the premise that they were "preventing harm". No, it's NOT a justification at all, and it's not a rational defense of anything.

Quote:
Let's look at laws governing the driving on public roadways for example. It would be fine and dandy to have a law banning blind people from driving since it would prevent a harm to the people, but it would be unconstitutional and a violation of a civil right to have a law banning redheaded people from driving since the ban does not prevent a harm.
Nobody claims that driving a car is a right. Nor that getting a driver's license is a right. Certainly not one that anyone claims the process or laws violate the 14th Amendment. So, pointless argument.

Quote:
With civil marriage, you can make good arguments that allowing polygamous, incestuous, or pedophilic unions are harmful to the people. And you know what, if you can make an argument that allowing gay couples to obtain civil marriage harms the people, I'll hear it out.
No, I'll hear you renounce the utter folderol you made up just now.

Quote:
No, not at all. Constitutionally protected civil rights are what we, as a people, collectively agree upon. For instance, when we founded our nation, we defined the right to own slaves as a constitutionally protected civil right. Later, we changed that. The right not to be owned as a slave is now a constitutionally protected civil right.
This, too, is nonsense.

Quote:
No problem: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
And it doesn't even apply.

Quote:
That language reflects another change we as a people collectively made as to what should be a Constitutionally protected civil right.
There are no "collectively decided" rights. AT ALL.



Quote:
I know very well what I'm talking about, thank you.
No, you're deep into cognitive dissonance.
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.


Closed Thread

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 > Politics and Other Controversies
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