[pheaton]

Originally Posted by Go Ne

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

No, because that would not require changing the law. It's when you change the law that politicians start looking at it in terms of, "how can we implement this without losing money". Or how can we make more money from this.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

That's actually an incorrect statement of the law. Marriage has been deemed a fundamental right by the Supreme Court.

So stop whining. You have the same right I do.

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.

So there are limitations on it? Who decides it's wrong for me to marry 6 women? You? Are you trying to impose your morals and values on me?

But every single right that we have is subject to restrictions by the state.

Correct. So deal with it.

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.

Except that there isn't a "ban", as much as there isn't an alternative to male/female marriage.

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.

I can't marry 6 women if I love them. I can't marry a woman if she's not willing to marry me. I don't have the "right" to marry for love if I can't find one that loves me.

I guess we don't REALLY have a right to marry for love, do we?

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.

That is correct. That's why you get the thing called a "license". The state regulates it.

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.

You do have a right to free speech, yes--within certain regulations.


Honestly....I got this far, and don't much feel like going point by point to dismantle your arguments. Really, it's tiring. It's just silly.

I'm sorry that you don't feel the established regulations regarding marriage aren't enough. I'm sorry you feel that your particular way of marriage needs to be validated. I can't and won't validate it though, and think it's ridiculous to expect special exceptions be made for you because you want a new way of doing it.

[DTO Luv]

You know, it's ok to just say you don't like gay people instead of making yourself look even more ignorrant offering arguments have no basis on facts or reality.

FACT
The Supreme Court has already said that marriage is a fundamental civil right.

FACT
Homosexuals like people of the same sex, and like heterosexuals, want to marry a consenting person they love.

Since marriage is a civil right how is denying it to homosexuals not wrong? I as a gay man do not want to marry a woman so why is ok to have my civil rights denied because some people think its against a religion I don't practice (and that religion is not the law of the US) or it's not "traditional".

I thought "tradition" would be families. Families of all kinds. I was raised by a single mother. Does that not count as a family? My mother and aunt were raised by their grandparents in the 60's through the 80's because her own mother was unable/willing too. So there is at least a precedent 40 year precedent in just my own family of "non-traditional" families out there and I'm sure that many other families out there have come from anything but a male/female 2 parent home.

Confusing the issue on purpose to make it sound like some sort of new threat to "traditional" families is wrong. Gay people like straight people are people. We are not pushing for anything radical. In fact, we are pushing for what would be a more "traditional" style of families with a married couple and possibly children.

I would have much more repsect for those who deny civil rights to people if they would just be honest and say it's based on prejudice and not throw out ridiculous arguments with points that any rational person would object to.

[corcorangirl]

Originally Posted by DTO Luv

I would have much more repsect for those who deny civil rights to people if they would just be honest and say it's based on prejudice and not throw out ridiculous arguments with points that any rational person would object to.

I agree, why can't you just say being gay is not ok for you? Because if it was ok, then why not allow marriage? Even if it is a special right for a minority (which I don't think it is), so what? There are special rights for disabled people, for politicians, for veterans.. why not for homosexuals?

It's funny that that argument "I like homosexuals, I have tons of homosexual friends, but they shouldn't be allowed to marry each other" is made mainly in the US. In France most people who are against gay marriage (which is a minority) just say that they don't like gays for whatever reason and they are shrugged upon, but they don't get hate-mail by gay people or whatever. But you know, you can also dislike homosexuals and still allow them marry. I think it is wrong for 89-year olds to marry 18-year old girls, but in a democracy you just have to live with lifestyles you don't agree with and not discriminate them.

I now live in Minneapolis, which has one of the highest percentage of homosexual residents in the US (I think only San Francisco, Seattle and Atlanta are ahead of us) and consider myself to be very liberal, still I only have one gay friend and used to work together with a lesbian in France. How come all those conservative DOMA-people living in states like Nebraska claim to know 16 gay couples with whom their great friends with?

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by DTO Luv

FACT
The Supreme Court has already said that marriage is a fundamental civil right.

I have never said you can't get married. You have the exact same rights I do, no more, no less. I can't marry another person of my gender, either.

Again...I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you.

I would have much more repsect for those who deny civil rights to people if they would just be honest and say it's based on prejudice and not throw out ridiculous arguments with points that any rational person would object to.

And I would have much more respect for you if you stopped trying to deconstruct our arguments and assigning motive to them. It's possible that maybe we just get tired of people trying to ram their values down our throats.

[DTO Luv]

Yes you are telling me I can't get married. I don't have the capacity to love a woman the same way you don't have the capacity to love a man in the same way.

I'm not assigning motive to what you're saying. I'm sure you're familiar with "the mouth speaks what the heart is full of" so I'm just reading what you say at face value and then like a normal person does when they read things, pick up the sublteties and nuance and outright blatant discontent on some level you have for homosexuals.

You also keep saying that having marriages for gays would be giving minorities special rights. Well what if the tables were turned and YOU were in the minority.

The following scenario is purely for the sake of argument.

Say during biblical times that the people who wrote the laws in the bible forever ago thought that it was best for 2 males to head families, make decisions regarding property and finances, but women were just for breeding and domestic affairs (which isn't far from what happened in history). For whatever reason they decided that since women weren't equal to men that it should be men who ran the families. Over time that would have been their tradition.

Fast forward to 2010. Lets say in America we have the ancient tradition of same-sex marriage. Now assuming you're a heterosexual, you would not want to marry a woman? You would be fine having your "rights" even though you know the idea of spending your life with a man is not what you want. You like women. You're attracted to women and you have found one you love and want to spend your life with but since it's not "tradtional" it should be ok to deny you the right to marry who you want?

How would the women fare in this society? Women for most of the history of the planet have been seen as unequal to men and were even denied rights that men had all because they were not seen as equal to males. They're human just like a male, but different by nature because they are born female. Diffferent does not mean unequal when it comes to deciding who should have what rights.

So in this society of inequality, even though women are people too, they would be denied the right to marry a person of their choosing because it is considered untradtional and they aren't considered equal by the majority. In this society where same-sex marriage is the norm and it's how men get to make the decisions about their own lives together regarding property, money, life decisions, womens rights are not even considered.

End Scenario.

If you can't see how it wouldn't be wrong if the situation was reveresed you're not trying to be understanding and logically I'm to be left with the assumption that you just do not like gay people and think it is ok to deny civil rights to them because you personally have a problem with it.

Another point I want to address; you keep stating that we would make laws based on who you want to have sex with. Sex isn't the only part of marriage and the ones that are solely sexually based, gay or straight, don't last long. Seeking to have a relationship legally recognized isn't about cramming anything down anyones throats. Marriage is a long term commitment to each others mutual happiness and security, not on a hot body in a one night stand.

This is a struggle for gays in this country. Many gays wanting to marry have already been as committed to each other as any straight couple and have families and lives together all save for the legal standing and instant access to control of property and money that straight couples have the right too. Telling someone to "move to another state" is not pracitical. Yes I may happen to live in Nebraska and Iowa is right there but what if I lived in Louisiana. I'm still supposed to pack up me and my family quit and find another job and move to another state to take part of what is available to some in my home-state but not my own?

This is why many of the arguments I hear against gay marriage aren't actually thought out, practical arguments but instead veiled attempts to hide prejudices that aren't that veiled at all.

[DTO Luv]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

maybe we just get tired of people trying to ram their values down our throats.

Who is trying to force who's values?

The Judeo-Christian value system says that homosexuality is wrong so you believe that gay marriage is wrong and the U.S. Supreme Court established civil right of marriage should not apply to homosexuals.

The American value system says that we are all equal and entitled to unalienable rights, so I think all Americans should have the civil right of marriage.

Sticking to the the secular documents that govern this country, not ancient books advocationg a theocratic government, is not forcing my values on anyone. However insisiting and writing into law my theocratically influenced beliefs to take away rights guaranteed to people by the secular law that govern this country IS forcing my values upon someone.

Don't accuse me and others of doing this because it is very easy to debunk that argument. Even if your views of gays/gay marriage aren't based on a religion and just personal prejudice, that is no excuse either. You may not be forcing an un-American idealogy on people but in America where we preport to be free and establish unalienable civil rights to everyone, you can not take the side of legislating prejudice to minorities into law.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by DTO Luv

Yes you are telling me I can't get married. I don't have the capacity to love a woman the same way you don't have the capacity to love a man in the same way.

Perhaps, just maybe, I'm not basing my whole case off of the Bible, as you seem to have a problem understanding. Your attempted Biblical examples aside, I don't much care who/what you love. Feelings are irrelevant here.

How should we legislate to allow those that are "unable to love someone" to marry someone they can love? What determining factor do we look at? Is there some distinguishing trait? Hair color? Skin tone? Eye color? Maybe they way he speaks?

What about the Indian people I know that have arranged marriages? Are they now invalid because there was no love prior to marriage? Are non-gay people allowed to marry the same gender?

You're being extremely short-sighted here. Again, I'm sorry if you feel like you've been mistreated, or are not being given your "rights". You can marry if you want to. Please stop trying to shove your definition of marriage on me.

[pheaton]

Originally Posted by DTO Luv

You know, it's ok to just say you don't like gay people instead of making yourself look even more ignorrant offering arguments have no basis on facts or reality.

I think gay people are a little strange don't get me wrong, but I don't hate them or anything. I just don't see why the state should be guilt tripped into recognizing their marriage and feeling pressured into changing the law in a way that will not benefit society in any way shape or form.

FACT
The Supreme Court has already said that marriage is a fundamental civil right.

So get married to whomever you want, where does the law say that you can't? In fact there are some states that will even recognize it as valid.

FACT
Homosexuals like people of the same sex, and like heterosexuals, want to marry a consenting person they love.

Again, go for it.

Since marriage is a civil right how is denying it to homosexuals not wrong? I as a gay man do not want to marry a woman so why is ok to have my civil rights denied because some people think its against a religion I don't practice (and that religion is not the law of the US) or it's not "traditional".

Your right to marry isn't being denied. The recognition of your marriage in the state of Nebraska is what is making you upset. The state might not have a long detailed list as to why the state doesn't recognize it, but at the same time a long detailed list cannot be provided to them to list the reasons why the state should, or how it benefits the state and it's people as a whole.

Marriage is a right, sure, but are the state benefits of a recognized marriage a right? Heck no, just like any state benefit, welfare, unemployment, whatever, you have to qualify given a set of circumstances. Being married to someone of the same sex doesn't meet the qualifications in this state. I'd be like me trying to say that even though I'm employed I should get unemployment, because others get it and it's not fair! It's my right to get it, if I meet the qualificaitons.

I thought "tradition" would be families. Families of all kinds. I was raised by a single mother. Does that not count as a family? My mother and aunt were raised by their grandparents in the 60's through the 80's because her own mother was unable/willing too. So there is at least a precedent 40 year precedent in just my own family of "non-traditional" families out there and I'm sure that many other families out there have come from anything but a male/female 2 parent home.

I know the traditional family is a bust and has been for a long time. But the traditional family is still ideal. Many single mothers raise their children wishing either that they never met the scumbag father, or wishes their child had a father and a complete family.

[DTO Luv]

The Supreme Court didn't say welfare or unemployment were civil rights.

The Supreme Court did say marriage was a civil right and you legally can notdeprive people of their civil rights.