[Raphael07]

Not to mention you wouldn't receive the benefits of the marriage.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by DTO Luv

So you're saying it's ok to deny peoples rights as long as they have them in other places. So by your logic it should be ok for the south to reinstitute Jim Crow laws as long as the blacks would quit their whining and go to another state where they can eat in a restaurant.

Is that what I said? REALLY?

Why don't you stop telling me what I said, and READ? And let's stop with all the Jim Crow hyperbole and BS.

You're really making a mockery of yourself here, and I think you should stop it.

[Happygolucky]

Originally Posted by SurfOmaha

What do you think about that idea? The Benson Neighborhood Association welcomes the idea, plus at least 5 businesses their are gay owned. What do you think about this idea?

I would go for it, only if someone opens a "Marie's Crisis" style piano bar on Maple. I would support it.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by Happygolucky

I would go for it, only if someone opens a "Marie's Crisis" style piano bar on Maple. I would support it.

Release your inner Diva!

[pheaton]

To me the "benefit" of marriage was getting to be with the one I love forever, not a tax break or whatever legal benefits I get. The other benefits are a nice perk, but I would have still married even without those benefits.

Gay people if you love the other person, I would think it would be the same for you. What do the legal benefits really matter? If the legal benefits matter more to you than benefit of being with the person you love, then it should darn well mean more than staying in Nebraska and trying to change our laws.

[mattpoulsen]

So, then, would you be ok with the staying stripping you of the legal benefits that you receive because of your marriage? Of course you got married because you love your partner. But that doesn't mean there aren't other issues involved. Its about respect and about being treated on the same playing field. And in the end there is really no good reason not to allow gay marriage. More people are not all of a sudden going to become gay because of it and without it its not like gay people are going to stop being gay.

[pheaton]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

So, then, would you be ok with the staying stripping you of the legal benefits that you receive because of your marriage? Of course you got married because you love your partner. But that doesn't mean there aren't other issues involved. Its about respect and about being treated on the same playing field. And in the end there is really no good reason not to allow gay marriage. More people are not all of a sudden going to become gay because of it and without it its not like gay people are going to stop being gay.

Well, it would suck to have the benefits taken away, but it's a little different, because then you're talking about taking benefits away, not adding them. With the state recognition of gay marriage, you're talking about adding rights to benefit a small minority. How does the legalization of gay marriage benefit me or society as a whole? It doesn't, in fact, it actually has potential to do harm. How will it do harm? Well in terms of benefits of state recognition it's entirely possible that in order to provide more people benefits, they will have to take some away from other people. Just like when they cut someones taxes, they have to raise someone else's. From the non-legal standpoint you are just talking about doing more damage to the image of marriage.

You talk about being on the same playing field, but we are on the same playing field. It's just that one side wants a set of rules that help themselves, but does nothing or even in some cases can hurt the other side.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

So, then, would you be ok with the staying stripping you of the legal benefits that you receive because of your marriage? Of course you got married because you love your partner. But that doesn't mean there aren't other issues involved. Its about respect and about being treated on the same playing field. And in the end there is really no good reason not to allow gay marriage. More people are not all of a sudden going to become gay because of it and without it its not like gay people are going to stop being gay.

Once again....gay people have the EXACT same rights as anyone else. I'm not guaranteed the right to marry for love, and neither are they.

[mattpoulsen]

That's actually an incorrect statement of the law. Marriage has been deemed a fundamental right by the Supreme Court. And as such, apart from some procedural requirements and morality based restrictions, such as those based on incest and polygamy, one can marry for whatever reason he/she chooses. Meaning that you absolutely have the right to marry for the purposes of love, provided you are not violating some reasonable state restriction. But every single right that we have is subject to restrictions by the state. The question of course is whether a ban on gay marriage is a reasonable restriction on marriage. I claim it is not. You claim it is. But that's the whole basis of this argument. So quit acting like that part of the equation is just established and a given.

But to suggest we don't have a right to marry for love is simply a misstatement of the law. You absolutely have a right to marry for love, provided you are not violating a given reasonable restriction. If we were to apply your logic then you could argue that you have no right to marry for ANY reason as all reasons are subject to state restrictions. Or that we have no right to speak freely on a given issue because that speech is subject to a restriction. The statement that we don't have a right to marry the one we love is simply an over simplification of the law.

The same goes for whether or not they are receiving "special" rights. The question is whether our marriage rights are rights to marry who we choose or rights to marry who we choose of the opposite sex!

You are acting as though these two points are given and are not up for debate. Well, that is the WHOLE debate.

And as far as "giving people more rights" being different than taking rights away, umm, need i mention slavery and civil rights again? Failing to provide rights to a group that deserve them is no better than taking rights away.

So, I wish we could quit this silly discussion as to whether or not they would be receiving "special" rights. That answer simply turns on how we define the bundle of marital rights, which absolutely has NOT been determined by the Supreme Court (in the context of gay marriage).

The only question to argue over is whether the right to marry comprises the right to marry anyone of your choosing (provided certain procedural requirements are met) or whether it comprises only the right to marry someone of the opposite sex (also provided certain procedural requirements are met). That's it. That's the question.

Tell me why its bad for society to allow it. Don't try to tell me that it would constitute a "special" right because that turns on the outcome of the above question. If its not included in the fundamental right to marry then its a special right. If it is included in the fundamental right to marry then its NOT a special right. You need to provide a justification as to why gay marriage is not included in the fundamental right to marry. This other peripheral discussion about "special" rights and that they already have the same rights as everyone else is just nonsense.

Moreover, even it weren't, allowing gay marriage would not change the game anyway, since you would also be given the right to engage in a gay marriage. Its just not a right you would exercise...just as gays are not exercising the right to enter into a straight marriage.

[Raphael07]

Originally Posted by pheaton

Well, it would suck to have the benefits taken away, but it's a little different, because then you're talking about taking benefits away, not adding them. With the state recognition of gay marriage, you're talking about adding rights to benefit a small minority. How does the legalization of gay marriage benefit me or society as a whole? It doesn't, in fact, it actually has potential to do harm. How will it do harm? Well in terms of benefits of state recognition it's entirely possible that in order to provide more people benefits, they will have to take some away from other people. Just like when they cut someones taxes, they have to raise someone else's. From the non-legal standpoint you are just talking about doing more damage to the image of marriage.

You talk about being on the same playing field, but we are on the same playing field. It's just that one side wants a set of rules that help themselves, but does nothing or even in some cases can hurt the other side.

So if all of the gays suddenly married someone of the opposite sex, those benefits wouldn't decrease?