Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-18-2009, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,401,479 times
Reputation: 4586

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezequiel View Post
What an oxymoron "i'm against gay marriage and i'm not a bigot".


60 years ago you would it had voted to keep the school sagregated too.
No. Race, sex, etc. are a part of our genetic make-up. The verdict is still out on homosexuality, but even if it is genetic, it's still genetics that cause certain people to feel a certain way. Making every single law have special provisions to accomodate every feeling felt by every person is what's really irrational.

People have a right to do what they want. This is why same-sex sodomy should be permitted. The state, however, has a right to recognize only the unions it chooses as long as it is not unconstitutionally discriminatory. It's not, because sexual orientation is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

You could use gender and argue that any two people should be permitted to marry and otherwise it is sex discrimination but that won't work either because courts have ruled time and time again that the law can specify that the sexes are different (though it cannot in most cases discriminate), even though it cannot generally specify that the races are different.

Even if an amendment addressing sexual orientation WAS added to the U.S. Constitution, the ability of states to specify in its laws that the two sexes are different and the constitutional ability to use "male" and "female" in law (instead of being forced to simply say "two persons") would still result in gay marriage bans NOT being in violation of the Constitution. You'd have to eliminate the ability of states to specify that the sexes are different before you had a constitutional argument, unless the state went so far as to ban homosexuals from marrying those of the opposite sex. No one is advocating that.

The only constitutional argument that can be made right now or that will likely ever be able to be made is against DOMA. If DOMA was struck down, states could be required to recognize same-sex marriages from other states but could not be forced to allow same-sex marriages or civil unions to be performed on their turf.

As to the bolded part of your post, that couldn't be farther from the truth. You don't know me, so you can't even begin to judge me.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 04-18-2009 at 09:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2009, 08:39 AM
 
Location: new mexico
238 posts, read 304,289 times
Reputation: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezequiel View Post
What an oxymoron "i'm against gay marriage and i'm not a bigot".


60 years ago you would it had voted to keep the school sagregated too.

I'm against gay marriage and I have often been called a bigot, and I sleep just fine at night!


Schools are still segregated BTW. In fact it isn't just schools, we are surrounded by segregation.

The liberal dream of everyone holding hands and skipping through the park is probably not going to happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2009, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 14,743,972 times
Reputation: 3545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Pres. Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton all oppose homosexual "marriage."
They are against marriage equality but they are at least for civil unions which is better than nothing, IMO.
Besides, who knows if they are really against marriage equality? They are politicians after all and say a lot of things that make them favorable to the majority of Americans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2009, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 14,743,972 times
Reputation: 3545
Quote:
It cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un American or threatens the rights of others. On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence — liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force.
Gay Rights - Change.org: A Sound Conservative Argument for Same-Sex Marriage
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2009, 09:31 PM
 
Location: Boise
4,426 posts, read 5,901,925 times
Reputation: 1701
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I'm against gay marriage and I'm not a bigot. I take offense to that statement. I'm not sure what our vote here in TX was...but I think it was somewhere around 65%-35% against...slightly less than 2/3.

My point is that its not a civil rights issue because marriage is not a right. The state can choose to recognize or not recognize any union it pleases as long as it is not unconstitutionally discriminatory. Sexual orientation is not protected in the Constitution, nor do the sexes have to be treated the same in ALL cases. The Constitution does not permit sexual "discrimination," but has been interpreted to allow states to recognize that a male is different from a female.

Until one of those two changes are made, the USSC will NOT intepret the US Constitution to require same-sex marriage or civil unions. It MAY, however, interpret it to require states to recognize same-sex marriages from OTHER states and strike down DOMA.

Laws criminalizing same-sex sodomy are different because that's private conduct that is none of the state's business (I am AGAINST those laws BTW and was glad to see ours in TX overturned). The state recognizing a contract and a law criminalizing conduct are two drastically different things.
marriage is a right... if the state is offering subsidies to married individuals (tax breaks, incentives, protections) and only limiting it to certain individuals... it's unfair... Where does it say that the state gets to pick and choose who gets to get married and who doesn't? the question goes both ways... THE state cannot be extending benefits to one class of people and denying it to others... that is in itself a CIVIL rights issue...
You're very wrong on that point... but much of what you said afterwards.. I agree.. Not every state will be forced to give out marriage licenses to gays.. BUT I do think DOMA laws will be struck down atleast forcing them to recognize them from other states... and you know what.. that's fine for now.. they'll just look like total a##holes for a decade or so.. and continue to make the conservative/christian jesus crap look even more bigoted...
anyway..

I swear to god the christians in this country act as great power and authority is bestowed upon them, and that everything they stand for is this big heavy cross they bear all the time... it really gets old.. seriously..go to church.. believe what they want to believe and shut the hell up... quit knocking on my door, quit trying to put ten commandmants monuments in my face... and for god sake.. quit spreading lies about the gay community and relationships similar to mine!!!.. You don't know what you're talking about..
And you wonder why there is becoming less and less tolerance for christians and religious people... Life is a two way street... If you don't like something in your face all the time... perhaps you should take a deep hard look at what you push outward upon others when you don't like what's being pushed onto you...
Live and let live... Marriage for ALL!

Last edited by boiseguy; 04-18-2009 at 09:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2009, 09:51 PM
 
Location: new mexico
238 posts, read 304,289 times
Reputation: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy View Post
Live and let live... Marriage for ALL!
Nasty.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2009, 10:51 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,401,479 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy View Post
marriage is a right... if the state is offering subsidies to married individuals (tax breaks, incentives, protections) and only limiting it to certain individuals... it's unfair... Where does it say that the state gets to pick and choose who gets to get married and who doesn't? the question goes both ways... THE state cannot be extending benefits to one class of people and denying it to others... that is in itself a CIVIL rights issue...
The state is not prohibiting ANYONE from getting married. It is merely prohibiting someone from being married to specific other people. You have the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy View Post
You're very wrong on that point... but much of what you said afterwards.. I agree.. Not every state will be forced to give out marriage licenses to gays.. BUT I do think DOMA laws will be struck down atleast forcing them to recognize them from other states... and you know what.. that's fine for now.. they'll just look like total a##holes for a decade or so.. and continue to make the conservative/christian jesus crap look even more bigoted...
anyway...

I swear to god the christians in this country act as great power and authority is bestowed upon them, and that everything they stand for is this big heavy cross they bear all the time... it really gets old.. seriously..go to church.. believe what they want to believe and shut the hell up... quit knocking on my door, quit trying to put ten commandmants monuments in my face... and for god sake.. quit spreading lies about the gay community and relationships similar to mine!!!.. You don't know what you're talking about..
And you wonder why there is becoming less and less tolerance for christians and religious people... Life is a two way street... If you don't like something in your face all the time... perhaps you should take a deep hard look at what you push outward upon others when you don't like what's being pushed onto you...
Live and let live... Marriage for ALL!
My political beliefs have nothing to do with my religious beliefs. Not a thing.

That said, there IS a rational basis that has nothing to do with religion for recognizing heterosexual but not homosexual marriages....namely the ability to start a family (pretend for a second that adoption and procedures involving a person of the opposite sex are not options).

Think of it is this way. I know you will not agree but at least see where I'm coming from. Race, sex, etc. are genetic qualities that you are born with and that are absolute. They are an absolute part of who you are yet you don't necessarily feel them....you simply are a sex or race. Sexual orientation is a feeling (and yes, I understand you do not choose to be gay, but you do not choose some of your other feelings either). Do you not agree that it absurd to enact special provisions in every law to accomodate every single person's differing feelings?

You should understand I do NOT support the criminalization of same-sex sodomy and I FULLY support anti-discrimination laws protecting homosexuals in the workplace, as well as hate crime laws protecting homosexuals. This is different from my paragraph directly above (re: feelings) because:

1) sodomy - people have a right to do whatever they want within reason; criminalizing sodomy, whether opposite or same sex, does no good for society

2) anti-discrimination and hate crime laws - homosexuals should have protections in these areas because they ARE targeted and no one deserves workplace discrimination or to have a crime committed against them simply because of something that is not their choice. Yes I realize you cannot commit crimes against anyone, but since homosexuals are a larger group of people who have the potential to be frequently targeted, a crime committed against a gay person because the person is gay should be dealt with far more harshly due to the fact that the offender may target the remainder of the group (the crime is basically being committed against a group, rather than the one person)

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 04-18-2009 at 11:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2009, 12:55 AM
 
Location: Boise
4,426 posts, read 5,901,925 times
Reputation: 1701
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
The state is not prohibiting ANYONE from getting married. It is merely prohibiting someone from being married to specific other people. You have the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex.



My political beliefs have nothing to do with my religious beliefs. Not a thing.

That said, there IS a rational basis that has nothing to do with religion for recognizing heterosexual but not homosexual marriages....namely the ability to start a family (pretend for a second that adoption and procedures involving a person of the opposite sex are not options).

Think of it is this way. I know you will not agree but at least see where I'm coming from. Race, sex, etc. are genetic qualities that you are born with and that are absolute. They are an absolute part of who you are yet you don't necessarily feel them....you simply are a sex or race. Sexual orientation is a feeling (and yes, I understand you do not choose to be gay, but you do not choose some of your other feelings either). Do you not agree that it absurd to enact special provisions in every law to accomodate every single person's differing feelings?

You should understand I do NOT support the criminalization of same-sex sodomy and I FULLY support anti-discrimination laws protecting homosexuals in the workplace, as well as hate crime laws protecting homosexuals. This is different from my paragraph directly above (re: feelings) because:

1) sodomy - people have a right to do whatever they want within reason; criminalizing sodomy, whether opposite or same sex, does no good for society

2) anti-discrimination and hate crime laws - homosexuals should have protections in these areas because they ARE targeted and no one deserves workplace discrimination or to have a crime committed against them simply because of something that is not their choice. Yes I realize you cannot commit crimes against anyone, but since homosexuals are a larger group of people who have the potential to be frequently targeted, a crime committed against a gay person because the person is gay should be dealt with far more harshly due to the fact that the offender may target the remainder of the group (the crime is basically being committed against a group, rather than the one person)
so Your belief is that marriage is for producing children and that is why the state should limit it to only to man and woman? That is justification?
do you not realize.. that allowing people of the same sex to be married, allows YOU to marry someone of the same sex as well should you so choose to do it.. so it's not a special right or accomodation for feelings..
it's just very convenient for you to sit here and allowed to marry someone you have effectionate feelings for.. while others are NOT allowed.. and you can sit here and insult our intelligence for backing up your opinion based on what you think is sound logic... when it's not...
I "feel" romantic feelings for another man BECAUSE i am gay.. the same reason why you would feel romantic feelings for the opposite sex...
It's just mildly amusing that you would dare make a statement as such.. that I have every right to marriage that you do.. I can just go marry a woman...
VERY convenient...
Lets impose a bit of your logic then... lets have the government follow up on this "marriage" thing.. and anyone who enters a marriage better pop out a kid within one year upon entering marriage.. or it becomes null and void...
Or better yet, lets have the government make sure your marriage will work accordingly for what it's purpose is in society.. afterall.. those love butterflies are just a "feeling" and well.. we know how feelings are not based on logic.. and just because you FEEL you love her... it will probably end in disaster, so the government better make sure to look into everything first...
Again... VERY F-Ing Convenient to sit here and insult everyone's intelligence by sitting here claiming that how I love and what I feel for another man is a "Just a feeling" that is not as good as what YOU feel for a woman!!!...
That's just a stupid feeling too...

So insulting...
basically what it comes down to.. you want to sit here and play the "I don't hate you.. see I support these things.. and those things.. but... I'm going to draw my line right here.. believe me.. i feel for you.. but it only goes this far"


and then insult us with this rationale???


Some of us weren't born yesterday.. and can read between the lines... It's clear as day that to you.. MY feelings are not equal to your feelings.. because they are not projected at the right person to accomodate marriage under the law.. and its easy to sit on the free side of iron bars and come up with every excuse in the book to justify hindering me from equality.. while you enjoy yours... so that you can have a clear conscience about it all.. and can atleast say "hey I wasn't as bad as all the others who were mean about it"
It's still doesn't make it right..

Last edited by boiseguy; 04-19-2009 at 01:08 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2009, 01:12 AM
 
Location: new mexico
238 posts, read 304,289 times
Reputation: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy View Post
so Your belief is that marriage is for producing children and that is why the state should limit it to only to man and woman? That is justification?
do you not realize.. that allowing people of the same sex to be married, allows YOU to marry someone of the same sex as well should you so choose to do it.. so it's not a special right or accomodation for feelings..
it's just very convenient for you to sit here and allowed to marry someone you have effectionate feelings for.. while others are NOT allowed.. and you can sit here and insult our intelligence for backing up your opinion based on what you think is sound logic... when it's not...
I "feel" romantic feelings for another man BECAUSE i am gay.. the same reason why you would feel romantic feelings for the opposite sex...
It's just mildly amusing that you would dare make a statement as such.. that I have every right to marriage that you do.. I can just go marry a woman...
VERY convenient...
Lets impose a bit of your logic then... lets have the government follow up on this "marriage" thing.. and anyone who enters a marriage better pop out a kid within one year upon entering marriage.. or it becomes null and void...
Or better yet, lets have the government make sure your marriage will work accordingly for what it's purpose is in society.. afterall.. those love butterflies are just a "feeling" and well.. we know how feelings are not based on logic.. and just because you FEEL you love her... it will probably end in disaster, so the government better make sure to look into everything first...
Again... VERY F-Ing Convenient to sit here and insult everyone's intelligence by sitting here claiming that how I love and what I feel for another man is a "Just a feeling" that is not as good as what YOU feel for a woman!!!...
That's just a stupid feeling too...

So insulting...
basically what it comes down to.. you want to sit here and play the "I don't hate you.. see I support these things.. and those things.. but... I'm going to draw my line right here.. believe me.. i feel for you.. but it only goes this far"


and then insult us with this rationale???


Some of us weren't born yesterday.. and can read between the lines... It's clear as day that to you.. MY feelings are not equal to your feelings.. because they are not projected at the right person to accomodate marriage under the law.. and its easy to sit on the free side of iron bars and come up with every excuse in the book to justify hindering me from equality.. while you enjoy yours... so that you can have a clear conscience about it all.. and can atleast say "hey I wasn't as bad as all the others who were mean about it"
It's still doesn't make it right..

OMG get over yourself. Our founding fathers would have a heart attack if they could see this country now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2009, 01:17 AM
 
Location: Boise
4,426 posts, read 5,901,925 times
Reputation: 1701
Quote:
Originally Posted by riceharvester View Post
OMG get over yourself. Our founding fathers would have a heart attack if they could see this country now.
they would also have a heart attack if they saw buildings as tall as they are now.. and airplanes that can travel faster than sound...

You're ignorant...
boo for you!
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:


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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top