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 03-25-2011, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles, California
4,373 posts, read 3,223,282 times
Reputation: 1041

Advertisements

I've yet to hear a separate, logical, intelligent argument about why same sex marriage ought to not be legalized or be allowed. The only thing I'm reading and hearing is, "It's icky! We don't like you! You're less than us! Go back to Hell where you came from, even though Satan came from God, so we're all God's creations anyway! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

Honestly, present to me a logical, factual, intelligent reason as to why homosexuals can't get married. You can't put a label on love.

Sigh...this will be a challenge as Republicans can't open their minds enough to do this. Same goes for Conservatives. They're just hopeless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2011, 08:04 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,112,474 times
Reputation: 3240
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie View Post
Of course you are. It’s certainly easier to live the fairy tale fantasy that homosexuality is somehow a race
Not a race, but they still deserve to enjoy equal treatment under the law with heterosexuals. Tell me why not.

Quote:
rather than deal with the reality that homosexuality is instead a sexual preference with no relation or correlation to race whatsoever.

It doesn't matter. The legal analysis is the same. Banning gay marriage is sexual discrimination. A man can marry a woman but a woman cannot, because she is a woman.

It's really not that hard to figure out.


Quote:
This is understandable since racial issues get people all riled up whereas sexual issues, especially those involving deviant sexual inclinations like homosexuality, aren’t anywhere near as popular.
Popularity has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights. In fact, they exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Quote:
Perhaps if the numbers of homosexuals were greater, say on the order of 25% or more of the population instead of the actual 3%, things might be different. But they aren’t and redefining society to fulfill selfish and unrealistic demands to try and perpetuate a delusion that they fit in or are considered “mainstreamed” is highly unlikely at best.
See above, that's not at all how civil rights work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Here
2,887 posts, read 2,629,494 times
Reputation: 1981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
Not a race, ...It's really not that hard to figure out.
Expanding the word marriage to include same-sex unions requires society to consider and value sexual behavior as more significant than gender. The vast majority of Americans have no desire to limit rights associated with cohabitation, hospital visitation or ownership. Marriage is not a right and sexual behavior is not a race. It is really not that hard to figure out and that is particularly why society rejects the notion of “homosexuality is the same as being black” assertion. It isn’t the same at all and everybody knows it. This frustrates the hell out of the homosexual radicals because they can’t fool society into falling for this ridiculous attempt at a connection. There are no “gay water fountains”, no requirements for homosexuals to sit at the back of a bus or enter establishments via a “homosexual” entrance. Homosexuals were never legally considered property or three fifths of a human being either and only those living in a fairy tale delusion believe otherwise.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 10:26 AM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,400,399 times
Reputation: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie View Post
Expanding the word marriage to include same-sex unions requires society to consider and value sexual behavior as more significant than gender. The vast majority of Americans have no desire to limit rights associated with cohabitation, hospital visitation or ownership.
That's great. However, the law as it stands now does limit those rights.

Quote:
Marriage is not a right
Incorrect, see Virginia v. Loving. Marriage IS a right.

Quote:
and sexual behavior is not a race. It is really not that hard to figure out and that is particularly why society rejects the notion of “homosexuality is the same as being black” assertion. It isn’t the same at all and everybody knows it. This frustrates the hell out of the homosexual radicals because they can’t fool society into falling for this ridiculous attempt at a connection. There are no “gay water fountains”, no requirements for homosexuals to sit at the back of a bus or enter establishments via a “homosexual” entrance. Homosexuals were never legally considered property or three fifths of a human being either and only those living in a fairy tale delusion believe otherwise.
Nobody is suggesting that homosexuals have been the target of the sort of institutionalized prejudice that African Americans have. However, that does not mean that homosexuals are not currently the target of unequal treatment under the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 10:36 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,112,474 times
Reputation: 3240
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie View Post
Expanding the word marriage to include same-sex unions requires society to consider and value sexual behavior as more significant than gender.

No it doesn't. It doesn't require you to do anything except mind your own business. Homosexual marriage does not impact your rights in any way, shape or form unless you happen to be homosexual.

Quote:
The vast majority of Americans have no desire to limit rights associated with cohabitation, hospital visitation or ownership.
What the majority wants here is irrelevant, because it is a civil rights issue. Moreover, homosexual marriage does not limit anyone's rights. It does just the opposite. Your statement makes no sense at all.

Can you tell me how it "limits" your rights?

Quote:
Marriage is not a right and sexual behavior is not a race.
I guess you haven't heard, but marriage has been recognized as a fundamental right in this country since at least 1868. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), and the cases cited therein.

You lost this argument many moons ago. Even attorneys representing anti-gay marriage interests CONCEDE that marriage is a fundamental right. Google Perry v. Schwarzenegger and read the judge's ruling - it includes recognition that BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT MARRIAGE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.


Case frickin CLOSED.

Quote:
It is really not that hard to figure out and that is particularly why society rejects the notion of “homosexuality is the same as being black” assertion.
Once again, you utterly miss the point. It falls under the same legal analysis: equal protection. Why do you not get this?

Quote:
It isn’t the same at all and everybody knows it.
No, just about everybody who knows anything about the law disagrees with you, just like even the anti-gay lawyers disagree with you about marriage being a right.

Quote:
This frustrates the hell out of the homosexual radicals because they can’t fool society into falling for this ridiculous attempt at a connection.
There can be no radicalism in the defense of liberty.

Quote:
There are no “gay water fountains”, no requirements for homosexuals to sit at the back of a bus or enter establishments via a “homosexual” entrance.
Marriage law treats them differently because of their sex relative to that of their partners, just like marriage law USED to treat people differently because of their race relative to each other. Bans on gay marriage WILL be declared unconstitutional on exactly the same grounds as bans on interracial marriage were declared so in Loving. The argument is not that gay is the same as race, but there is no doubt that the legal argument is based on precisely the same principle: that all people are entitled to equal protection of the laws. You seem to have a fundamental disagreement with this concept.

Quote:
Homosexuals were never legally considered property or three fifths of a human being either and only those living in a fairy tale delusion believe otherwise.
So, in order for them to have equal rights in your mind, they have to have been subjected to every offense that every minority has ever experienced?

Do women not deserve equal rights with men, because they were never persecuted because of their race?

This is not a logical argument you are making here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Here
2,887 posts, read 2,629,494 times
Reputation: 1981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Excerpted from Loving v. Virginia. Please read carefully as you and a few others have yet to demonstrate a complete or even a basic comprehension of the particulars of this racial discrimination case.

Loving v. Virginia

“There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race NOT sexual behavior. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100 (1943). At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense.”

You want a completely inapplicable racial discrimination case to apply to homosexual sexual behavior despite there being no consideration, mention, comparison, or referral of any kind whatsoever to anything other than race exclusively in Loving v. Virginia. It is understandable however that the homosexual radicals want everyone to get as riled up over homosexuality as they do for racial discrimination issues but the people don’t because everyone gay, straight, or otherwise is well aware that sexual behavior is not a race by any stretch of the imagination and will be considered and reacted to accordingly for what it truly is: a deviant sexual behavior perpetrated by 3% of the population.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 12:30 PM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,112,474 times
Reputation: 3240
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie View Post
Excerpted from Loving v. Virginia. Please read carefully as you and a few others have yet to demonstrate a complete or even a basic comprehension of the particulars of this racial discrimination case.

I already went through this ad nauseam with sanrene.

You're wrong.

Here's why.

//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...l#post18334401

I'm not going to bother dealing with the ridiculous notion that gay rights and race don't both fall under equal protection.

Again: Even attorneys for the anti-gay marriage groups CONCEDE that marriage is a fundamental right.

Because they know it is.

Now you do too.

Quote:
You want a completely inapplicable racial discrimination case to apply to homosexual sexual behavior despite there being no consideration, mention, comparison, or referral of any kind whatsoever to anything other than race exclusively in Loving v. Virginia.
Misdirection. Part and parcel of the holding of Loving is that marriage is a fundamental right. Period. That is the salient point of Loving as it pertains to gay marriage.

And again, it's still a matter of equal protection. Loving is about equal protection, marriage and race. Gay marriage cases are about equal protection, marriage and sex. Legally, you are arguing a distinction without a difference.

Quote:
It is understandable however that the homosexual radicals want everyone to get as riled up over homosexuality as they do for racial discrimination issues but the people don’t because everyone gay, straight, or otherwise is well aware that sexual behavior is not a race by any stretch of the imagination and will be considered and reacted to accordingly for what it truly is: a deviant sexual behavior perpetrated by 3% of the population.
Completely irrelevant. Approval of the majority is not a factor in civil rights. That's why we let courts decide these matters, and not legislatures.

You seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings about our system of government.

And I am still waiting for you to explain how some gay's getting married affects your rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Here
2,887 posts, read 2,629,494 times
Reputation: 1981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
No it doesn't. It doesn't require you to do anything except mind your own business.
Homosexuals make it people’s business when they keep throwing their sexuality in people’s faces. Nobody really gives a hoot, cares or even wants to know that you are “here and *****” let alone the ridiculously absurd demand that we accept or let alone get “used to” it. The homosexual would be better served following their own advice of minding their own business first before having the audacity of telling other people what to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
What the majority wants here is irrelevant
Really? If the people wanted homosexual marriage as badly as homosexuals seem to think they do we’d have had it long before now and that would be perfectly ok with you. Instead the people reject homosexual marriage as evidenced by the voters in 31 states so far. The people have spoken. As you have said “case closed!”.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 12:47 PM
 
18,349 posts, read 18,966,033 times
Reputation: 15658
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie View Post
Homosexuals make it people’s business when they keep throwing their sexuality in people’s faces. Nobody really gives a hoot, cares or even wants to know that you are “here and *****” let alone the ridiculously absurd demand that we accept or let alone get “used to” it. The homosexual would be better served following their own advice of minding their own business first before having the audacity of telling other people what to do.



Really? If the people wanted homosexual marriage as badly as homosexuals seem to think they do we’d have had it long before now and that would be perfectly ok with you. Instead the people reject homosexual marriage as evidenced by the voters in 31 states so far. The people have spoken. As you have said “case closed!”.


amazing, I guess just being homosexual is throwing it in straight's faces seriously this is an old, tired complaint. straight people also "throw it in your face" with displays of affection.

homosexual marriage is not legal because we have religious activists and conservatives who seem to think marriage and it's advantages for just straight people.

sooner or later all people in the us will be treated equally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 12:49 PM
 
17,290 posts, read 29,352,134 times
Reputation: 8691
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie View Post
Homosexuals make it people’s business when they keep throwing their sexuality in people’s faces. Nobody really gives a hoot, cares or even wants to know that you are “here and *****” let alone the ridiculously absurd demand that we accept or let alone get “used to” it. The homosexual would be better served following their own advice of minding their own business first before having the audacity of telling other people what to do.
As the baby boomers kick the bucket, you will watch your perspective become increasingly rare among subsequent generations. You delay the inevitable.



Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie
Really? If the people wanted homosexual marriage as badly as homosexuals seem to think they do we’d have had it long before now and that would be perfectly ok with you. Instead the people reject homosexual marriage as evidenced by the voters in 31 states so far. The people have spoken. As you have said “case closed!”.


Rights aren't and shouldn't be left up to voters. One day it won't be left up to voters. Like womens rights, the civil rights act, etc. etc., nobody ever won money betting on the intelligence of the American voter.



But hey, progress! At least you stuck with what you've proven to be good at: Emotional outbursts short on logical reasoning, and have ended dabbling in what was obviously not your strong suit: Constitutional law.
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. The time now is 03:00 AM.

© 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