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.
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.
Ahh ha. Exactly! State benefits are not civil rights! That's what I've been saying. Gay people can get married that's their civil right. But the benefits attached to a reconized marriage are not civil rights.
The basic argument for gay marriage actually goes against the most used argument that those who want to mainstream homosexuality use. How is that? Because it requires gov't collusion in that lifestyle. The whole "if you don't like it, ignore it" approach is betrayed. Collusion is a form of participation. We are force fed that notion corporate diversity classes. Therefore, legalizing gay marriage is forcing participation in that lifestyle. This is why most people who are used to marriage being between an man and woman since the fall of Rome are hard pressed to accept the notion.
Just because some people really really want to marry their dog, or engage in polygamy, or marry children should they be allowed to do it?
Just because some people really really want to marry their dog, or engage in polygamy, or marry children should they be allowed to do it?
Take it one step more. If a person that wants to be married to 10 people at the same time and wants 10 seperate marriages. Should they be given 10 times the state benefits? 10 times the recognition?
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.
What right are you deprived of? Get married if you want. Nobody has said you can't get married, but the state does reserve the right to regulate marriage as it sees fit. Has the Supreme Court said that everyone is guaranteed the right to marry for love? What if they can't find someone that loves them...is it the states' responsibility to find them a mate?
Next thing you know you'll be telling me that we need to allow anyone that wants to drive a car, truck, or any vehicle they want. Or they will think they can buy a fishing license and it entitles them to catch whatever they want, without regard to any rules and regulations whatsoever.
Yes, DTO Luv, you ARE attempting to shove your values down my throat when you try to tell me I should have to accept your definition of marriage.
Ahh ha. Exactly! State benefits are not civil rights! That's what I've been saying. Gay people can get married that's their civil right. But the benefits attached to a reconized marriage are not civil rights.
You missed the point entirely. Marriage is a civil right and in this country we can not deny anyone their civil rights in this country.
You again show your prejudice and ignorrance every time you post. Do you even realize what it is you just implied? YOU would be the one wanting to change the definition of marriage, not those in support of same-sex marriage.
The institution of marriage in this country by the SCOTUS was defined as a civil right. Of course the "benefits" of marriage aren't welfare or unemployment. A married couple in this country has rights to property and life decisions over each other. Those are a few of the many pieces that make up the institution of marriage. So by what you said above and in accordance with the law as determined by the SCOTUS (because we do live in reality afterall and you're posing this as a real life example) it would be ok to grant same-sex couples the "civil right" of marriage but to keep the state from getting involved you would want to get rid of the state benefits.
The individual state benefits themselves are what make up the whole institution of marriage and it is that whole institution that the SCOTUS has ruled is a civil right to everyone.
To say that you're ok with letting people having some civil rights is like saying "Well you can't drink out of this water fountain, but you can drink out of this one." That is the exact same thing as saying "Well you can get married in this state but not this one" or "you can have a civil union, but not a marriage."
Further proof of your poor understanding of the law and reality is that even if there are state benefits the state can not discriminate who can and can not get them. Qualifications for things like welfare, like requiring someone be below the poverty line, is not discriminating when applying that institution. I explained on here before how the government can't discriminate based on certain "unalienable" civil rights and one of the federally protected classes you can't discriminate based upon is gender. So to add into the law or a constitution a stipulation on gender to have a civil right, is out right illegal and outright discrimination.
Quote:
The basic argument for gay marriage actually goes against the most used argument that those who want to mainstream homosexuality use. How is that? Because it requires gov't collusion in that lifestyle. The whole "if you don't like it, ignore it" approach is betrayed. Collusion is a form of participation. We are force fed that notion corporate diversity classes. Therefore, legalizing gay marriage is forcing participation in that lifestyle. This is why most people who are used to marriage being between an man and woman since the fall of Rome are hard pressed to accept the notion.
Just because some people really really want to marry their dog, or engage in polygamy, or marry children should they be allowed to do it?
First off, do you even know what "collusion" means?
Main Entry: col·lu·sion
Pronunciation: \kə-ˈlü-zhən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin collusion-, collusio, from colludere
Date: 14th century : secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose
If the government is recognizing same-sex marriages than it certainly isn't going to be a secret and it certainly wouldn't be illegal, at least not by there own standards which are the only ones that matter. Honestly I'm kind of lost on what you mean.
Your other arguments are especially tired.
Dogs are not people and have no legal standing in the eyes of any court. But do you know what, if someone still wants to have sex with animals they can and already are.
Should anyone be allowed to marry children? No. They are minors and we have laws in place to protect them. Throwing out child-marriage into the argument is perverse and has no basis on what two consenting adults do.
I honestly don't have a problem with polygamy. I wouldn't do it but the laws against polygamy in this country were based on more stopping pedophillia and child marriage when Utah was up for statehood. At the time, polygamy was used as a wedge issue in politics just like gay marriage is now. If more than one adult wants to enter into that then go ahead.
What right are you deprived of? Get married if you want. Nobody has said you can't get married, but the state does reserve the right to regulate marriage as it sees fit. Has the Supreme Court said that everyone is guaranteed the right to marry for love? What if they can't find someone that loves them...is it the states' responsibility to find them a mate?
Next thing you know you'll be telling me that we need to allow anyone that wants to drive a car, truck, or any vehicle they want. Or they will think they can buy a fishing license and it entitles them to catch whatever they want, without regard to any rules and regulations whatsoever.
Yes, DTO Luv, you ARE attempting to shove your values down my throat when you try to tell me I should have to accept your definition of marriage.
Will you just admit you have a problem homosexuals? You're offering nothing new or even thought provoking here but saying that the government might now have to find marriage partners for people. Get real.
I don't know how fishing licenses work but a recreational license to fish on government land is not the same as a marriage. Again, get real because you are out of new material.
If my values are equality for everyone than yes I would like more people to share that value but I'm not forcing it upon everyone. I think respect for your fellow man is something that guides me personally that transends any man-made law, but the laws we have in should be there to protect equality, not limit it.
The Collusion -- the "secret" lies in the fact that the notion of participation through endorsement by the state is never talked about, because if it was there would be way more resistance. Maybe that's a broader interpretation than what you are willing to admit, but it still remains that endorsement is a form of participation. Forced participation (in any degree) is a far cry from "it doesn't involve you".
Last edited by tones; 06-07-2010 at 05:11 PM..
Reason: .
You missed the point entirely. Marriage is a civil right and in this country we can not deny anyone their civil rights in this country.
I'm agreeing with you. Marriage is a right. It's the state benefits that are not.
Quote:
The institution of marriage in this country by the SCOTUS was defined as a civil right. Of course the "benefits" of marriage aren't welfare or unemployment. A married couple in this country has rights to property and life decisions over each other. Those are a few of the many pieces that make up the institution of marriage. So by what you said above and in accordance with the law as determined by the SCOTUS (because we do live in reality afterall and you're posing this as a real life example) it would be ok to grant same-sex couples the "civil right" of marriage but to keep the state from getting involved you would want to get rid of the state benefits.
I'm not saying marriage benefits are welfare or unemployment. I'm saying the are "like" welfare or unemployment. In that they are benefits that you are only entitled to if you meet certain criteria. To get welfare you need to meet certain income requirements, to get unemployment you of course have to be unemployed. To get the married persons tax credit you have to be married to someone of the opposite sex. It's not denying you your civil right to be married. Nebraska is simply saying that you don't meet the requirements to get the married persons benefit. That's it.
Quote:
The individual state benefits themselves are what make up the whole institution of marriage and it is that whole institution that the SCOTUS has ruled is a civil right to everyone.
This is where I'm just lost. One second it's all about marrying the person you love, the next second it's all about the state benefits. If you love the person it shouldn't matter. If it's just about the benefits and love doesn't matter to you, find a person to marry for the benefits if it's not about love just find someone of the opposite sex. Why does it matter, you don't love the person? If you want both, go to a state where it's recognized.
Quote:
To say that you're ok with letting people having some civil rights is like saying "Well you can't drink out of this water fountain, but you can drink out of this one." That is the exact same thing as saying "Well you can get married in this state but not this one" or "you can have a civil union, but not a marriage."
I'm not denying anyone any civil rights. I'm against giving people state benefits when they haven't met the qualifications to get them.
Quote:
Further proof of your poor understanding of the law and reality is that even if there are state benefits the state can not discriminate who can and can not get them. Qualifications for things like welfare, like requiring someone be below the poverty line, is not discriminating when applying that institution. I explained on here before how the government can't discriminate based on certain "unalienable" civil rights and one of the federally protected classes you can't discriminate based upon is gender. So to add into the law or a constitution a stipulation on gender to have a civil right, is out right illegal and outright discrimination.
The state most certainly can choose who does and doesn't get state benefits. You have to be a US citizen to get welfare. A poor person can't help it if they aren't a US citizen can they? They didn't choose their condition. It's their civil right to get food and shelter which they can obtain through the proper sources, but should we change the law to give them tax breaks and other state benefits? The government can't deny you your civil rights, but they can darn sure deny you benefits that you don't deserve. They do it all day everyday.
Will you just admit you have a problem homosexuals?
Would you just stop trying to assign motive?
Yes, I do have a problem with a small minority attempting to force their values on the rest of us. What you want to do in your home is your own business, I'm pretty libertarian really. But I think it's ridiculous to suggest that I should have to agree to a special form of "marriage" that suits a very small part of the whole.
Quote:
You're offering nothing new or even thought provoking here but saying that the government might now have to find marriage partners for people. Get real.
You were the one that you had a right to marriage for love. If we carry that argument far enough, that's the logical conclusion.
Quote:
I don't know how fishing licenses work but a recreational license to fish on government land is not the same as a marriage. Again, get real because you are out of new material.
Both are regulated by the government.
Quote:
If my values are equality for everyone than yes I would like more people to share that value but I'm not forcing it upon everyone.
Then the argument is over and you'll stop whining about it?
Quote:
I think respect for your fellow man is something that guides me personally that transends any man-made law, but the laws we have in should be there to protect equality, not limit it.
You already have equality. Stop whining because you have the exact same rights I do.
Yes, I do have a problem with a small minority attempting to force their values on the rest of us.
I can't believe you're still trotting this bull**** out there. Gays do NOT want "special" marriage laws to suit them. They simply want to have the same rights we straight people already do.
I'm not sure if you're intentionally being hard headed or what, but it's getting old honestly.
Quote:
What you want to do in your home is your own business, I'm pretty libertarian really
If you're truly a Libertarian then you'd be for gay marriage.
I'm going to go out on a whim here and suggest that you're probably a Republican who is a little ashamed by that and hiding behind the "Libertarian" veil. You certainly wouldn't be the first to do so.
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.
