[Benoit]

(05-22-2014 09:40 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

I don't think anyone here really disagrees with the idea that minority groups should be free from having their rights and liberties infringed upon by the majority, but a lot of people have blinders on when it comes to homosexuals.

What's your view on the position that gays already have the same right as straight people - they have never been banned from marrying the opposite sex, they just don't want to. Equally heterosexuals couldn't marry a person of the same sex and didn't want to.

Civil partnerships offer that right, but because it doesn't have the same name as something it's different from then the campaigns continue.

I don't give a fuck what people do in private, I don't hate gays or want bad things to happen to them specifically for being gay, but I'm not going to support things I fundamentally disagree with.

[TheWastelander]

I didn't care much about this issue until their recent totalitarian push to inundate everything with gayness, as if it's the most important thing in the world and if you object they try to label you an untermensch homophobe.

It's moved past tolerance. If you don't outright accept what they do in the name of their obsession with their own sexuality, prepare for ostracism. If you're a business owner, prepare for a civil rights lawsuit.

So I hope there are some states who hold out and keep their bans somehow.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(05-22-2014 09:40 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

2. Same-sex marriage bans quite clearly in my opinion violate the Fourteenth Amendment, which is why the judge in this ruling held that the ban was unconstitutional. The Equal Protection Clause and similar sections in constitutions around the world were specifically designed to prevent things like same-sex marriage bans from being enacted in the first place, to reign in the "tyranny of the majority" (I may or may not have written a paper about this very subject a few weeks ago...) against out-group minorities. A majority of Southerners once supported slavery and then Jim Crow, and a majority of Saudi's support executing apostates from Islam not to mention countless other examples; but might does not equal right. I don't think anyone here really disagrees with the idea that minority groups should be free from having their rights and liberties infringed upon by the majority, but a lot of people have blinders on when it comes to homosexuals.

That's where you're wrong, because not having the right to call your union "marriage" does not constitute "abridging immunities" or "infringing on life, liberty, or property". To compare the harm from someone merely having to use a different name for something to slavery or inquisition is out of proportion! Slavery causes tangible harm and discrimination. Having to call a civil union "civil union" instead of "marriage" does not.

Assuming a civil union with equivalent rights is available to gay people (which is, from what I know, the case almost everywhere in developed western world), same sex marriage cannot be said to infringe on anyone's rights. If there's no such civil union available then I definitely agree that it's discrimination and that it should be fixed. But the logical way of solving that discrimination is to create such a union, not to meddle in the institution of marriage and thus end up infringing on many other people's traditions, religious beliefs and copyright.

Furthermore, invoking the 14th Amendment becomes especially inappropriate when you consider that this very same government and legal system are gladly supporting actual slavery in the form of alimony and unlimited child support. Real people with tangible lives end up stripped of their rights every day, ruined and imprisoned because of not being able to produce as much as the state has commanded them on pain of corporal punishment. Yet there is no clamor about it and no one compares it to slavery, even though it's far closer to it than this issue.

[Sawyer]

I don't see it as an issue of a poor oppressed minority seeking rights. The driving force behind it is not "setting the people free" but the further destruction of every known natural ancient presumption of our civilization. The people are not to be allowed to have presumptions about the meaning of words or acceptable behaviors. Because that is the people self-governing, and the people shall not be allowed to self-govern. The people will be governed from above, which means the people will be subjected to every known thing that they today find unnatural, because if they are living according to their natural instincts and presumptions, they are self-governing, and the people will not be allowed to self-govern.

And once we've all become immune to the current debauchery, it will all be changed again, because if you've become immunized, you've again become self-governing.

Yup, gay marriage means something. Just not what you think it means.

[lurker]

(05-22-2014 09:59 AM)Benoit Wrote:  

What's your view on the position that gays already have the same right as straight people - they have never been banned from marrying the opposite sex, they just don't want to. Equally heterosexuals couldn't marry a person of the same sex and didn't want to.

It's an argument that's technically valid but utterly fucking retarded, for reasons that are blindingly obvious.

The "inundation with all things gay" is a backlash fad largely borne of the majority passing laws and constitutional amendments to restrict gay relationships. By forcing gays to challenge unconstitutional laws in court, the majority turned this into a national civil rights struggle. If ten to fifteen years ago the American citizenry had said "gay marriage? meh..." and shrugged their shoulders at the concept instead of declaring war on the concept like a nascent Satan, you would hear a minuscule fraction of the "gay agenda" you currently decry.

[Deluge]

(05-22-2014 10:35 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

That's where you're wrong, because not having the right to call your union "marriage" does not constitute "abridging immunities" or "infringing on life, liberty, or property".

If the government wouldn't let you marry the woman you loved, you would certainly consider that to be infringing on your life and liberty.

(05-22-2014 10:35 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

To compare the harm from someone merely having to use a different name for something to slavery or inquisition is out of proportion! Slavery causes tangible harm and discrimination. Having to call a civil union "civil union" instead of "marriage" does not.

Woah, who the hell compared banning gay marriage to slavery? Go back and read what I actually wrote and the context in which I refused to slavery, Jim Crow and executing apostates before pursuing blatant strawmen.

(05-22-2014 10:35 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Assuming a civil union with equivalent rights is available to gay people (which is, from what I know, the case almost everywhere in developed western world), same sex marriage cannot be said to infringe on anyone's rights.

First of all, you're completely wrong about how available civil unions are.


Of the states without same-sex marriage, only the states in light blue (Nevada and Colorado) have "Domestic partnerships or civil unions granting privileges similar to marriage for same-sex domestic partners". Also, there are literally countless examples of civil unions failing to actually meet the same benefits of marriages. I can't be bothered typing them all out, but arguments 2 and 4 from this pamphlet use examples from civil union systems in New Jersey and Vermont before they legalized gay marriage to dispel that notion.

(05-22-2014 10:45 AM)lurker Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 09:59 AM)Benoit Wrote:  

What's your view on the position that gays already have the same right as straight people - they have never been banned from marrying the opposite sex, they just don't want to. Equally heterosexuals couldn't marry a person of the same sex and didn't want to.

It's an argument that's technically valid but utterly fucking retarded, for reasons that are blindingly obvious.

This.

People complain about the gay lobby a lot, I can understand why. But with same-sex marriage being legalized all over at lightning speed (the latest Gallup poll shows 55% of Americans now support it), they'll soon be redundant as they don't have anything else to really fight for but this issue.

[Walderschmidt]

(05-22-2014 09:40 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

EDIT:
I like the idea of getting government out of legislating marriage. The vast majority of people have never even considered that idea in the first place, but I highly doubt most people would support such a change due to the tax and benefits related ramifications that would have for married couples.

I'd be willing to bet a sizeable amount of money would be saved by closing down government institutions that deal with marriage and firing their employees.

Wald

[Deluge]

(05-22-2014 11:37 AM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 09:40 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

EDIT:
I like the idea of getting government out of legislating marriage. The vast majority of people have never even considered that idea in the first place, but I highly doubt most people would support such a change due to the tax and benefits related ramifications that would have for married couples.

I'd be willing to bet a sizeable amount of money would be saved by closing down government institutions that deal with marriage and firing their employees.

Wald

Oh it would definitely coup a lot of money for the government, but the amount saved by closing down relevant agencies would be minuscule in comparison to how much they'd get off the effective increase in the tax burden of families, which is precisely why voters would never let government's stop regulating marriage in the first place.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(05-22-2014 11:18 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 10:35 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

That's where you're wrong, because not having the right to call your union "marriage" does not constitute "abridging immunities" or "infringing on life, liberty, or property".

If the government wouldn't let you marry the woman you loved, you would certainly consider that to be infringing on your life and liberty.

I don't think so. The government already doesn't let me marry multiple women and no one feels slighted by that.

Also, the government also doesn't let me refer to my set of rights and obligations to a woman I'm living with as "the unholy pact" or whatever other term that "I would prefer" and no one feels slighted by that. I don't see why gays are experiencing discrimination when they are unable to use a certain word, but I am not.

Unholy pacts for everyone!

Deluge Wrote:

(05-22-2014 10:35 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

To compare the harm from someone merely having to use a different name for something to slavery or inquisition is out of proportion! Slavery causes tangible harm and discrimination. Having to call a civil union "civil union" instead of "marriage" does not.

Woah, who the hell compared banning gay marriage to slavery? Go back and read what I actually wrote and the context in which I refused to slavery, Jim Crow and executing apostates before pursuing blatant strawmen.

Your argument was that popular support doesn't make discrimination any less discriminating. Of course it doesn't. But since not being able to use the word "marriage" does not constitute discrimination in the first place, it is a flawed argument. These aren't same categories we're talking about.

Deluge Wrote:

(05-22-2014 10:35 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Assuming a civil union with equivalent rights is available to gay people (which is, from what I know, the case almost everywhere in developed western world), same sex marriage cannot be said to infringe on anyone's rights.

First of all, you're completely wrong about how available civil unions are.

I'm wrong. But the just and reasonable solution still remains to have these states enact civil unions.

Deuge Wrote:

Of the states without same-sex marriage, only the states in light blue (Nevada and Colorado) have "Domestic partnerships or civil unions granting privileges similar to marriage for same-sex domestic partners". Also, there are literally countless examples of civil unions failing to actually meet the same benefits of marriages. I can't be bothered typing them all out, but arguments 2 and 4 from this pamphlet use examples from civil union systems in New Jersey and Vermont before they legalized gay marriage to dispel that notion.

Other than one example of British medical insurers treating people within civil unions as single and charging them more (which also hurts heterosexual couples in civil unions just as much so it can't be discrimination against gay people), all of these "failing to meet the same benefit" examples boil down to "makes me feel uncomfortable". Feelings !=! evidence.

Likewise, a court parroting "it is discrimination because it is discrimination" is meaningless. It can make things legal or illegal, but not true or untrue. They rely on circular logic. We need to be shown specific examples of how gay people in civil unions suffered financial or other tangible losses, along with explanations why this can't be fixed by amending civil unions or simply saying "wherever the text in law X mentions 'marriage', it also applies in the same way to 'civil union' and its constituents".

If we water down "discrimination" to "feelings", I'm sure heterosexual couples can come up with feeling ashamed that their traditions are now shared with someone else without their consent.

Deluge Wrote:

But with same-sex marriage being legalized all over at lightning speed (the latest Gallup poll shows 55% of Americans now support it), they'll soon be redundant as they don't have anything else to really fight for but this issue.

Because the same thing happened with feminism.

I'm not against gay marriage at all, nor am I conservative or religious. Let them marry! I'm against illogical arguments and aggressive attitude, which the gay rights' movement has aplenty.

[Deluge]

(05-22-2014 11:57 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 11:18 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 10:35 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

That's where you're wrong, because not having the right to call your union "marriage" does not constitute "abridging immunities" or "infringing on life, liberty, or property".

If the government wouldn't let you marry the woman you loved, you would certainly consider that to be infringing on your life and liberty.

I don't think so. The government already doesn't let me marry multiple women and no one feels slighted by that.

You don't think the government telling you that you can't wed the woman you want to marry isn't a infringement of your life and liberty? I call bullshit. And Mormons in the 19th century would strongly disagree with your second sentence.

(05-22-2014 11:57 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

But since not being able to use the word "marriage" does not constitute discrimination in the first place... They rely on circular logic. We need to be shown specific examples of how gay people in civil unions suffered financial or other tangible losses,

But it does. Have a re-read of argument no. 4, as well argument no. 2 in terms of the practical benefits. Even when you allow for civil unions with the same de jure rights and principles as marriages that is not so in the de facto sense at all. I've already shown you specific examples of how those in civil unions suffer as compared to married couples, and there is literally mountains of evidence out there for you to Google at your own leisure.

(05-22-2014 11:57 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Deluge Wrote:

But with same-sex marriage being legalized all over at lightning speed (the latest Gallup poll shows 55% of Americans now support it), they'll soon be redundant as they don't have anything else to really fight for but this issue.

Because the same thing happened with feminism.

What else is there for the gay lobby to lobby about? Preventing bullying of gay kids in schools? Reducing the gay teen suicide rate? There really aren't any big over-arching battles for them to fight unlike feminists have with rape hysteria, body image, income gaps and women in the boardroom. Canada and most of Western Europe already have gay marriage, so take a look there to see what the future holds. More and more people will come out of the closet, that's about it and the percentage of people who are gay is actually quite small, easily less than 5% of people are genuinely LGBT (i.e excluding girls who are bi for attention etc), which is much less then what the gay lobby would have people believe.

[Uzisuicide]

Homosexuality is a behavior not a race. The 14th amendment is not violated. Bob is not being prevented from marrying Sally. However if Bob chooses to marry Larry that union is not recognized by law because marriage is between a man and a woman. Bob is not entitled to change a societal institution to fit a particular lifestyle that he chooses.

[Truth Teller]

The 14th amendment only applies to this when gays are not afforded the same protections. In California, when they were afforded the same protections, they bitched and brought the case before the Supreme Court. To a large extent, it's not about "equality" for a lot of them. It's about nomenclature.

By the way, once this problem goes away, there will be some other issue. 25 years down the road, I wouldn't be astounded if you had to check a box indicating your sexual orientation for things like college admissions and job applications.

[TheWastelander]

(05-22-2014 11:18 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

But with same-sex marriage being legalized all over at lightning speed (the latest Gallup poll shows 55% of Americans now support it), they'll soon be redundant as they don't have anything else to really fight for but this issue.

Wrong. Next they'll push to be included as a protected group under state civil rights acts in states that haven't granted them that protection already, then eventually lobby to be included under the federal CRA.

If you're self-employed and don't want to do business with them you'll be sued out of business, blacklisted, and socially ostracized unless you lie to them about your reason for turning them away.

In essence, people will be forced to either abandon their morals and lie or be ruined by totalitarians who want to impose themselves on them and use the power of the state as a weapon against their fellow citizens.

[Grit]

Ignoring the Christian values that made this country great is a vain attempt to justify equality by condoning history. You can complain about lack of polygamy and crusade for equality and justice for all, but don't think for one second that your beliefs are moving this traditionally christian country in a direction toward greatness.

I find it astounding how people today are inclined to blind themselves to facts in order to preach whatever pozzed out message is du jour.

You pledge allegiance to a nation under God. The declaration says that the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and happiness are granted by the Creator. I'm hoping you have a mind blown moment when you realize that belief in religious moral law is most likely inseperable from justifying inherent rights.

[Virtus]

(05-22-2014 01:04 PM)Grit Wrote:  

You pledge allegiance to a nation under God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_A...der_God.22

[Grit]

(05-22-2014 01:07 PM)calihunter Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:04 PM)Grit Wrote:  

You pledge allegiance to a nation under God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_A...der_God.22

Eisenhower was a great man, who led the US to win WWII. Your ancestors agreed with him that God should be added.

P.S. to those who argue that gays have no effect on you personally, i wonder if you have ever supported a NIMBY issue...since I like to think of gayness as NIMBY.

If some mineral company wants to bulldoze all the giant sequoias, well really that has no effect on me a thousand miles away. So lets do it. <--------- I hope you realize how weak a rationale that is

[kosko]

Gay marriage is a herring.

The gay lobby has always used it as a means and not a end. Hey have always has children in their crosshairs, it's always been about child raising as being able to do that with no reprimand.

I don't think many argue with the act of two people getting a legal union. I am all for people to do whatever they want, but gays can't trolls the legal setup up traditional marriage which is messed up enough as it is from female suffragists, but is clearly codified for a man and a woman union. If gays want a legal union let them do the work and create a new one for themselves that would support their own unique needs.

But no, they don't do that.

Because they want free access to children. Something where my moral code goes into overdrive because I feel gays have no use or purpose raising kids. Plus a track record supports this as gay couples have routinely abused, assaulted, exploited, emotionally damage and deranged their children. They simply are more likely to raise deranged fuck ups whom have dodgy ideals and viewpoints often of the world that their parents were born with, passed into them the kids.

This is why the gay lobby has framed the narrative around two things: "love", and "support". They have stripped marriage to its two most superficial meanings while ignoring the real societal sacrifices that both different sexes make in entering a union which 9 times out of 10 is for the explicit goal of raising a stable family. But removing these obvious things dumbs a down the argument and makes people opposed look like monsters since they are denying that two people are able to "love" and "support" one another freely.

How the "love" and "support" thing gets flipped into kids is that they are viewed as teddy beers that cost money. To the gays as long as you can financially support, and love your children, it's all they need. People sit oblivious to the fact that kids need more, and they especially thrive in a two parent environment in which two natural genders in a mom and dad are present to help shape the child's psychological development. Men have anger and emotional issues without fathers, while women turn into whores as they lack self-reflection and confidence. Just two small examples of what happens when the dynamic is fuked up. Another is that for homo parents they are more likely to raise sexual degenerates and homosexuals themselves as the environmental factors present in the home are two strong to not tilt the child towards sexual deviance and this these children are more likely to dabble in all the rest that comes with that such as hard drugs and all the rest.

The gay lobby stays trolling. From the start of this push in the 80s it was always about kids. The real states show gays at divorce three times levels as hetro-couples and spousal abuse is alarmingly higher also, these couples never last most on the time and yet try push his laughable meme of them just being wholesome and looks for love. That is why I ain't down with gay marriage. Fuck their trolling. I'm down with it since to owns up legions of kids to a unsafe environment to be raised in.

[Parlay44]

Successful gay trolls are successful.

Gays are .01% of the population and .01% of them are probably about love and support. Why are we bending over backwards(excuse the pun) for them?

[Wutang]

(05-21-2014 07:54 PM)ColSpanker Wrote:  

advocate for SSM without agreeing to polygamy? Polygamy was the standard for years in much of the world. I know several Muslim men who have had to leave their extra wives back in the old country. Are you now going to tell them they have to accept Hashem and Abdul swearing their vows of eternal love in the local mosque?

I've been saying that for a while now.

If the only standards for what is acceptable in sexual contact or relationships is that all parties are consenting adults, then it is hypocritical to be for gay marriage but not for polygamy.

Why is it that we hear constantly about gay marriage and not other sort of non-mainstream relationships though? It's simply because homosexual activists have done a better job of creating a positive media image in the last decade or so. Polygamists typically want to be left alone to practice their life style and have done little in terms of using mass media to alter the cultural zeitgeist in order to bring their lifestyle into mainstream acceptance while homosexuals have been using the media relentlessly to try and normalize theirs. The homosexual activists have an advantage in that they already had many people who were sympathetic to their causes in positions and social scenes that have a huge affect on determining what the current culture of our society is like. I'm guessing Mormons and Muslims don't have too many friends in Hollywood, New York City, and other pop culture centers.

The standard SWPL is going to be sympathetic to gays because they see gays as someone is part of their tribe. They aren't going to be as sympathetic to some Mormon or Muslim dude who most likely has values that are the direct opposite of them - hence why they constantly harp on in support of marriage rights for the former but not latter; it has nothing to do with being fair or "rights', it simply is another example of one of the most primal instincts in human nature, supporting your "tribe".

[Wutang]

(05-22-2014 11:18 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 10:35 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

That's where you're wrong, because not having the right to call your union "marriage" does not constitute "abridging immunities" or "infringing on life, liberty, or property".

If the government wouldn't let you marry the woman you loved, you would certainly consider that to be infringing on your life and liberty.

(05-22-2014 10:35 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

To compare the harm from someone merely having to use a different name for something to slavery or inquisition is out of proportion! Slavery causes tangible harm and discrimination. Having to call a civil union "civil union" instead of "marriage" does not.

Woah, who the hell compared banning gay marriage to slavery? Go back and read what I actually wrote and the context in which I refused to slavery, Jim Crow and executing apostates before pursuing blatant strawmen.

(05-22-2014 10:35 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Assuming a civil union with equivalent rights is available to gay people (which is, from what I know, the case almost everywhere in developed western world), same sex marriage cannot be said to infringe on anyone's rights.

this pamphlet use examples from civil union systems in New Jersey and Vermont before they legalized gay marriage to dispel that notion.

I looked over the pamphlet and my question is this, wouldn't someone who would discriminate against a same sex couple involved in a civil union also discriminate against the same couple even if what they had was called a marriage as opposed to a civil union?

If the issue was that there were benefits such as tax breaks and hospital visitation rights that marriage but not civil unions would grant I would understand why there should be marriage "equality" but looks like most of the points that are talked about in the pamphlet relate to "oh it makes us feel bad that we can't call our relationships a marriage and people won't give us the same respect unless we can say we are married to our mate" but I seriously doubt people who would discriminate against you because you have a partner of the same gender would alter their opinion of you if your relationship with your partner is called a marriage.

I mean hell one of the points made in pamphlet was essentially "conservative people are supportive of civil unions so therefore it's bad". What kind of argument is that? It reminds me of right-wing people in the states that'll make an argument along the lines of "Communists were into X so X is bad".

[Benoit]

(05-22-2014 02:29 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

most of the points that are talked about in the pamphlet relate to "oh it makes us feel bad that we can't call our relationships a marriage and people won't give us the same respect unless we can say we are married to our mate" but I seriously doubt people who would discriminate against you because you have a partner of the same gender would alter their opinion of you if your relationship with your partner is called a marriage.

The pamphlet is filled with criticisms of civil unions like "people might assume (correctly) that someone is gay if they can't say they're married to their same sex partner"

"It makes us feel bad" is apparently the worst thing in the world.

I guarantee you that the LGBT lobby will not stop with gay marriage. There are already people out there who will say you're a bad person for refusing to date a transsexual.

[lurker]

(05-22-2014 12:40 PM)Uzisuicide Wrote:  

Homosexuality is a behavior not a race. The 14th amendment is not violated. Bob is not being prevented from marrying Sally. However if Bob chooses to marry Larry that union is not recognized by law because marriage is between a man and a woman. Bob is not entitled to change a societal institution to fit a particular lifestyle that he chooses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_...nstitution

Please read this before continuing to comment on the Fourteenth Amendment.

[The Lizard of Oz]

This whole argument is completely f'ing absurd.

Gay "marriage" was completely incomprehensible as an idea a mere couple of decades ago. Now we're supposed to suddenly believe that a law banning it is "unconstitutional"? WTF?

The 14th amendment was passed in 1868. If you tried telling someone in 1868 that this amendment implies that two men must be allowed to "marry" each other, they would look at you like you had three heads. In the best case scenario.

The idea that an arrangement that has been completely incomprehensible throughout human history in general and US history in particular -- not homosexuality, which has always existed and been known to exist but the concept that two men or two women can "marry" each other -- is now suddenly mandated by the Constitution is an idea that I find insulting. It is the height of Year Zero arrogance.

If people want gay marriage, let them pass it as a law. To have it imposed by judicial fiat on self-evidently absurd grounds is f'ing despicable.

[demolition]

I support huge tax breaks for intelligent people to procreate, because it's the only thing that is going to keep this society afloat. Equal protection is an impossible to enforce ideal when it's at odds with the natural order of human pairing and the natural imperative of society (to survive).

[NY Digital]

Arguably, what the majority wants, then they shall receive.

The majority doesn't want gay marriage.

Some asshat with power overturns the majority in an entire state.

So 1 person is more important than millions of people. Sounds like a dictatorship.

People are getting fed up.