Gay Rights are Not Civil Rights

[Strike For The South]

Lately there has been a surge in Gay rights are equal to civil rights which is simply not true. First lets forget the fact that gays arent nearly subject to 1/100000000 of the prejudice that blacks were. There isn't a constitutional precedence for it either and to say there is one means you take such a literal meaning interpretation of the constitution that you make the legislative branch utterly useless. Here are some of the arguments I have heard

So you only think the constitutions laws are the ones your republic can have?

Well no thats why we have congress but I can see why you would think that as they are always more busy with naming parks than tackiling tough issues

BUT ITS WRONG OH SO VERY WRONG

Well that maybe however the courts job is not to make law only to interpret the thing so no matter how "wrong" something may be it does not give the courts the right to project there on view of morality on the case (IE Roe V Wade)


Dred Scott V Sanford (1857)

The judgement is as folllows


States do not have the right to claim an individual’s property that was fairly theirs in another state. Property cannot cease to exist as a result of changing jurisdiction. The majority decision held that Africans residing in America, whether free or slave, could not become United States citizens and the plaintiff therefore lacked the capacity to file a lawsuit. Furthermore, the parts of the Missouri Compromise creating free territories were unconstitutional because Congress had no authority to abolish slavery in federal territories. Judgment of Circuit Court for the District of Missouri reversed and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Now slavery is a wrong however in this case the court ruled right. The constitution says nothing about slavery and there were laws that counted slaves as property. So therefore the court made the right decision here despite the fact it was "wrong"

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Now this is a legal ruling due to the fact that Plessy only used the 14th amendment and did not try to utilize other parts of the constitution. the 14th amendment says nothing about everyone being integrated only that they be equal. If he had pointed out that the facilities were "separate but equal in name only" then they would've had a case but they didnt and the civil rights movement shot itself in the foot.

Brown v. Board of education (1954)

This is the ruling that overturned Plessy and to me is an illegal ruling. I think the fact that even after this was ruled there are still white and black schools is a testament to this. School segregation was on its way out. The civil rights movement was getting up (and for the most part would go through the right channels with the civil rights act of 1964 which I consider a hallmark in Americas law processing) The EPA says nothing about integration just equality. With this ruling one could argue that the public school system today is a racist classist institution granted the supreme court would knock it down however at that point they would be more in line with a Plessy ruling than with a Brown one. Like in Plessy the courts were being used as a legislative branch only this time it worked.

In todays say in age the gay movement is trying this same route and it is only turning people off. Not to mention it is straight up illegal as the constitution (cali or otherwise) says nothing about marriage to begin with. They have even less precedent than the civil rights movement.

For the record I'm not a bigot or a homophobe I merley want my republic to stay just that. No matter how wrong people may perceive it.

[CrossLOPER]

For the record I'm not a bigot or a homophobe...
Please see me after class.

[Strike For The South]

Please see me after class.

So instead if debating merit you do this? Do you know how the American law process operates? Now I very well maybe wrong in fact I'm really only posting this to create discussion about constitutionality as I am well aware that this is a very conservative opinion and I am open to other opinions. Im guessing you just read the title/?

[Louis VI the Fat]

the gay movement is trying this same route and it is only turning people off. Not to mention it is straight I see. :book:

[Strike For The South]

I see. :book:

? I have stated many times I am a proponent for gay rights and that marrige should be off the books. If the best you can do is paint me as a homophobe then I weep for my republic as its now ruled by people who don't know how to run it :shame:

[Louis VI the Fat]

the gay movement is trying this same route and it is only turning people off. Not to mention itis straight ~;)

[Strike For The South]

~;)

Ok Freud disicet me

You big tease :filrt:

[Strike For The South]

So can no one argue on constitutional grounds? I guess once your religious straw-men and emotional appeals are gone you have no argument.

[CountArach]

It doesn't matter if the Constitution says nothing specific about it - it should be allowed, end of story.

[Strike For The South]

It doesn't matter if the Constitution says nothing specific about it - it should be allowed, end of story.

And you're willing to allow courts to supersede legislature? even if its against the majorities wishes?

[CountArach]

And you're willing to allow courts to supersede legislature? even if its against the majorities wishes?
First off - read my post again, where did I ever say that?

Secondly - yes I have no problem with that as long as the Constitutional argument is on the court's side. In a case where a minority (In this case the LGBT movement) is having their rights stripped from them it is absolutely necessary to consult the Constitution.

[GeneralHankerchief]

It doesn't matter if the Constitution says nothing specific about it - it should be allowed, end of story.

If the Constitution says nothing about it, then by rule it is delegated to the states.

[CountArach]

If the Constitution says nothing about it, then by rule it is delegated to the states.
And I have no problem with that for your crazy country...

[Strike For The South]

First off - read my post again, where did I ever say that?

Secondly - yes I have no problem with that as long as the Constitutional argument is on the court's side. In a case where a minority (In this case the LGBT movement) is having their rights stripped from them it is absolutely necessary to consult the Constitution.

You didnt I asked you a question

The constitution is not on there side and to say it is would be circumventing process and they are having no rights "stripped" they never had them to begin with.

[Andres]

A) Define "gay rights".

Using that term already implies discrimination.

B) As for discrimination:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:


Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights

(...)

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

Now, I'll assume you're talking about gays being allowed to marry and I assume we all agree that gays are human beings.

Since non-discrimination is the rule, then not allowing gays to marry is an exception of that rule.

The question should thus not be "Why would gays be allowed to marry", but should be: "Why would gays not be allowed to marry?"

Answer that question first and then we can continue to discuss.

[GeneralHankerchief]

And I have no problem with that for your crazy country...

You may call it crazy, but so far Constitutional adherence has been (rightfully) followed. If we don't, then the entire sanctity of the document, the foundation upon which America is literally built, is at risk. There are other, legal ways of challenging social injustices that do not threaten to tear apart the established procedure. This has been followed in the past up until recent decades, and that's where a lot of problems start happening.

[CountArach]

Wrong argument Andres, I tried it before and Strike says the document is irrelevant.

The constitution is not on there side and to say it is would be circumventing process and they are having no rights "stripped" they never had them to begin with.
What you are describing is a privilege. Rights aren't granted - they are yours from birth because you are a HUMAN BEING

[Strike For The South]

A) Define "gay rights".

Using that term already implies discrimination.

B) As for discrimination:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:



Now, I'll assume you're talking about gays being allowed to marry and I assume we all agree that gays are human beings.

Since non-discrimination is the rule, then not allowing gays to marry is an exception of that rule.

The question should thus not be "Why would gays be allowed to marry", but should be: "Why would gays not be allowed to marry?"

Answer that question first and then we can continue to discuss.


That document holds no weight in my country.

I have said many times before that marriage should be off the books entirely. This thread is about the constitution and its place in todays government. I choose the LGBT movement because it gets the most rise out of people and its when they become the most self richoues (To be fair I could've chosen abortion to) I figured many of you would know my postions by now but I was mistaken.

@countarch Rights are only yours if you can defend them which is why this argument is so important.

[CountArach]

That document holds no weight in my country.
Your country signed it, ergo it holds weight.

@countarch Rights are only yours if you can defend them which is why this argument is so important.
What are you talking about? Why do rights need to be defended to exist? I can't defend my right to being alive - but I have it...

[Strike For The South]

Your country signed it, ergo it holds weight.

What are you talking about? Why do rights need to be defended to exist? I can't defend my right to being alive - but I have it...

The constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Your "rights" only go so far as people in power deem them to. Thats why every time a judge hands down a decision like this the constitution loses a little more power everyone (even the gays) loses a little more freedom.

[CountArach]

The constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Your "rights" only go so far as people in power deem them to. Thats why every time a judge hands down a decision like this the constitution loses a little more power everyone (even the gays) loses a little more freedom.
Allow me to channel my inner Tribesman:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

The idea that you lose freedom because other people have freedoms they were born with recognised is utterly ludicrous... completely and utterly ludicrous....
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Xiahou]

Your country signed it, ergo it holds weight.Not really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights#United_States).
The United States long resisted ratification. This was motivated by popular American dislike for the UN, but also out of a fear that the covenant's anti-death-penalty language could be used by domestic anti-death-penalty activists to litigate against capital punishment. The United States Senate ratified the ICCPR in 1992, with a number of reservations, understandings, and declarations; with so many, in fact, that its implementation has little domestic effect.[3] In particular, the Senate declared in 138 Cong. Rec. S4781-84 (1992) that "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing", and in S. Exec. Rep., No. 102-23 (1992) stated that the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."

But again, it's pretty irrelevant since no one is denying anyone the ability to get married.

[CountArach]

Not really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights#United_States).
Wow, I just lost the last shred of respect I had remaining for the United States.

[GeneralHankerchief]

But Obama got elected. :laugh4:

[CountArach]

But Obama got elected. :laugh4:
He ain't getting that part of my respect back until he removes the reservations or signs a new treaty without reservations.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Why do you blame Obama for the Senate's hesitancy to sign the treaty? It was in 1992; he had nothing to do with its passage or gutting.

[CountArach]

Why do you blame Obama for the Senate's hesitancy to sign the treaty? It was in 1992; he had nothing to do with its passage or gutting.
I'm not blaming Obama, but I will not grant the United States as a country my respect until the above happens.

[Xiahou]

I'm not blaming Obama, but I will not grant the United States as a country my respect until the above happens.That's funny, because I was actually pleased to see that my government chose not to subordinate our founding document to some feel good fluff pumped out by the UN. :beam:

[CountArach]

That's funny, because I was actually pleased to see that my government chose not to subordinate our founding document to some feel good fluff pumped out by the UN. :beam:
I had a feeling we might see the UN differently :wink:

[Strike For The South]

Allow me to channel my inner Tribesman:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

The idea that you lose freedom because other people have freedoms they were born with recognised is utterly ludicrous... completely and utterly ludicrous....
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

and you missed the point of my post.

[Strike For The South]

Wow, I just lost the last shred of respect I had remaining for the United States.

Oh well that changes everything.

[GoreBag]

I'll have a footlong GBLT, please. lawl

[Ronin]

That's funny, because I was actually pleased to see that my government chose not to subordinate our founding document to some feel good fluff pumped out by the UN. :beam:

you mean just like like a document written by a bunch of slave owners declaring how everyone was free and had inalienable rights???....I see what you did there :laugh4:

[GeneralHankerchief]

you mean just like like a document written by a bunch of slave owners declaring how everyone was free and had inalienable rights???....I see what you did there :laugh4:

Irrelevant. The slavery part was addressed via amendment. The Constitution is flexible that way.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why oh why does the slave trade always come into these arguments over gay rights? :wall:

[Ronin]

Irrelevant. The slavery part was addressed via amendment. The Constitution is flexible that way.

so if it needed amendment that means it was not perfect???? I´m shocked....:laugh4: you mean those men didn´t know what the law needed to be for ever and ever??

the things one learns each day :coffeenews:

that might just mean it needs another amendment to give full rights to gays....or better yet....how about witting another one in XXI century English so it's clear about what the hell it means?? :deal2:

[Strike For The South]

so if it needed amendment that means it was not perfect???? I´m shocked....:laugh4: you mean those men didn´t know what the law needed to be for ever and ever??

the things one learns each day :coffeenews:

that might just mean it needs another amendment to give full rights to gays....or better yet....how about witting another one in XXI century English so it's clear about what the hell it means?? :deal2:

You dont understand what this is about. To amend the constitution the legislature needs to be used that isnt happening and THAT is the problem

[GeneralHankerchief]

so if it needed amendment that means it was not perfect???? I´m shocked....:laugh4: you mean those men didn´t know what the law needed to be for ever and ever??

the things one learns each day :coffeenews:

that might just mean it needs another amendment to give full rights to gays....or better yet....how about witting another one in XXI century English so it's clear about what the hell it means?? :deal2:

Exactly. A Constitutional amendment is exactly what's needed. The Founders saw this problem happening and they devised a way to get around it.

An Amendment is and always has been the proper way to change the law when change has been required - NOT judges arbitrarily deciding it.

[Strike For The South]

An Amendment is and always has been the proper way to change the law when change has been required - NOT judges arbitrarily deciding it.

:bow:

[CountArach]

and you missed the point of my post.
That would be a nice role-reversal.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The 14th amendment deems the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman unconstitutional. By federal law, no state is permitted to prevent gay marriage.

The discrimination is not between gay and straight, but between male and female. Citizen X can not be disallowed to marry citizen Y, whereas it is allowed citizen Z, simply on the basis of sex. No more than that this distinction can be made on race.


I'm not blaming Obama, but I will not grant the United States as a country my respect until the above happens.The UN Declaration of Human Rights is not formally legally binding in Australia either. Nor, for that matter, in France.

However, shiny enlightened Republics like France and the US have a Bill of Rights or a 'Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen' (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen). This unlike monarchies like the UK and Australia, which have to make do with customary laws and vague Medieval charters like Magna Carta and the sort, regulating the amount of rabbits and peasants noblemen can shoot on Thursdays or what have you.


But again, it's pretty irrelevant since no one is denying anyone the ability to get married. :smash:

[Strike For The South]

That would be a nice role-reversal.

I understand you. I think you are very misguided but I understand you.

[Xiahou]

The 14th amendment deems the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman unconstitutional. By federal law, no state is permitted to prevent gay marriage.How do you figure?

[Strike For The South]

Louis the 14th amendment says nothing about marriage. This is the closest it comes.


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[CountArach]

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is not formally legally binding in Australia either. Nor, for that matter, in France.
We signed it, we have a responsibility to follow through with it.

However, shiny enlightened Republics like France and the US have a Bill of Rights or a 'Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen' (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen). This unlike monarchies like the UK and Australia, which have to make do with customary laws and vague Medieval charters like Magna Carta and the sort, regulating the amount of rabbits and peasants noblemen can shoot on Thursdays or what have you.
I support an Australian Bill or Rights, and IIRC so do most Australians.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

How do you figure?

Probably from this:


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

[Strike For The South]

Probably from this:

Everyone is equal.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Everyone is equal.

True, every individual is equal.

[Louis VI the Fat]

How do you figure?Via the way of the Civil Rights movement and the subsequent explanation that has been given to the 14th: the extension of all privileges and immunities of citizenship to all.
This includes the right not to discriminate between male and female. If a female is allowed to marry X, then this right must be extended to all other citizens, and can not be limited to persons of a required race, gender, born / naturalised or any other distinction.

[Strike For The South]

Via the way of the Civil Rights movement and the explanation that has been given to the 14th: the extension of all privileges and immunities of citizenship to all.
This includes the right not to discriminate between male and female. If a female is allowed to marry X, then this right must be extended to all other citizens, and can not be limited to persons of a required race, gender, born / naturalised or any other distinction.

Then why has no one used the 14th in support of gay marriage or otherwise at a Fed level. Hell they used it for Roe V Wade. Where once again it has no legal precedence.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Then why has no one used the 14th in support of gay marriage or otherwise at a Fed level. Because either I am much smarter or much stupider than they are.


Dang it. Can't even bluff my way into US constitutional Law 'round here. :wall:

*Sets off to search for a thread with a more easily impressionable crowd*

[Redleg]

okay I have asked this question before and I will continue to ask it, since no one has answered it.

Exactly what individual right is being denied by the state formulating laws that define marriage as between a man and a women?

Exactly what individual right is being denied by the state for dening same sex marriage?

If the process of a state sanction marriage requires one to pay a fee for a license, it means its a contractual relationship, how does the regulation of marriage differ from the driving priveledge granted to individuals by the state?

And as a said note I find the arguement that those against same-sex marriage are homophoic a very funny arguement since it often comes without addressing the very questions I have asked.


Now as for allowing same-sex marriage I am all for allowing same-sex marriage if they follow the constitutional process that each state has regarding making laws for that state. Which Bill Clinton addressed with his Defense of Marriage Act, so until one can adequately demonstrate or argue how individual rights are being denied - I find that the idea must follow the process established in each state, and the courts should not rule on the issue unless the current law violates the established constitution of that state.

[Strike For The South]

okay I have asked this question before and I will continue to ask it, since no one has answered it.

Exactly what individual right is being denied by the state formulating laws that define marriage as between a man and a women?

Exactly what individual right is being denied by the state for dening same sex marriage?

If the process of a state sanction marriage requires one to pay a fee for a license, it means its a contractual relationship, how does the regulation of marriage differ from the driving priveledge granted to individuals by the state?

And as a said note I find the arguement that those against same-sex marriage are homophoic a very funny arguement since it often comes without addressing the very questions I have asked.


Now as for allowing same-sex marriage I am all for allowing same-sex marriage if they follow the constitutional process that each state has regarding making laws for that state. Which Bill Clinton addressed with his Defense of Marriage Act, so until one can adequately demonstrate or argue how individual rights are being denied - I find that the idea must follow the process established in each state, and the courts should not rule on the issue unless the current law violates the established constitution of that state.


This, This is exactly how I feel.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Exactly what individual right is being denied by the state formulating laws that define marriage as between a man and a women?

Exactly what individual right is being denied by the state for dening same sex marriage?1 - The right to non-discrimination between male and female.

2 - The same.

The key to solving US gay marriage - and if I hurry up I can do it and become a new civil rights hero and then fulfill my life's ambition of becoming US president - is to see that it is not about gay rights, but about gender equality. It is not a person's sexual preference that disqualifies somebody from being eligable to marry somebody, burt his or her gender. And gender discrimination has long been deemed unconstitutional. The legal framework is there, all it takes is this shift from 'gay rights' to gender equality.

This thread is called Gay Rights. This is wrong. This is about Sex Rights.



~+~+~+~<()>~+~+~+~



We signed it, we have a responsibility to follow through with it.

I support an Australian Bill or Rights, and IIRC so do most Australians.The signing of the UN DoHR is a statement of intent indeed.

To be honest, I doubt whether Australian law conflicts in any meaningful way with the UNDoHR.

[Strike For The South]

1 - The right to non-discrimination between male and female.

2 - The same.

The key to solving US gay marriage - and if I hurry up I can do it and become a new civil rights hero and then fulfill my life's ambition of becoming US president - is to see that it is not about gay rights, but about gender equality. It is not a person's sexual preference that disqualifies somebody from being eligable to marry somebody, burt his or her gender. And gender discrimination has long been deemed unconstitutional. The legal framework is there, all it takes is this shift from 'gay rights' to gender equality.

This thread is called Gay Rights. This is wrong. This is about Sex Rights.
.

So your position is it should be constitutionally legal because the 14th amendment encompasses gender rights as well?

Oh and you cant be president you aint from round here boi.

[Redleg]

1 - The right to non-discrimination between male and female.

How is defining something that is a state sanction event that requires a licence discrimination? For instance to add to the discussion only - age is also used as a defining definition for when one is allowed to partake in a state sanctioned priveledge such as driving (16 for most states) drinking (21 in the US), Hunting license, (hunter safety requirment below a certain age) and a fundmental right of voting is also defined by constitutional amendment. So there is system established that does allow the state to define how priveledges are awarded to the people.

Your on a good track on pointing out a possible dening of a right.




2 - The same.

I would disagree that your point constitutes a violation of an individual right.




The key to solving US gay marriage - and if I hurry up I can do it and become a new civil rights hero and then fulfill my life's ambition of becoming US president - is to see that it is not about gay rights, but about gender equality. It is not a person's sexual preference that disqualifies somebody from being eligable to marry somebody, burt his or her gender. And gender discrimination has long been deemed unconstitutional. The legal framework is there, all it takes is this shift from 'gay rights' to gender equality.

Interesting arguement that almost works - except for the government does place restriction and limitations on gender - ie military service for examble. I could be wrong but up to 2000, the United States Army did not allow women into the combat arms branches, minus two very small Field Artillery MOS dealing with Missles and Cannon Repair.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh and you cant be president you aint from round here boi.Obama will change that. Before people discover that those whispered rumours (http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_97026/Disputes_as_to_whether_Obama_is_an_American_born.html) about his real place of birth turn out to have been true all along.

Then we take over.


How come we have clashed swords five thousand times, and not once have you called me 'boy'. Yet, in a thread about the Civil Rights movement you do? Freudian associations? A slip of your Southern Mind? ~;)

Is it cause I is Black?

[KarlXII]

Just so we're clear:


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I believe this is what we are referring to in the 14th Amendment.

[Strike For The South]

Obama will change that. Before people discover that those whispered rumours (http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_97026/Disputes_as_to_whether_Obama_is_an_American_born.html) about his real place of birth turn out to have been true all along.

Then we take over.


How come we have clashed swords five thousand times, and not once have you called me 'boy'. Yet, in a thread about the Civil Rights movement you do? Freudian associations? A slip of your Southern Mind? ~;)

Is it cause I is Black?

Listen here boy I is a Texan and a Texan I shall be till I die. All the politeness of a Southern gentleman but none of the de masculinity. We are the true peak of evolution

You on the other hand are a Frenchman and for that I sympathize. It must be hard eating frogs and snails all the while never getting you're republic right. you could always emigrate. I could set you up with a nice yellow rose :kiss:

[KarlXII]

We are the true peak of evolution

LOL.

[naut]

The Constitution is flexible that way.
You'll find the gays are too. :wink2:


However, shiny enlightened Republics like France and the US have a Bill of Rights or a 'Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen' (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen). This unlike monarchies like the UK and Australia, which have to make do with customary laws and vague Medieval charters like Magna Carta and the sort, regulating the amount of rabbits and peasants noblemen can shoot on Thursdays or what have you.
The UK actually has two, the Human Rights Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_1), based on the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Equality Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060003_en.pdf). Both offer, in my opinion at least the same, and in some cases more protection than the US Bill of Rights. Both are subject to the whims of government in power, since both can be circumvented by the needs of national security for example.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Just so we're clear:


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

I believe this is what we are referring to in the 14th Amendment.

A literal interpretation of this clause would support your case that to deny same sex marriage is to deny privilege.

However, are you aware that such an interpretation would, in all likelihood, remove any and all constraints imposed on marriage by any state (providing the participants are mentally competent adult citizens). Thus, no restrictions against group marriage, incestual marriage, etc.

Is this a worthwhile approach?

[CountArach]

How I never tire of the slippery slope argument...

[Strike For The South]

How I never tire of the slippery slope argument...

Thats what these kind of rulings lead to dundee. You either go through the legislature or you open a pandoras box quit crying and write a bill like everyone else before you.

[CountArach]

Thats what these kind of rulings lead to dundee. You either go through the legislature or you open a pandoras box quit crying and write a bill like everyone else before you.
Then go through the Legislature. All I am saying is this - if the Legislature isn't going to ensure a basic human right is met, the other branches have to do it. That is the nature of checks and balances.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Then go through the Legislature. All I am saying is this - if the Legislature isn't going to ensure a basic human right is met, the other branches have to do it. That is the nature of checks and balances.

If we openly disregard the Constitution and the procedures it sets out, it had better not be done on an issue as trivial as gay marriage. The legislature makes the laws, period. I'm not about to stake the very legal foundation this country is built upon unless the issue in question is incredibly dire. Gay marriage does not qualify.

Living in the US, it's not as easy for me to disregard the Constitution when it's convenient as it is for somebody across the globe.

[CountArach]

If we openly disregard the Constitution and the procedures it sets out, it had better not be done on an issue as trivial as gay marriage. The legislature makes the laws, period. I'm not about to stake the very legal foundation this country is built upon unless the issue in question is incredibly dire. Gay marriage does not qualify.
Then we have different priorities. I don't see the point in having a Constitution and a Bill of Rights when these will not guarantee basic human rights for everyone.

[Strike For The South]

Then we have different priorities. I don't see the point in having a Constitution and a Bill of Rights when these will not guarantee basic human rights for everyone.

You act like we keep gays in a hole. Its these kinds of outrageous accusations that set the movement back.

[CountArach]

You act like we keep gays in a hole. Its these kinds of outrageous accusations that set the movement back.
DOMA basically relegated them to living in a hole.

And don't accuse me of setting the LGBT movement back - I'm not doing that and you damn well know it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But again, it's pretty irrelevant since no one is denying anyone the ability to get married.

Oh, the corners you guys paint yourselves into :laugh4:

Strike, the gay rights movement is compared to the civil rights movement because interracial marriage was objected to in a similar way. And someday your view will be just as outdated :smash:

[Strike For The South]

DOMA basically relegated them to living in a hole.

And don't accuse me of setting the LGBT movement back - I'm not doing that and you damn well know it.

You mean a law? How uncivilized of those mongrels. Although I will admit the fact that the libertarian candidate authored it just goes to show how dumb the party can be, oh well

Oh Im not accusing you, I doubt you have much clout in the political circles here. But your use of vitriolic rhetoric is the same used by people who do and let me tell you right now that turns people off. ESP when many people cant be bothered with what in all honesty is a label and nothing more. Choose your words wisely.

[CountArach]

You mean a law? How uncivilized of those mongrels. Although I will admit the fact that the libertarian candidate authored it just goes to show how dumb the party can be, oh well

Oh Im not accusing you, I doubt you have much clout in the political circles here. But your use of vitriolic rhetoric is the same used by people who do and let me tell you right now that turns people off. ESP when many people cant be bothered with what in all honesty is a label and nothing more. Choose your words wisely.
Oh? Where?

[Strike For The South]

Oh, the corners you guys paint yourselves into :laugh4:

Strike, the gay rights movement is compared to the civil rights movement because interracial marriage was objected to in a similar way. And someday your view will be just as outdated :smash:

My view! lol My view that judicial overreach is bad! Oh my y'all really cant stand someone who isn't a religious not job can you?

[Strike For The South]

Then we have different priorities. I don't see the point in having a Constitution and a Bill of Rights when these will not guarantee basic human rights for everyone.


The mob doesnt like words like this. This is why the church always wins.

[CountArach]

The mob doesnt like words like this. This is why the church always wins.
vit·ri·ol·ic
adj.
1. Of, similar to, or derived from a vitriol.
2. Bitterly scathing; caustic

[Strike For The South]

vit·ri·ol·ic
adj.
1. Of, similar to, or derived from a vitriol.
2. Bitterly scathing; caustic

Would you like me to change my vocabulary?

[CountArach]

Would you like me to change my vocabulary?
That would be a good start.

[Strike For The South]

That would be a good start.

Simply because you dont understand the constitution or how to approach gay rights in America doesn't mean we need to squabble over a word. I was having fun educating you:clown:

[CountArach]

Simply because you dont understand the constitution or how to approach gay rights in America doesn't mean we need to squabble over a word. I was having fun educating you:clown:
It was fun being educated :rolleyes:

Alright I think I'm actually starting to get pissed off by this topic now, so I'm just going to move on and not look at this thread again. Bye...

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I think CA has the better argument.

If the Constitution is in place to guarantee the rights of citizens, and yet doesn't protect the basic human rights of everybody then it is an inadequate constitution. While I recognise that any document that does guarantee everyone all their rights is going to be unworkably vague, defending the constitution because, in this case, the issue is 'trivial' isn't right. Constitutions can be changed, or reworded, and if the current one isn't fufilling its purpose then it must be changed, or overidden.

[Strike For The South]

It was fun being educated :rolleyes:

Alright I think I'm actually starting to get pissed off by this topic now, so I'm just going to move on and not look at this thread again. Bye...

Why are you getting angry? Is it because Im not the usual fodder you run into for this kind of thing? I have my view and you have yours but I think you underestimate what the constitution is and what it means to Americans, therefore you come in with a preconceived notion. If we cant have a little good natured teasing back here then it ceases to be fun.

[Strike For The South]

I think CA has the better argument.

If the Constitution is in place to guarantee the rights of citizens, and yet doesn't protect the basic human rights of everybody then it is an inadequate constitution. While I recognise that any document that does guarantee everyone all their rights is going to be unworkably vague, defending the constitution because, in this case, the issue is 'trivial' isn't right. Constitutions can be changed, or reworded, and if the current one isn't fufilling its purpose then it must be changed, or overidden.

Then we can go through the legislature. Not have judges hand out abbartiary rulings based on happiness.

Why should we overrule the legislature in favor of the courts?

[CountArach]

Why are you getting angry? Is it because Im not the usual fodder you run into for this kind of thing? I have my view and you have yours but I think you underestimate what the constitution is and what it means to Americans, therefore you come in with a preconceived notion. If we cant have a little good natured teasing back here then it ceases to be fun.
Alright I lied... I'm back...

I know it was all good-natured, but I just get really worked up when someone suggests that someone should not get something based on them being X, where X can be anything outside of the mainstream. Also, yes I get really pissed off by Americans who are strict Constitutionalists (Which I believe you are - at least you come off that way) because I just see it as a very uncompromising position that doesn't lead to anything new in society. But I do respect you for doggedly sticking to your principles and your founding document. Admittedly I probably will do the same when we get a Bill of Rights (though I would campaign for a far more liberal Bill).

Anyway - as they say on the internet... gg...

[Strike For The South]

Alright I lied... I'm back...

I know it was all good-natured, but I just get really worked up when someone suggests that someone should not get something based on them being X, where X can be anything outside of the mainstream. Also, yes I get really pissed off by Americans who are strict Constitutionalists (Which I believe you are - at least you come off that way) because I just see it as a very uncompromising position that doesn't lead to anything new in society. But I do respect you for doggedly sticking to your principles and your founding document. Admittedly I probably will do the same when we get a Bill of Rights (though I would campaign for a far more liberal Bill).

Anyway - as they say on the internet... gg...


In my perfect world the government would've never gotten involved to begin with.

They did but one mistake can not lead to more. Is it unfortunate that this is what it has come to? Yes However I truly and honestly believe that with some good politicking and a well rounded bill the gays will have what they want and it should be left to the states.

However do not ask me to throw away my document which gives me a slimmer of hope against peoples who wield power I can not dream of. I wont do that.

[CountArach]

I respect that Strike :bow: I also wish our overlords were not involved, but they are and I guess we see different solutions to the same problem with a similar goal in mind.

[Azi Tohak]

I'm happy that every state that had the choice to make into law a Gay-marriage law had it rejected. To me, that should be the end of it. The American people spoke, and said no.

Azi

[CountArach]

I'm happy that every state that had the choice to make into law a Gay-marriage law had it rejected. To me, that should be the end of it. The American people spoke, and said no.

Azi
That would be if it was a Federal law, and polls have shown that the majority of Americans support Civil Unions.

[Redleg]

Alright I lied... I'm back...

I know it was all good-natured, but I just get really worked up when someone suggests that someone should not get something based on them being X, where X can be anything outside of the mainstream. Also, yes I get really pissed off by Americans who are strict Constitutionalists (Which I believe you are - at least you come off that way) because I just see it as a very uncompromising position that doesn't lead to anything new in society. But I do respect you for doggedly sticking to your principles and your founding document. Admittedly I probably will do the same when we get a Bill of Rights (though I would campaign for a far more liberal Bill).

Anyway - as they say on the internet... gg...

As a basic - a strict constitutionalist allows for the document to be changed in accordance with the process established in the constitution. So if a law is no longer valid or is determined to be inadequate, or yes even one that denies the rights of others the process should be followed.

the legislative branch writes the law
the President has a choice to pass or veto
The courts can only rule on the constitutionality of the law, if the law is not valid it is sent back to the legislative branch to be reworked - not new law made up by the court. Ie all the court can do is determine that the law is invalid and can not be enforced by the state.

So if the law is determined to be unconstitional by the courts it must return to the legislative branch to be re-written or completely changed. If one wants to determine a portion of the constitution is no longer valid - it must follow the constitutional amendment process which allows the people to determine if they wish the constitution to be changed. The courts can not change the constitution, and the states can not make laws or amendments that conflict with the Federal Constitution.


So a determined stance is necessary to insure that the people and most importantly the government follows the established process that provides the basis for the society in the United States.

If the process is followed and it is determined that that is the standard for the nation - I dont have a problem with it being allowed or disallowed.


Now once again you speak of human rights but I don't see how a state licensing and by definition defining what constitutes a marriage, since for the state it is a contractual relationship constitutes a violation of any basic human right. What your arguement seems to be is that the standard should be changed to reflect the change in the society and the time - which I dont have a problem with, but calling what is by definition a priveledge a right does not constitution a violation of a basic human right.


For instance the Drinking age in the United States is defined as 21, this is a priviledge that the state controls. State sanctioned marriage is a priveledge, the state is not disallowing same-sex relationships from happening - it is just not licensing. So as a matter of fact you have to provide more evidence that same-sex marriage is a right versus how the state wishes to license something.

[Redleg]

That would be if it was a Federal law, and polls have shown that the majority of Americans support Civil Unions.

Marriage by definition is a state obligation since it is not covered in the Federal Constitution. So I am not really sure what point you are attempting here.

[CountArach]

Marriage by definition is a state obligation since it is not covered in the Federal Constitution. So I am not really sure what point you are attempting here.
I was responding to the claim that the American people have spoken. They haven't - only the people in those states have.

Now once again you speak of human rights but I don't see how a state licensing and by definition defining what constitutes a marriage, since for the state it is a contractual relationship constitutes a violation of any basic human right. What your arguement seems to be is that the standard should be changed to reflect the change in the society and the time - which I dont have a problem with, but calling what is by definition a priveledge a right does not constitution a violation of a basic human right.
I see marriage as a right.

For instance the Drinking age in the United States is defined as 21, this is a priviledge that the state controls. State sanctioned marriage is a priveledge, the state is not disallowing same-sex relationships from happening - it is just not licensing. So as a matter of fact you have to provide more evidence that same-sex marriage is a right versus how the state wishes to license something.
What you are describing is a privilege of the States to determine their marriage laws, what I am saying it is the right of the people to get married. The two are completely different things. one is a communal right, the other is an individual right.

[Xiahou]

1 - The right to non-discrimination between male and female.

2 - The same.

The key to solving US gay marriage - and if I hurry up I can do it and become a new civil rights hero and then fulfill my life's ambition of becoming US president - is to see that it is not about gay rights, but about gender equality. It is not a person's sexual preference that disqualifies somebody from being eligable to marry somebody, burt his or her gender. And gender discrimination has long been deemed unconstitutional. The legal framework is there, all it takes is this shift from 'gay rights' to gender equality.

This thread is called Gay Rights. This is wrong. This is about Sex Rights.
Need I point out that the Equal Rights Amendment failed?
What gender is being discriminated against? A member of either can get married to the member of the opposite. The same rules apply to both genders. The 'sexual rights' claim really doesn't seem to have much standing.


Strike, the gay rights movement is compared to the civil rights movement because interracial marriage was objected to in a similar way. And someday your view will be just as outdatedAnd you know who else used those arguments? That NAZIS! Hooray for the guilt by association fallacy. ~:handball:

Banning interracial marriage discriminated against couples based on their race. Refusing to sanction gay marriage is based on behavior. There's an obvious difference there and many who struggled in the civil rights movement find such comparisons offensive.

As the topic states, and Redleg put so succinctly, this isn't about Constitutional rights- it's purely a legislative matter. Gay marriage supporters can make their case to their legislators, or put forward ballot initiatives. Either way, convince enough people to support them and they'll get what that want. On the other hand, try to force it on people thru the courts and you'll end up with constitutional bans and more resentment.

[Husar]

Well, it's pretty easy, marriage is defined as a bound/binding of a male and a female and noone ever said gays do not have a right to that, they're perfectly fine to find someone of the other sex and marry them, the whole fuss is about the fact that they want to change the definition of something others hold in high esteem, somewhat similar to the commercializing of christmas that many people do not like as they feel their tradition is being destroyed.
If they'd just accept that man-man and woman-woman relationships are called civil unions and if the rest would just accept civil unions as a means to get tax benefits then I do not really see where someone could find a problem with all that and the whole debate is just stupid anyway. I've never sen marriage as a way to get tax benefits anyway, if that's all you want, don't be surprised about such high divorce rates. :dizzy2:

[Louis VI the Fat]

the 14th Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
A literal interpretation of this clause would support your case that to deny same sex marriage is to deny privilege.

However, are you aware that such an interpretation would, in all likelihood, remove any and all constraints imposed on marriage by any state (providing the participants are mentally competent adult citizens). Thus, no restrictions against group marriage, incestual marriage, etc.

Is this a worthwhile approach? The constitution needs to be interpreted literally when its wording is chrystal clear. As is the case here: 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens'. All States are explicity prohibited from implementing gender or racial requirements to enter any specific marriage.


The slippery slope argument fails. US law perfectly well distinguishes between one person and groups of persons. Or between a natural person, and a legal person. Between a person and an animal.
The argument that an end to requirements of gender to enter marriage means that anybody or anything can enter marriage is not supported by American law. Not in the slightest way.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What gender is being discriminated against? A member of either can get married to the member of the opposite. The same rules apply to both genders. The 'sexual rights' claim really doesn't seem to have much standing.Both genders are discriminated against. Under the US constitution, there can be no requirement of gender to engage in a civil contract.


Banning interracial marriage discriminated against couples based on their race. Refusing to sanction gay marriage is based on behavior. No, citizens are not prohibited from marriage based on behaviour. They are prohibited from marrying based on their gender. This is crucial. Nobody checks the gayness of a person's behaviour to see if they are eligable for marriage. Their gender is checked.

This is not about gay or gay rights.

Same-sex marriages are protected by the 14th amendment regardless of whether either partner is gay. This means that I can legally wed Strike, even though our love is entirely Platonic and will never be consumed (provided, of course, that I can run faster than Strike when he comes home drunk).


The UK actually has two, the Human Rights Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_1), based on the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Equality Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060003_en.pdf). Both offer, in my opinion at least the same, and in some cases more protection than the US Bill of Rights. Both are subject to the whims of government in power, since both can be circumvented by the needs of national security for example.The Equality Act does not grant rights. It means that all British equally lack human rights.

The Human Rights Act simply regulates further provisions for European law. The rights themselves are in European law. These European laws are legally binding in and of themselves in the UK. European law is the only legally binding 'Bill of Rights' in Britain.

But hey, at least the basic human rights of Britain's subjects are protected by Europe. Unlike subjects in former British colonies like Australia - one of the few Western countries that lack a legally binding human rights document. ~;p

[Redleg]

I was responding to the claim that the American people have spoken. They haven't - only the people in those states have.

Which still means what - people are speaking about it, and some states have determined a ruling on it alreadly.




I see marriage as a right.

its a legal contract - hince its not a right



What you are describing is a privilege of the States to determine their marriage laws, what I am saying it is the right of the people to get married. The two are completely different things. one is a communal right, the other is an individual right.

You defeated your own arguement here - marriage by definition is a communal thing not a private one

[CountArach]

You defeated your own arguement here - marriage by definition is a communal thing not a private one
We disagree... again...

[Redleg]

We disagree... again...

Happens all the time. But you called it an individual right while marriage has in by definition a communal relationship to the state.


From Websters - using both parts of the definition.

"(1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>"

Now this definition describes marriage has I have been speaking a consensual and contractual relationship recongized by the law of the state. So in order to have same-sex marriage it has to follow the legal course established in the state's constitution. I find websters definition a bit on the weak side by the way, because it begins to define same-sex marriage but hestitates on fully defining it - like does not always mean exactly.

Which means you have to demonstrate that there is an individual right begin denied to overturn the current law. I don't see an individual right being denied to anyone, since the state is merely defining a communal relationship.

Are individuals being denied the ability to be gay?

[Andres]

After reading this thread, I am proud to be a Belgian.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is directly applicable under Belgian Law.

Idem dito for the European Convention on Human Rights.

The development of Belgium into a federal state also brought us something very worthwhile: The Constitutional Court ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Belgium). One of its' tasks is to make sure that Belgian laws do not violate the principles of equality and non-discrimination. It has the power to annul or suspend any law that violates those principles.

Like I said before, this thread is not about "Gay Rights", this is about discrimination, nothing else.

Denying people to marry because of their sex/the sex of their partner, is discrimination. Discrimination without justification is unworthy for a civilised nation. Period.

All men are equal before the law. That's what we should strive for.

If the US constitution does not guarantee the principles of equality and non-discrimination, then the US Constitution needs to be changed.

[lars573]

The 14th amendment deems the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman unconstitutional. By federal law, no state is permitted to prevent gay marriage.

The discrimination is not between gay and straight, but between male and female. Citizen X can not be disallowed to marry citizen Y, whereas it is allowed citizen Z, simply on the basis of sex. No more than that this distinction can be made on race.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is not formally legally binding in Australia either. Nor, for that matter, in France.

However, shiny enlightened Republics like France and the US have a Bill of Rights or a 'Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen' (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen). This unlike monarchies like the UK and Australia, which have to make do with customary laws and vague Medieval charters like Magna Carta and the sort, regulating the amount of rabbits and peasants noblemen can shoot on Thursdays or what have you.
Coming from one of those monarchies with a charter of rights and freedoms, I take offence to your insinuations. :whip:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
Also gay marriages were legalized in 8 provinces by the provincial supreme courts via the equality rights (section 15) of said charter. After which the federal government forced it on 2 provinces.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Coming from one of those monarchies with a charter of rights and freedoms, I take offence to your insinuations. :whip:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
Also gay marriages were legalized in 8 provinces by the provincial supreme courts via the equality rights (section 15) of said charter. After which the federal government forced it on 2 provinces.By Jove! Canada too!

It is becoming increasingly more clear that of all the civilised countries in the world. the only one lacking a Bill of Rights is Australia. Can we even consider Oz part of the civilised world anymore? :smash:

Interestingly, Canada followed the legal path that I suggested. Article 15 mentions nothing of discrimination based on sexual preference. This of course is not at all necessary to render a prohibtion of same-sex marriage unconstitutional. As under the US constitution, the crucial element is that the constitution prohibits the discrimination based on sex.


Canadian Charter of Rights:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The constitution needs to be interpreted literally when its wording is chrystal clear. As is the case here: 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens'. All States are explicity prohibited from implementing gender or racial requirements to enter any specific marriage.


The slippery slope argument fails. US law perfectly well distinguishes between one person and groups of persons. Or between a natural person, and a legal person. Between a person and an animal.
The argument that an end to requirements of gender to enter marriage means that anybody or anything can enter marriage is not supported by American law. Not in the slightest way.

Be fair cher Louis, I was making my counterpoint in regards to PERSONS. What people wish to do with their own lawn furniture is their business and would have no legal standing. I specifically limited my point to mentally competent adult citizens.

However, if we take that passage at its most literal, on what grounds COULD you restrict marriage to only two persons? Or prohibit concurrent marriages? By what principle would it be valid to prevent a brother and sister from marrying? However prescient our FF, or however open-minded the writers of this ammendment, I believe you are stretching the point past the original intent of either to make it inclusive of homosexuals et al.

When that ammendment was passed into law, the consideration that it would be used as a means to justify marriage between any other than a 1 female + 1 male combination would have been virtually unthinkable.

My point is not to present a slippery slope -- if A occurs then Z must occur -- but to highlight the value of original intent in reading these documents. Since I believe the writers of this ammendment did NOT mean to address women's suffrage or gay marriage (the ammendment was concerned with race), I believe the matter must be left up to the states.

Note, if homosexuality is ultimately confirmed to be a condition one is born with (I tend to believe that, but no conclusive proof exists), THEN the parallel with race becomes stronger.

[Kralizec]

If you ask me there's absolutely no good reason to enable heterosexual couples to get a legal status with all sorts of legal and fiscal perks, and to deny it to same sex couples. If you don't think it's discrimination, picture a law making it illegal to practice the sabbath on any other day than sunday and tell me if that's discriminatory.

That said, countries have been handing out marriage licenses for over two centuries and homosexuality has only recently gained some tolerance and even more recently, acceptance. It's thoroughly political, and the introduction of gay marriage or civil unions should proceed through elected officials and not through unelected magistrates.


Then go through the Legislature. All I am saying is this - if the Legislature isn't going to ensure a basic human right is met, the other branches have to do it. That is the nature of checks and balances.

Uh, no.

In the Netherlands the top court once refused to acknowledge a gay couple's right to marry because facilitating such a change was the job of the legislator. A couple of years later we were the first country in the world to introduce gay marriage.

[CountArach]

By Jove! Canada too!

It is becoming increasingly more clear that of all the civilised countries in the world. the only one lacking a Bill of Rights is Australia. Can we even consider Oz part of the civilised world anymore? :smash:
Well we don't, so there wouldn't be much lost.

[Koga No Goshi]

First lets forget the fact that gays arent nearly subject to 1/100000000 of the prejudice that blacks were.

I will give this topic more attention later Strike (to anyone who might have wondered I am buried at work at the moment) but I just had to throw out... this little comment was a big loser, Strike. When black people talk about the discrimination they experience, the same basic crowd who would respond with an attitude like "oh well how long has it been since slavery... name something serious in your lifetime, please" then turn around and say gay equality issues are a joke because they aren't 1/1000000000 as serious as the ones against blacks.

So, you can't win.

We are, thankfully, heading out of the era where every single black person has a story about a family member lynched, or shot by police, or losing or being refused a job they were qualified for, just because of prejudice. However, it is quite safe to say that a majority, if not all, of the presently living gay people in the U.S. have faced physical violence, the real and direct threat of such, the loss of a job, or had to conceal their sexuality in order to get, or keep, a job. So saying that gay people didn't come over on a slave ship is rather glib when a more realistic comparison would be, for example, the situation of many blacks in the 1960s where their equal legal rights either didn't fully exist or were widely unrecognized, and the situation of many gay people today where things like "Don't ask, don't tell" are still the law of the land, and discrimination against them is still, in many regards, absolutely legal and upheld. I honestly don't know why you or anyone else, especially someone who is not homophobic and not antagonistic to the concept of gay rights or equality, would feel the need to vehemently iterate that the legal and social problems facing gay people are in every way totally unanalagous to some of the history of civil rights for racial minorities. It comes off like a very desperate effort to insist that what discrimination does exist against gay people, is okay, because it "obviously isn't as bad" as what happened to blacks 150 or 300 years ago.

[Strike For The South]

I will give this topic more attention later Strike (to anyone who might have wondered I am buried at work at the moment) but I just had to throw out... this little comment was a big loser, Strike. When black people talk about the discrimination they experience, the same basic crowd who would respond with an attitude like "oh well how long has it been since slavery... name something serious in your lifetime, please" then turn around and say gay equality issues are a joke because they aren't 1/1000000000 as serious as the ones against blacks.

So, you can't win.

We are, thankfully, heading out of the era where every single black person has a story about a family member lynched, or shot by police, or losing or being refused a job they were qualified for, just because of prejudice. However, it is quite safe to say that a majority, if not all, of the presently living gay people in the U.S. have faced physical violence, the real and direct threat of such, the loss of a job, or had to conceal their sexuality in order to get, or keep, a job. So saying that gay people didn't come over on a slave ship is rather glib when a more realistic comparison would be, for example, the situation of many blacks in the 1960s where their equal legal rights either didn't fully exist or were widely unrecognized, and the situation of many gay people today where things like "Don't ask, don't tell" are still the law of the land, and discrimination against them is still, in many regards, absolutely legal and upheld. I honestly don't know why you or anyone else, especially someone who is not homophobic and not antagonistic to the concept of gay rights or equality, would feel the need to vehemently iterate that the legal and social problems facing gay people are in every way totally unanalagous to some of the history of civil rights for racial minorities. It comes off like a very desperate effort to insist that what discrimination does exist against gay people, is okay, because it "obviously isn't as bad" as what happened to blacks 150 or 300 years ago.

Hate crimes agianst gays are only 1/5 of the amount when compared to race and still less than by religon. Does that make it right? Hell no but then we have a disconnect. I dont see gay rights as the next logical step in the civil rights movement, and to equate the two is insulting. Gay people today are allowed to have parades and they are celebrated in some circles. When blacks converged they were met with dogs and hoses and the whites who sympathized with them were often worse off.

As someone who would like to see gays be on equal footing I suggest you drop this kind of mindsets because it will only put off the blacks and hispanics and we need there votes. Do you know why blacks come out so vehemently against gay marriage? Its because they are equated with the rights they fought so hard for.

My data: Link (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm)

[CountArach]

As someone who would like to see gays be on equal footing I suggest you drop this kind of mindsets because it will only put off the blacks and hispanics and we need there votes. Do you know why blacks come out so vehemently against gay marriage? Its because they are equated with the rights they fought so hard for.
Hispanics barely voted (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1) in favour of the proposition. In fact the reason why Blacks came out in favour of Prop 8 is because they are far more religious than the average voter. However, that is not the primary reason (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html) why the vote failed. I'll let Nate Silver take the rest:

Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I specifically limited my point to mentally competent adult citizens.


Note, if homosexuality is ultimately confirmed to be a condition one is born with (I tend to believe that, but no conclusive proof exists), THEN the parallel with race becomes stronger.I am specifically limiting myself to mentally competent adults only as well.

The nature and cause of homosexuality is not relevant. This is not about gay rights. Gays have all the rights they need. They are allowed to have sex, to get married, to have a job and to sit anywhere in a bus. What more could they possibly ask for? :no:

This is about unconstitutional requirements to marry. Mentally competent adult X must be free to marry mentally competent person Y. It is entirely unconstitutional to impose restrictions based on race or sex.

[Andres]

Note, if homosexuality is ultimately confirmed to be a condition one is born with (I tend to believe that, but no conclusive proof exists), THEN the parallel with race becomes stronger.

Does it really matter if homosexuality is a condition one is born with or not?


Mentally competent adult X must be free to marry mentally competent person Y.

Voilà.

Not allowing X to marry Y because X and Y are of the same sex is discrimination. Discrimination without justification which is unworthy for any civilised country nowadays.

[LittleGrizzly]

So did you come up with that by yourself or get it from somewhere else.... it really is the most compelling legal argument i have seen on the matter...

[Xiahou]

It is entirely unconstitutional to impose restrictions based on race or sex.Just like public restrooms, locker rooms, sports leagues, draft laws, military service, maternity leave, and so on right?


The nature and cause of homosexuality is not relevant. This is not about gay rights.I think we can agree about that. :yes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Does it really matter if homosexuality is a condition one is born with or not?

Only to the extent that, if it is, then the parallels drawn between race and homosexuality would be stronger. We have already held that race should not be used as a "qualifier" to ones rights.

Remember, much of the "traditionalist" opposition to homosexuality etc. centers on the belief that it is a chosen behavior -- and certain behaviors have always been held to be a legitimate reason to curtail the rights and privileges of a citizen.

[Strike For The South]

Hispanics barely voted (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1) in favour of the proposition. In fact the reason why Blacks came out in favour of Prop 8 is because they are far more religious than the average voter. However, that is not the primary reason (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html) why the vote failed. I'll let Nate Silver take the rest:

Well that kinda of sucks the hispanic vote went yes even though it was now or never

-The majority of the bloc is young, they will only get older and more conservative
-The majority live in SoCal and all that libreal thought couldnt get them the vote
-The en vouge notion of the hispanic as a oppressed immigrant group is on its way out in Texas and Cali. It peaked a couple years back and now they are voting allot more with republicans and with there catholic roots in ten years when there middle class and have families its over, esp if the civil rights thing is brought up.



So did you come up with that by yourself or get it from somewhere else.... it really is the most compelling legal argument i have seen on the matter...

Is this one of those lovely sarcasm things I've heard so much about? Or were you not even talking to me? Because that one happens allot to! :laugh4:

[CountArach]

Well that kinda of sucks the hispanic vote went yes even though it was now or never

-The majority of the bloc is young, they will only get older and more conservative
Actually the very 45-64 age group voted at roughly the same level as the 30-44 group, but most crucially as they start to Americanise (Assuming most of the youngest group are second generation or longer) they are more likely to pick up liberal values. Obama picked up most of the Latino vote.

-The majority live in SoCal and all that libreal thought couldnt get them the vote
The election was over well before the polls closed in California, meaning that Obama turnout was somewhat dampened. Further, the Yes on Prop 8 had a huge amount of money donate by churches (Far more than the No on Prop 8 could get together), not to mention a far better GOTV operation... which is to say that the No vote had No ground game at all.

-The en vouge notion of the hispanic as a oppressed immigrant group is on its way out in Texas and Cali. It peaked a couple years back and now they are voting allot more with republicans and with there catholic roots in ten years when there middle class and have families its over, esp if the civil rights thing is brought up.
Obama won 67% of the Latino vote nationally. Bush won 35% and 44% of the vote in 2000 and 2004 respectively. They are still a long way from being a Republican voting bloc and Obama may be able to solidify them as Democratic.

[Goofball]

Not really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights#United_States).

But again, it's pretty irrelevant since no one is denying anyone the ability to get married.

No matter how many times I hear that old conservative gem, it still gets a chuckle out of me. That's gold, I tell ya Jerry, Gold!

[Rhyfelwyr]

No matter how many times I hear that old conservative gem, it still gets a chuckle out of me. That's gold, I tell ya Jerry, Gold!

And yet it's constitutionally sound. :shrug:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

And yet it's constitutionally sound. :shrug:

Would it be constitutionally sound to change the law so that if you wanted to get married you had to marry someone of the same sex? Xiahou certainly wouldn't object, because his rights wouldn't change...

[Goofball]

Exactly. A Constitutional amendment is exactly what's needed. The Founders saw this problem happening and they devised a way to get around it.

An Amendment is and always has been the proper way to change the law when change has been required - NOT judges arbitrarily deciding it.

So, if one of your states passed a law today saying, for example, that deaf people, due to the extra burden they place on the state should all be subject to a ban on marriage (for fear they might procreate and produce more deaf people), you would not support that state's supreme court right to overturn that law on the grounds that it violated that state's constitution?

[Strike For The South]

its not constitutionally sound ITS NOT IN THE THING...for anyone!

[Goofball]

Why oh why does the slave trade always come into these arguments over gay rights? :wall:

Because the issues are remarkably similar? That would be my guess anyway.

[Strike For The South]

So, if one of your states passed a law today saying, for example, that deaf people, due to the extra burden they place on the state should all be subject to a ban on marriage (for fear they might procreate and produce more deaf people), you would not support that state's supreme court right to overturn that law on the grounds that it violated that state's constitution?

No I would not. I would call my local congressmen and yell at the man.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Would it be constitutionally sound to change the law so that if you wanted to get married you had to marry someone of the same sex? Xiahou certainly wouldn't object, because his rights wouldn't change...

He would lose his right to a true marriage, which I think it's fair enough to say is the only kind the founding fathers had in mind.

If we're picking on technicalities, what about Xiahou's point regarding different-sex toilets, changing rooms etc?

If we're going to pretend that men and women are exactly the same, then why should they have seperate facitilies? I'ts just like the segregation the blacks used to suffer... :rolleyes:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

He would lose his right to a true marriage, which I think it's fair enough to say is the only kind the founding fathers had in mind.

You wouldn't want the founding father's idea of marriage reinstated.


If we're picking on technicalities, what about Xiahou's point regarding different-sex toilets, changing rooms etc?

You've never seen a unisex bathroom?


If we're going to pretend that men and women are exactly the same, then why should they have seperate facitilies? I'ts just like the segregation the blacks used to suffer... :rolleyes:

No one is pretending men and women are the same...you're trying to pretend that gay people don't exist (it's just gay behavior) :laugh4:

[LittleGrizzly]

Is this one of those lovely sarcasm things I've heard so much about? Or were you not even talking to me? Because that one happens allot to!

It would have made a nice sarcastic comment looking back... unfortunatly it was serious... and not actually to you but to our resident Texupean (it was either that or Euras)

[Xiahou]

Would it be constitutionally sound to change the law so that if you wanted to get married you had to marry someone of the same sex? Xiahou certainly wouldn't object, because his rights wouldn't change...Sure, go for it- I think that'd be a popular bill.

People seem to forget that the state actually had its interests in mind when recognizing marriages. These "what if we lived in a world where all marriages had to be sames sex?" scenarios are fun though. Sure, it'd be valid by the same token that hetersexual marriages are valid and constitutional.


You've never seen a unisex bathroom?Try using the women's shower room next time you're at the gym and see if you're "discriminated" against. :laugh4:

[Askthepizzaguy]

There are many arguments against legalized gay marriage in the united states, to keep the discussion specific.

1. It is against certain religious doctrine.


Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Of course, even worse than acts of gay sex... clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp are abominations!


11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray....

And of course, according to God, bats are actually birds.


...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

So therefore, the Bible is an excellent resource upon which to build both law and science. It's an excellent argument when deciding civil rights. While we are at it, perhaps stoning heretics and prostitutes should be legalized as well.

Should you be stranded on a deserted island, I hope you never are forced to eat a stork, because then you are an abomination unto the lord, like all gay men, and anything without scales and fins. Red Lobster is the devil's restaurant.

2. If you make gay marriage legal, you must therefore also endorse human-pig marriages and human-horse mating practices. And polygamy must be legalized as well. What is to stop someone from marrying a carrot?

One could argue that by allowing non-whites and women to vote, we must also extend the vote to non-citizens, and non-adults. Perhaps even the non-living. The Republicans seem to get a lot of dead people voting for them. Perhaps they would be amenable to allowing the dead to vote legally. I also know that they would benefit from good Catholic families allowing their 9 children to vote. And illegal immigrants seem to have gotten a pass from the Bush administration; why not let non-citizens vote too? Should you do all of these things, I can basically guarantee there would never be another democrat in office anywhere ever again.

That's the slippery slope argument. Merely because it was right for all law-abiding adult citizens the right to vote, that does not mean we must therefore extend the vote to groups which should not have the right.

Instead of arguing why gays should have equal rights as straights, we are left arguing why cucumbers are not suitable husbands, and why Sarah Silverman should not actually be legally allowed to marry her dog. I thought that the argument was about gay rights, specifically gay marriage (implied), not polygamists who are physically attracted to rodents. To meander into such an absurd discussion is to employ a rhetorical trick, and also a logical fallacy, that in order to change a law or reinforce an existing law, there can never be limits, exclusions, or exceptions to the law under any circumstance.

One who is losing an argument can employ the slippery slope argument to get the opposing side to argue a different point. But the fact remains that it avoids the original point and it attempts to get the opposition to argue against a red herring, in this case, polygamists and beast-o-philes, which is really insulting, and perhaps child predators as well. The case for gay marriage rights being compared to beast sex and what NAMBLA stands for is insulting, disingenuous, a red herring, and it conveniently avoids the OP's responsibility which is to argue against gay marriage or "gay rights", not something else.

I could ignore the OP's argument and focus on red herrings myself, and that would waste everyone's time. Should I bring up voting rights again? It serves well as an example of a red herring.

To have a real debate or discussion, we can't employ the slippery slope argument, because it conveniently dodges the real issues.

3. The law does not specifically advocate marriage between gays.

The law does not specifically advocate marriage between an tall person and a midget, but it does not specifically disallow it either. The law also says that all persons are equal under the law, and because it does not specifically disallow male-male or female-female marriage, then it should be legal by default.

Although the legality of a thing does not make it right, the constitution does not prohibit gay marriage. That's why Bush and company decided to try and make an amendment prohibiting it, because at present our highest law is either ambivalent or implying they have that right. You would have to change the law in order to defeat gay marriage, but you can never take away gay marriage rights, because a right is something you have whether the law agrees with it or not. Natural rights are not dependent on our agreement, they are dependent upon the natural freedoms a person should have without trampling on the freedoms of others.

4. The voters have decided against gay marriage.

Votes, judges, and even the founding fathers allowed slavery and sexism to be part of our legal structure. That does not make it correct, and that does not mean it should not be overturned.

Realistically, the supreme court should uphold the Constitution and overturn any law banning gay marriage, as it is literally and by definition discriminatory, and unconstitutional.

However, even if there were no Constitutional basis for gay rights, the constitution itself has been used as a document to keep civil rights away from minorities, and itself has been changed. If it were the case that Bush and company were successful in banning gay marriage, it would dirty the document of our laws, and it would be yet another bad bit of legal code in the Constitution that warranted change, based on natural rights and equal treatment under the law. There is no reason why two consenting adults should not be allowed to marry, and because there is no reason for prohibiting it, it must be legal, and even if it were illegal, the law would be wrong.

The argument based in religion is unreasonable and we are officially secular. The argument based on slippery slopes or other logical fallacies are also unreasonable and logically flawed, and any slippery slope argument could be used to undermine all laws and rights. Whether gay marriage is legal or not, whether there are votes on it or not, the fact remains that two adults have a natural right to be with one another, and have the same right to be married as two straight adults, or two black adults, or a white and a black adult, etc.

The argument does not even need to be made why gays should have civil rights; they already have natural rights, and the law should reflect that. The opposing argument needs to be made why gays, and gays specifically, should be treated differently.

One does not even need to point out that a significant percentage of the population is born intersexed, or are sexually ambiguous, or are forced upon birth to pick a gender, perhaps even the wrong one, even though they are naturally something else. Are we to deny intergender people the right to marry as well?

Because a person was born with male and female parts, does that mean under the "one man, one woman" mantra, they can only marry other intergender people, or never be allowed marriage at all? The rigid and discriminatory viewpoint that only a male and female couple have a right to marriage is as flawed and as backward as any which forces a person born with an ambiguous gender to accept a sexual role they are uncomfortable with, or surgically defines a person against their will, or disallows them to marry anyone, ever, because they aren't technically male or female in the fullest sense.

Should we disallow infertile people to marry? Ah, but isn't this a slippery slope argument? Perhaps. But if you allow the one, you must allow the other.

The bottom line is, you must define WHY gay people should not have their natural right to be with one another, their natural right to be parents (there are plenty of gay parents) their natural right to adopt children (what if a person did not prefer either gender, or were bisexual? Should they have no right to adopt?) or to simply be with their beloved in a hospital, or claim their deceased loved one's property simply because a few people in our culture are not tolerant and welcoming of them.

You either come up with a rational, fact-based argument which shows that gay people are somehow unworthy of equal treatment, or you swallow the fact that they deserve equal treatment under the law, equal to straight people, equal to other parents, equal to other married couples, equal to other potential adoptive parents, equal to other widows and widowers.

The problem here is that some have arrived at a viewpoint, and are attempting to rationalize it after the fact using the legal code and using religion and using rhetorical devices to convince others to agree with them, whereas the opposing side has examined the evidence, looked at the arguments, and can conclusively prove that neither the religious arguments nor the precedence arguments nor the slippery slope arguments or any other argument presented thusfar can justify continued unequal treatment of gay people versus straight people.

No amount of reasoning or proof will convince you, you've made up your mind. But you're still objectively wrong on this point, and even if you have the votes, even if you had the constitution, even if you had precedent, even if every religion agreed with you, and even if you employ a slippery slope argument, you're still objectively wrong.

The natural rights of mankind do not bend to anything as simple as religion, law, or personal opinion, and especially not to bad logic and post-facto justifications. They simply are, and no amount of rhetoric can change them. Since they are supposed to form a basis of our laws, ethics, and moral code, I cannot see why anyone would oppose them. But we will have to simply disagree.

Some will champion equality under the law based on natural rights, and others will argue their reasons for opposing that equality. In a hundred years, and perhaps significantly sooner, society will not look kindly upon those who impeded moral and social progress. Some of us are just impatient for history to make it's judgments, and would prefer to arrive at a socially equitable system of laws today instead of tomorrow.

Like civil rights for African Americans, when it comes to rights for gays, tomorrow just isn't good enough. Natural rights must be observed now, by everyone, and our legal code must conform to those rights. Only then could we claim to have a fair and rational system based on an ideal, rather than an Enlightenment-Era document which only began to address the question of justice, and did not live up to it's professed idealism.

[Yoyoma1910]

What is to stop someone from marrying a carrot?




Sometimes my wife makes me wish I had married a carrot.

[Xiahou]

You either come up with a rational, fact-based argument which shows that gay people are somehow unworthy of equal treatment, or you swallow the fact that they deserve equal treatment under the law, equal to straight people, equal to other parents, equal to other married couples, equal to other potential adoptive parents, equal to other widows and widowers.While we're making demands of each other, would it be too much to ask that we respond to arguments actually made in the thread instead of attacking stawmen? :wink:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

While we're making demands of each other, would it be too much to ask that we respond to arguments actually made in the thread instead if attacking stawmen? :wink:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2059472&postcount=1

[Strike For The South]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2059472&postcount=1

This was a spin off of the prop 8 debate and both those positions were said to me. ATPG didn't even argue my points. Just a bunch of long winded points that everyone seems to argue because they get there talking points from the media no one looks at the document or how we are supposed to operate.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'd like everyone to know that I haven't gotten a single argument from any media source. Frankly this issue is taboo in the mainstream media, and no one, not even the liberals and democrats in power, are really discussing these issues. I note that you didn't bother refuting anything I said, even after I responded to your viewpoint.

I'll also note that some of the "long-winded" arguments against gay marriage have not been characterized as such by myself. It seems clear that instead of refuting, you've willingly conceded the entire argument. No hard feelings though.

:bow:

[Strike For The South]

I'd like everyone to know that I haven't gotten a single argument from any media source. Frankly this issue is taboo in the mainstream media, and no one, not even the liberals and democrats in power, are really discussing these issues. I note that you didn't bother refuting anything I said, even after I responded to your viewpoint.

I'll also note that some of the "long-winded" arguments against gay marriage have not been characterized as such by myself. It seems clear that instead of refuting, you've willingly conceded the entire argument. No hard feelings though.

:bow:

No, I would still like to know why you think the courts should have the right to legalize gay marriage when marriage itself is said no where in the constitution. I have never once mentioned religion or breakdown of traditional marriage. The courts are asked to interpret the constitution not legislate for a perceived "right" I concede nothing :wink:

[Redleg]

The bottom line is, you must define WHY gay people should not have their natural right to be with one another, their natural right to be parents (there are plenty of gay parents) their natural right to adopt children (what if a person did not prefer either gender, or were bisexual? Should they have no right to adopt?) or to simply be with their beloved in a hospital, or claim their deceased loved one's property simply because a few people in our culture are not tolerant and welcoming of them.

I wont respond to the other points because they simply are not my arguements. However I will address this point. How are these natural rights being denied? I dont know of any laws that say individuals who are gay can not be a natural parent to a child that they helped to concieve. Can you actually show a state in the United States of America that has such a law/

As for adoption, again I know of no law that states a gay individual can not adopt a child, can you site a state that has such a law?

Now once again there is a simple way alreadly established that allows an individual to be with their beloved, same as with having a claim to the property of the deceased.

You do realized that common law marriage couples also have this extact problem if they do not establish power or attorneys and wills because they have no proof of a marriage certificate from the state.

So once again I must ask what right is being denied to a gay individual?




You either come up with a rational, fact-based argument which shows that gay people are somehow unworthy of equal treatment, or you swallow the fact that they deserve equal treatment under the law, equal to straight people, equal to other parents, equal to other married couples, equal to other potential adoptive parents, equal to other widows and widowers.

The same can be stated with your arguement here, come up with a rational fact-based arguement about why the process to have same-sex marriage should not be done by the legislative body or the constitutional process. This is the point of Strike's arguement and even my own. Courts can only rule on the constitutionality of the law - its up to the people throught their representives to formulate the law through the legislative process or the constitutional process.




The problem here is that some have arrived at a viewpoint, and are attempting to rationalize it after the fact using the legal code and using religion and using rhetorical devices to convince others to agree with them, whereas the opposing side has examined the evidence, looked at the arguments, and can conclusively prove that neither the religious arguments nor the precedence arguments nor the slippery slope arguments or any other argument presented thusfar can justify continued unequal treatment of gay people versus straight people.

Not really true, religion has no base desire to have laws done by the constitutional process through the legislative body or the amendment process. Again demonstrate to me where the indivdiual rights are being violated?




No amount of reasoning or proof will convince you, you've made up your mind. But you're still objectively wrong on this point, and even if you have the votes, even if you had the constitution, even if you had precedent, even if every religion agreed with you, and even if you employ a slippery slope argument, you're still objectively wong.
Strawman arguement about his position - he has clearly stated that his desire is for the change in the marriage laws should follow the constitutional process. Stating that a civil right is being denied without actually providing the proof of the violation does not constitute proof. State sanctioned marriage is by definition a communal process, which does not necessary imply that it is a right.



The natural rights of mankind do not bend to anything as simple as religion, law, or personal opinion, and especially not to bad logic and post-facto justifications. They simply are, and no amount of rhetoric can change them. Since they are supposed to form a basis of our laws, ethics, and moral code, I cannot see why anyone would oppose them. But we will have to simply disagree.

Where does it state marriage by the state is a natural right?



Some will champion equality under the law based on natural rights, and others will argue their reasons for opposing that equality. In a hundred years, and perhaps significantly sooner, society will not look kindly upon those who impeded moral and social progress. Some of us are just impatient for history to make it's judgments, and would prefer to arrive at a socially equitable system of laws today instead of tomorrow.

again good rethoric but does not demonstrate where marriage is a natural right.




Like civil rights for African Americans, when it comes to rights for gays, tomorrow just isn't good enough. Natural rights must be observed now, by everyone, and our legal code must conform to those rights. Only then could we claim to have a fair and rational system based on an ideal, rather than an Enlightenment-Era document which only began to address the question of justice, and did not live up to it's professed idealism.


Again what right is being denied to a person because they are gay? I hear this a lot, but very little substance is added to the rethoric of it. Since marriage is not an individual right - the state has the ability to establish what types of partnership's it desire to recongize. If the definition is desired to be changed then it should follow the constitutional process that has been established by the people.

Or do you not believe in the system of laws and due process that is established by the document that you so strongly seemly protest against.

[Goofball]

For all of you on the right who are against gay marriage:

You can sing and dance and talk about constitutionalism and states' rights all day long. Those are arguments that, however invalid, at least make you feel better about yourselves.

But the simple fact is, you don't like faggots.

That's why none of you can ever answer the most basic question at the heart of the issue: How would it possibly hurt you to let two men or two women join together in love and partnership, and enjoy the same protections, benefits, and privileges under the law as a hetero couple enjoys?

Sorry, somebody has to call a spade a spade in here.

Have a nice day.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's why none of you can ever answer the most basic question at the heart of the issue: How would it possibly hurt you to let two men or two women join together in love and partnership, and enjoy the same protections, benefits, and privileges under the law as a hetero couple enjoys?

:strawman2:

Just as well that's not what we're questioning then.

This is about whether or not it's constitutional for homosexual couples to get married, not whether their getting married somehow hurts or limits the rights of others.

[Goofball]

:strawman2:

Just as well that's not what we're questioning then.

This is about whether or not it's constitutional for homosexual couples to get married, not whether their getting married somehow hurts or limits the rights of others.

Case and point.

Thank you for your contribution.

[Strike For The South]

For all of you on the right who are against gay marriage:

You can sing and dance and talk about constitutionalism and states' rights all day long. Those are arguments that, however invalid, at least make you feel better about yourselves.

But the simple fact is, you don't like faggots.

That's why none of you can ever answer the most basic question at the heart of the issue: How would it possibly hurt you to let two men or two women join together in love and partnership, and enjoy the same protections, benefits, and privileges under the law as a hetero couple enjoys?

Sorry, somebody has to call a spade a spade in here.

Have a nice day.

So you havent read the topic I assume? Lets forget the fact that I have said many times here that I am a libertarian who is probably the biggest social liberal on the site or I have come out for gay marriage in many other threads. At the end of the day I cant allow the constitution to be used this way. The whole point of checks and balances is so one branch does not have to much power. The courts are overstepping there bounds.

[Goofball]

So you havent read the topic I assume? Lets forget the fact that I have said many times here that I am a libertarian who is probably the biggest social liberal on the site or I have come out for gay marriage in many other threads. At the end of the day I cant allow the constitution to be used this way. The whole point of checks and balances is so one branch does not have to much power. The courts are overstepping there bounds.

Case and point.

Thank you for your contribution.

[Strike For The South]

Case and point.

Thank you for your contribution.

So we should just skirt the law to get something we want? We are at the end of the enlightenment era thats for sure...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sometimes my wife makes me wish I had married a carrot.

Just be thankful she's never told you SHE would prefer a carrot....


:smartass2:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

For all of you on the right who are against gay marriage:

You can sing and dance and talk about constitutionalism and states' rights all day long. Those are arguments that, however invalid, at least make you feel better about yourselves.

But the simple fact is, you don't like faggots.

That's why none of you can ever answer the most basic question at the heart of the issue: How would it possibly hurt you to let two men or two women join together in love and partnership, and enjoy the same protections, benefits, and privileges under the law as a hetero couple enjoys?

Sorry, somebody has to call a spade a spade in here.

Have a nice day.


For most folks, I would guess it has nothing to do with liking or mis-liking -- mostly its a result of fear.


There are those who oppose gay marriage because they fear their own sexuality and want nothing that questions/runs counter to the traditional verdict on marriage as an institution.

There are those who oppose gay marriage because the fear that this is one step in a process of attacking all traditional institutions and nullifying their value/imprint on society.

There are those who oppose gay marriage because they fear the wrath of God if they do not.

There are those who oppose gay marriage because they fear change in any form and wish for everything to stay the same, or failing that to change at a glacial pace that is easier to absorb.

Most conservatives are loving folks who want everyone to succeed -- but by intellectual inclination they are also people who occasionally listen to the counsel of their fears and seek to protect their loved ones, their communities, and their society from a perceived threat.



Ultimately, of course, the "marriage" of two gay men would have no direct -- and little indirect -- impact on my marriage. I am capable of placing enough strain on that relationship all on my own, and events/relationships external to that are of limited impact at best.



I suspect that gay marriage will be an accomplished fact before too long. It is impossible to demonstrate personal harm to other individuals and/or their rights and it is nearly as difficult to demonstrate harm accruing from societal changes. Given the a-religious stance of our constitutional government, the "rights" argument has plenty of ammo and the argument against does not.



Marriage is, to me, something sacred and not merely a civil union. As I have often stated, I wish government were out of the marriage issue entirely so that we can separate marriage and individual rights. However, government NEVER gets out of something entirely once its hooks are in, so I will just have to learn to live with my disappointment.

[Xiahou]

That's why none of you can ever answer the most basic question at the heart of the issue: How would it possibly hurt you to let two men or two women join together in love and partnership, and enjoy the same protections, benefits, and privileges under the law as a hetero couple enjoys? So that's the standard then? I thought it was supposed to be "How will it help me?" for a person to actively support something. ~:handball:

[CrossLOPER]

So that's the standard then? I thought it was supposed to be "How will it help me?" for a person to actively support something. ~:handball:
Clearly, anyone who thinks gay marriage is OK likes it up the bum.

[Kralizec]

So once again I must ask what right is being denied to a gay individual?

A gay man has the same right to marry a woman that every man does. He isn't going to be interested in using this right however. To use my previous analogy: if it became illegal to hold a sabbath on any day but sunday for everybody regardless of religious affiliation, a jew would feel discriminated against despite the fact that he has the same rights as everybody else. (and to top it: it's much, much easier to argue that religion is a choice)

A marriage is a legal sanction of a relationship that gives you and your partner certain rights and duties towards eachother and has numerous advantages, fiscal and otherwise, that aren't as easy to acquire without it, or even impossible. Instead of saying that gay people are oppressed, it would be more correct to say that the heterosexual majority gets preferential treatment.

That said I agree with Strike that the judiciary ought to know its place.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Not allowing them to marry (even with all the same rights) is just an insult to them. They're considered 'second rate' and unfit for "marriage". It's a shame some people can't get over such pointless crap and allow them the same exact things as heterosexual couples. Boggles my mind....but then again I've seen headlines about Prop 8 in California larger then Republican house majority speaker Boehler sueing Bernanke and Paulson for withholding the current 700bn bailout information even though it's illegal....which is more important?

and we wonder...

[Redleg]

For all of you on the right who are against gay marriage:

You can sing and dance and talk about constitutionalism and states' rights all day long. Those are arguments that, however invalid, at least make you feel better about yourselves.

But the simple fact is, you don't like faggots.

That's why none of you can ever answer the most basic question at the heart of the issue: How would it possibly hurt you to let two men or two women join together in love and partnership, and enjoy the same protections, benefits, and privileges under the law as a hetero couple enjoys?

Sorry, somebody has to call a spade a spade in here.

Have a nice day.

LOL - when one can not provide an adequate arguement about what rights are being violated the counter is always something like this.

I find it interesting Goofy that you take such a bigoted position regarding the issue. Are you intolerate of people having different opinions then yourself? And noticed that you are the one who used a degrading term toward homosexuals - haven't seen anyone else use that term in this discussion besides yourself. SO why do you hate gay men so much that you wish to degrade them with that term?

Again I must ask what individual right is being denied to the gay individual in this manner?

[Louis VI the Fat]

It would have made a nice sarcastic comment looking back... unfortunatly it was serious... and not actually to you but to our resident Texupean (it was either that or Euras)If you mean me - yes, the argument is entirely mine. :balloon2:

I guess I am one of only a handful of people, if not the only one, who fully understand the US constitution and its one and only proper and inescapable legal interpretation. :book:

Everybody else is a homophobe or a just a closet homosexual.

[Goofball]

LOL - when one can not provide an adequate arguement about what rights are being violated the counter is always something like this.

I find it interesting Goofy that you take such a bigoted position regarding the issue. Are you intolerate of people having different opinions then yourself? And noticed that you are the one who used a degrading term toward homosexuals - haven't seen anyone else use that term in this discussion besides yourself. SO why do you hate gay men so much that you wish to degrade them with that term?

Again I must ask what individual right is being denied to the gay individual in this manner?

Case and point.

Thank you for your contribution.

[Goofball]

So that's the standard then? I thought it was supposed to be "How will it help me?" for a person to actively support something. ~:handball:

I'm glad I'm not a charity trying to collect in your neighborhood.

[Redleg]

Case and point.

Incorrect - it was a rebuttal of your bigoted statement. To bad your wrapped up in your own delusions that you believe that people are not entitled to believe in the constitutional process. I see also that you avoid answering the question - what individaul rights are being denied to an individual who happens to be gay? Until that question is answered you have not made an arguement that supports your case and point.




Thank you for your contribution.

Your welcome.

[Yoyoma1910]

When do I get to marry a carrot?

[Ronin]

When do I get to marry a carrot?

I say as soon as the carrot becomes sentient and develops free will ....I think you got a case.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I say as soon as the carrot becomes sentient and develops free will ....I think you got a case.

What about relatives?

[Ronin]

What about relatives?

if they are consenting adults...why the hell not?
I wouldn´t advocate something like that...but it's none of my concern/problem what they do.

[Rhyfelwyr]

if they are consenting adults...why the hell not?
I wouldn´t advocate something like that...but it's none of my concern/problem what they do.

Well they could create horrifically mutilated children for a start - and then its the childs problem.

[Ronin]

Well they could create horrifically mutilated children for a start - and then its the childs problem.

there are plenty of things that can lead to children being born malformed....including incorrect behavior by a pregnant woman.....

people also jeopardize their own health every day by eating unhealthy foods, having unhealty habits and engaging unnecessarily in dangerous activities for fun....

but we don´t make any of those things illegal....so why should this be?

[Rhyfelwyr]

So its quite acceptable that a baby should be born retarded and physically deformed, and grow up knowing that its mums also its sister - and we should accept this because we wouldn't want to trample on people's 'rights'? :dizzy2:

Fat people make themselves fat, if they do extreme sports or whatever they are only endangering themselves.

The muddy water is over things like pregnant mothers smoking. This is a chance that it could cause some harm to the baby, but probably not enough to justify banning the mother from smoking.

There is a line though that can be crossed when things are no longer acceptable. For example, a mother who decides to celebrate finding out she's pregnant by drinking a bucket of wine.

[Ronin]

So its quite acceptable that a baby should be born retarded and physically deformed, and grow up knowing that its mums also its sister - and we should accept this because we wouldn't want to trample on people's 'rights'? :dizzy2:

Fat people make themselves fat, if they do extreme sports or whatever they are only endangering themselves.

The muddy water is over things like pregnant mothers smoking. This is a chance that it could cause some harm to the baby, but probably not enough to justify banning the mother from smoking.

There is a line though that can be crossed when things are no longer acceptable. For example, a mother who decides to celebrate finding out she's pregnant by drinking a bucket of wine.

I will agree with you that I don't find this correct behavior....but then again...this isn't illegal...neither do I think it should be.

[Strike For The South]

Im going to agree with Ronin

[Yoyoma1910]

So wait, all y'all still talking about carrots? Because wouldn't the breeding of a human and a carrot create strange mutations anyway?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Pregnancies are difficult when it comes to rights because in the end there are two people involved, and only one can consent when harm is being done.

This doesn't just apply to people who see foetuses as human, because many of the defect caused by stupidity during pregnancy are not apparent until the baby is born, and recongnised as a human in everyones eyes.

But then, what can you do in reality? :shrug:

[m52nickerson]

All I can say is what happened to:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Were are the equal right?

Why are we preventing some peoples pursuit of happiness when it will not take away from our own?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Because marriage is a specific privilege recognised by the government. If priveleges had to be accepted by the government to comply to human rights, then nobody would ever pay taxes.

Really, any marriage at all should not be recognised by the government. If the gay marriage activists attempt to argue that homosexual marriages are constitutional, they are doomed to failure, because no marriage is constitutional, it is a seperate contract between two people, non-related to the state. Whether or not the current marriage system practical in reality, homosexuals are not discriminated against from a legal point of view, and so cannot complain on those grounds.

Heterosexual marriages are a quirk in the system. Arguing against the nature of marriage is also not the correct approach, some people may give marriage a different meaning but it won't change what marriage has always been taken for granted as meaning.

The only constitutional option, as far as I can see, it to scrap marriage altogether regarding its priveleges recognised by the government, and make it a purely religious institution. Of course it doesn't have to be specifically religious, any two people can enter into a contract.

The bonus of this is that I also wouldn't have to recognise this contract, no more than the state would recognise my own if I was to marry. Everyone can have their own views on what marriage means.

[m52nickerson]

it is a seperate contract between two people, non-related to the state. Whether or not the current marriage system practical in reality, homosexuals are not discriminated against from a legal point of view, and so cannot complain on those grounds.



Since it is the states that issue a marriage license that state is related.

The problem is that marriages confer privileges on those couples that can't be duplicated by other contracts, like filing taxes jointly, tax withholding at the married rate.......

Civil unions do not even confer these. So Homosexual couples are discriminated against.

[ICantSpellDawg]

All I can say is what happened to:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Were are the equal right?

Why are we preventing some peoples pursuit of happiness when it will not take away from our own?

There is no evidence that anyone who wrote that had the "right of gays to marry one another" in mind. In fact, I believe that they would have balked at the notion. Gay marriage is one of those unfathomable - not because it was technologically out there, but because it is absurd.

This is no civil rights issue.

[m52nickerson]

There is no evidence that anyone who wrote that had the "right of gays to marry one another" in mind. In fact, I believe that they would have balked at the notion. Gay marriage is one of those unfathomable - not because it was technologically out there, but because it is absurd.

This is no civil rights issue.

Am sure when the second amendment was written they did not has modern weapons in mind, perhaps we should only be allowed to own muskets.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Am sure when the second amendment was written they did not has modern weapons in mind, perhaps we should only be allowed to own muskets.

The Declaration of Independence holds no legal sway over the Constitution, Jefferson owned slaves, yadayadayada.

[m52nickerson]

The Declaration of Independence holds no legal sway over the Constitution, Jefferson owned slaves, yadayadayada.

Your right, but it goes to the point that just because idea like Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness did not have modern specifics in mind does not mean they are not relevant today. It was no the principal that all men are created equal that slaves were freed.

So, how do you justify standing in the way of others pursuit of happiness.

[Strike For The South]

I made a strawman SOZ

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So, how do you justify standing in the way of others pursuit of happiness.

Don't ask silly questions like that mr. nickerson, this thread is about the constitution :stare:

[m52nickerson]

Don't ask silly questions like that mr. nickerson, this thread is about the constitution :stare:

.....and I thought it was now about Gay marriage, oh it was.

That arguments of if marriage it self civil right or not is used because people who support traditional marriage know that it is not going to be taken away. The constitution for the a large part states what government can't take from people, so it is no surprise that marriage is not in their. With all the argument against gay marriage people forget we are talking about people who just want to build a life together just like hetero couples. Whether you like it or not, if you are arguing against gay marriage you are arguing against peoples pursuit of happiness.

[ICantSpellDawg]

.....and I thought it was now about Gay marriage, oh it was.

That arguments of if marriage it self civil right or not is used because people who support traditional marriage know that it is not going to be taken away. The constitution for the a large part states what government can't take from people, so it is no surprise that marriage is not in their. With all the argument against gay marriage people forget we are talking about people who just want to build a life together just like hetero couples. Whether you like it or not, if you are arguing against gay marriage you are arguing against peoples pursuit of happiness.

Should the government be able to restrict people from marriage based on age? If it is a civil right, why would you cut it off based on something as foolish as age?

Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman of an age described by law and without too many existing familial connections. There is no illegal or immoral discrimination going on here.

Since it is not a legitimate constitutional question and is a matter of public policy, the appropriate legislature should either change it or not. You are trying to make civil marriage into some bizarre metaphysical union based on a concept that is not inherent to the institution. By all means try, but try to play fair. Civil union, if open to all, is an interesting option as is the abolition of the civil institution of marriage to be replaced by an unions with no interest in the biological functions or family life. These should be looked into by the people who write and re-write policy and not by various panels of unelected judges with a separate hob description.

[m52nickerson]

Should the government be able to restrict people from marriage based on age? If it is a civil right, why would you cut it off based on something as foolish as age?

Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman of an age described by law and without too many existing familial connections. There is no illegal or immoral discrimination going on here.

Since it is not a legitimate constitutional question and is a matter of public policy, the appropriate legislature should either change it or not. You are trying to make civil marriage into some bizarre metaphysical union based on a concept that is not inherent to the institution. By all means try, but try to play fair. Civil union, if open to all, is an interesting option as is the abolition of the civil institution of marriage to be replaced by an unions with no interest in the biological functions or family life. These should be looked into by the people who write and re-write policy and not by various panels of unelected judges with a separate hob description.

Laws regarding age affects all people the same. If someone is to young to marry it does not matter their sex or the sex of the person they want to marry. With not allowing gay marriage there is discrimination because people are not allowed to marry because of no other reason then their sex. That is sexual discrimination.

Civil Unions don't carry the benefits from the federal government as marriage, so it is not he same. Couples in civil unions can't files taxes jointly. Insurance may not cover partners in a civil unions because there rules state that people have to be married. So no, they are not the same.

Please spare me the talk about the definition of marriage, or the institution of marriage, or the sanctity of marriage. Through most of history marriages were arranged, and not about love but about money, titles, positions. Then that changed. Marriage was to be for life. Then that changed. Then it was to be between a man and a women of the same race, or only for white people. Then that changed. It will change in the future as well.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Laws regarding age affects all people the same.

What?

Person A and person B cannot marry because of their age while person C and person D can marry because of their age.

You don't see how this is discrimination but you can see how allowing everyone of a certain age get married is (to someone of the opposite gender).

Do you mean that both are forms of discrimination but one is a form of discrimination that you approve of?

[m52nickerson]

What?

Person A and person B cannot marry because of their age while person C and person D can marry because of their age.

You don't see how this is discrimination but you can see how allowing everyone of a certain age get married is (to someone of the opposite gender).

Do you mean that both are forms of discrimination but one is a form of discrimination that you approve of?

What you fail to realize is that persons A & B can't marry each other or anyone one else because of there age. Persons C & D also could not marry anyone before they became of age, which also points out a huge difference. A & B will be able to marry once they come of age. It not a permanent positions they are in. Now if persons A & B are both the same sex, well that does not change over time.

So what else do you have?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What you fail to realize is that persons A & B can't marry each other or anyone one else because of there age. Persons C & D also could not marry anyone before they became of age, which also points out a huge difference. A & B will be able to marry once they come of age. It not a permanent positions they are in. Now if persons A & B are both the same sex, well that does not change over time.

So what else do you have?

So age discrimination is an acceptable form of discrimination based on the rhetorical evidence you've provided.

You assume that marriage in the state is about sexual love. If you didn't take this as an assumption would there be unacceptable discrimination?

[CountArach]

Because marriage is a specific privilege recognised by the government. If priveleges had to be accepted by the government to comply to human rights, then nobody would ever pay taxes.
Errrr..... what? :confused:

[Rhyfelwyr]

It is being argued that by not being granted priveleges by the government, homosexuals are being discriminated against. It was argued that their pursuit of happiness is being hampered because the government won't give them privileges that others do not have (eg people who don't want to marry, why shouldn't they get privileges?).

As was said earlier, they (homosexuals/people who don't want to have sexual partners or marry them) are not in fact being discriminated against, rather only heterosexual couples can take advantage of these privileges (in practice).

And I think everyone here agrees that privileges based on marriage are unconstitutional for anyone.

Although it could be argued that the traditional marriage deserves some form of recognition by the state.

[m52nickerson]

So age discrimination is an acceptable form of discrimination based on the rhetorical evidence you've provided.

You assume that marriage in the state is about sexual love. If you didn't take this as an assumption would there be unacceptable discrimination?

Limits based on age are just that, limits. They affect all people the same, and for the same length of time. Those limits are lifted when a person reaches 18, which is pretty much seen as the age of adulthood. So not it is not a discrimination, it is a limit.

.....and no to answer your next question not allowing gay marriage is not a limit. People's sex normally does not change, nor are there requirements that gay couples can meet to make it legal to marry were it has been banned.

Marriage is about love, but even without that factored in it is still discrimination that two people of the same sex can't marry.

[m52nickerson]

How about a civil liberty........

Civil Liberties are defined as, the rights to freedom of thought, expression, and action, and the protection of these rights from government interference or restriction. Civil liberties are the hallmark of liberal, democratic “free” societies. In the United States, the Bill of Rights guarantees a variety of civil liberties, most notably freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, expressed in the First Amendment.

or

Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference.

or

Civil liberties is the name given to freedoms that completely protect the individual from government. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it can not abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens.

and then from the Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[ICantSpellDawg]

How about a civil liberty........

Civil Liberties are defined as, the rights to freedom of thought, expression, and action, and the protection of these rights from government interference or restriction. Civil liberties are the hallmark of liberal, democratic “free” societies. In the United States, the Bill of Rights guarantees a variety of civil liberties, most notably freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, expressed in the First Amendment.

or

Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference.

or

Civil liberties is the name given to freedoms that completely protect the individual from government. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it can not abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens.

and then from the Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What is your point?

[m52nickerson]

How about a civil liberty........

Civil Liberties are defined as, the rights to freedom of thought, expression, and action, and the protection of these rights from government interference or restriction. Civil liberties are the hallmark of liberal, democratic “free” societies. In the United States, the Bill of Rights guarantees a variety of civil liberties, most notably freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, expressed in the First Amendment.

or

Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference.

or

Civil liberties is the name given to freedoms that completely protect the individual from government. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it can not abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens.

and then from the Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, [B]and secure the blessings of liberty[B] to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Highlighted to show that the constitution guarantees us liberty, basically the freedom from unwarranted government interference in our lives. Not allowing two people who love each other to marry is a hell of an interference.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Highlighted to show that the constitution guarantees us liberty, basically the freedom from unwarranted government interference in our lives. Not allowing two people who love each other to marry is a hell of an interference.

So is regulating how far houses are away from the road, whether we use heroin behind closed doors or if we do business from our home.

You've cited the term "civil liberties" which could literally mean anything at all.

[m52nickerson]

So is regulating how far houses are away from the road, whether we use heroin behind closed doors or if we do business from our home.

You've cited the term "civil liberties" which could literally mean anything at all.

No, there are reasons, such as utility and government easements, for house setbacks.

I would agree, but I think drugs should not be illegal.

Liberties protect people from unwarranted government interference, since no one can show their gay neighbors getting married would take away from their life, it is unwarranted interference.

[Redleg]

Liberties protect people from unwarranted government interference, since no one can show their gay neighbors getting married would take away from their life, it is unwarranted interference.

Yes civil liberties protect people from unwarranted government interference. So expand upon that and demonstrate how individual rights are being violated because the state has developed over time through legal precedence a definition and a license requirement for people to be married. And remember state sanctioned marriage goes back a long time.

So here is what you got - the state should of never gotten into the concept of marriage in the first place by your arguement. That it did is because the people desired for some type of legal concept concerning marriage. Which takes it out of the basic human rights catergory and makes it something else.

The arguement is not so much that is a basic right - that its a concept that if people wish it to change then it must follow the constitutional process to be changed by the legislative body or the people through the amendment process.

In otherword - if the desire for the change is so great then society will have it changed.

[Prince Cobra]

Of course these are Civil rights. Gays existed since the beginning of the human history(and not only amongst the humans) and it matters few this was exposed or not. They simply exist. And I can see no reason why they should hide or be discriminated for this.

However, this does not mean they should always try to focus the public attention on themselves(yet this is their answer to those who try to deny their existence so it is not entirely their fault). They are simply ordinary people like you and me.

Note: I mean the real gays not those becoming gays because of any sort of trend. That's something I can not approve.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Note: I mean the real gays not those becoming gays because of any sort of trend. That's something I can not approve.

What the? Why is one wrong and the other not?

[Prince Cobra]

What the? Why is one wrong and the other not?

Sexuality is part of your nature. I can not approve changing it because of any sort of trend. Be yourself.

Of course, I have heard stories about people trying with the both sexes in order to try... Well, this can be acceptable, I think. But being slave of a trend... :no:

[CrossLOPER]

Note: I mean the real gays not those becoming gays because of any sort of trend. That's something I can not approve.
Good luck with that one.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Good luck with that one.

I'm doubtful there are even real gays, look throughout history at how people do homosexual acts either because its part of their culture or for political power or whatever.

IIRC all the Roman Emperors bar one had homosexual sex... this seems to suggest that people have a choice in going against the normal, some just engage only in homsexual sex and make it their identity.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm doubtful there are even real gays, look throughout history at how people do homosexual acts either because its part of their culture or for political power or whatever.

IIRC all the Roman Emperors bar one had homosexual sex... this seems to suggest that people have a choice in going against the normal, some just engage only in homsexual sex and make it their identity.

Even if it was inherent, good luck giving real gays sexual rights that fake gays can't have.

The sexual orientation argument is totally absurd. This is what it has come down to. We are that bored and MUST find a new crusade - even one as ludicrous as this one.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm doubtful there are even real gays,
Gay giraffes making out (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=zTeJ0nAmqSo).

Most mammals have gay sex. That is because sex, unlike what they thought two thousand years ago, does not merely serve procreation. Intelligent, higher animals, like man, use physical bonding as an essential part of group dynamics. It is extremely unnatural to supress gay instincts within yourself or others. Supressing homosexuality destroys the natural, God-given fabric of society.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Most mammals have gay sex. That is because sex, unlike what they thought two thousand years ago, does not merely serve procreation. Intelligent, higher animals, like man, use physical bonding as an essential part of group dynamics. It is extremely unnatural to supress gay instincts within yourself or others. Supressing homosexuality destroys the natural, God-given fabric of society.

Hahaha.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hahaha.I suggest you take a close look at the mating habits of pets - no, they are not 'just playing around'. Like all other mammals, dogs and cats don't stick to male/female mating. ~;)


If you run a zoo and supress physical homosexual relationships between your animals, I think there's a fair chance you'll be locked up for cruelty to animals. Yet, rights that even petting zoo guinea pigs have are not extended to human beings. :shame:

[Prince Cobra]

Even if it was inherent, good luck giving real gays sexual rights that fake gays can't have.

The sexual orientation argument is totally absurd. This is what it has come down to. We are that bored and MUST find a new crusade - even one as ludicrous as this one.

Well, it is obvious you can not separate them to "fake" and "real". If somebody is determined to follow any trend, I can not stop him of course. This is maybe a matter of education, personal misinterpration. In fact the problem with the trends (trend for smoking, drugs and so on) is another problem I do not want to discuss now.

Yet there are truly people who are born homosexual (some of them quite talented ) and I can not see why they can not have rights. They suffer once because of the prejudice and twice because the politicians (and I won't be surprised if some of them are hidden homosexual - not that I really care!) deny rights to them. That's stupid.

[m52nickerson]

Real, fake, born, choice, it does not matter.

[Prince Cobra]

Real, fake, born, choice, it does not matter.

Well, from legislative point of view it does not matter, I agree. And this is what is the matter of discussion now.

[CountArach]

If you run a zoo and supress physical homosexual relationships between your animals, I think there's a fair chance you'll be locked up for cruelty to animals. Yet, rights that even petting zoo guinea pigs have are not extended to human beings. :shame:
I never thought I would see the day when we could have a gay marriage thread merged with an animal rights thread :laugh4:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'd be interested to know the percentage of "real" versus "fake" gay people.

I mean, I get the trend/phase argument. There are misunderstood people out there that go through phases where they try to fit in. There's been plenty of women that I've personally dated that say they thought they were a lesbian at one point, and tried it out to see how it goes.

I personally think that most people have a moment, in the back of their minds at least, where they question themselves and wonder if a random thought now and then means anything. Sometimes when a person has few friends or abusive parents or has trouble fitting in, or is just a really open personality, they seek out others with similar tendencies.

It's usually the same story over and over. Girl gets idea in her head, meets another girl. They have a "relationship" that doesn't even progress to kissing until after the first month. Rarely do they even do anything. Some of them try simple things. Few go all the way. Then, after a while, the majority decide they are heterosexual and date men again (or in some cases, at the same time).

I hate to compare, because the situations aren't the same, but it's in some ways similar to that "goth" phase some teens go through. In order to fit in and be an individual at the same time, some rebel against the supposed norm, and dress and act differently. Most people grow out of it (I personally hate goth culture... in the quest to be nonconformist, they start to talk, dress, and act alike, and start listening to the same depressing music. How sad and ironic.) but some people don't and they decide that's who they are. Those are the trend/phase/experimental faux gays.

Others are gay. Really gay. Truly gay. As in, tried to be straight and didn't like it. As in, tried gay once and decided it was fabulous. As in "hey, let's exclusively date only the same gender and never look back" gay. As in "nothing makes me happier than explicit gay imagery deleted" kind of gay. As in Mark Foley gay. As in Liberace gay. As in Elton John wearing a whip cream teddy GAY. (Emphasis on teh gay) As in Angelina Jolie naked and licking their bodies would not turn them on in a million years gay. As in Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt in a naked towel-snapping contest would not stir erotic feelings in them gay. (Can't neglect my lesbian friends) As in John Goodman and Roseanne Barr in a banana eating contest gay. As in man dressed as Judy Garland in the Wizard of Oz gay.

I don't know about you, but when you're that gay, you're not pretending anymore. At least that's what it seems like to me.

I think some people are so afraid of gays and gayness that they want to imagine that they are all pretending. Well, when you're in the middle of a explicit gay imagery deleted and your expletive deleted takes his explicit gay imagery deleted and explicit gay imagery deleted all over your expletive deleted you're gay, you're not pretending.

Can you deal with that? :laugh2:

I can. Because I have a girlfriend I can go explicit straight imagery deleted and to be honest, when I'm doing that, gay people don't bother me. And when I'm done explicit straight imagery deleted, the last thing on my mind is how gays are destroying marriage, because I can tell you, straight people are doing a explicit straight imagery deleted bang up job. And I can have a heterosexual relationship without gayness ruining it.

Can't you?

It seems to me that if your church doesn't want to recognize gay marriage, that's your church. Fortunately not everyone goes to church, and some have differing opinions. The state is secular, and it should be a right for legitimate gay couples to have the same rights of visitation and property and so forth that straights have, and therefore there can be no argument against legal unions, which already exist for non-gays and gays alike.

If they want to call that marriage, and if they want the state to call it marriage, I don't care. It doesn't affect me in any way. And it's frankly none of my business.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The "real" gays being talked about here are simply people with a notion stuck in their head.

I don't see why institutions should be redefined to fit to every little notion people take.

History proves this, but noone will acknowledge that fact.

[Askthepizzaguy]

You know, when I was around 11 or 12 I got the notion stuck in my head that I liked women.

I don't suppose you'd like to talk me out of it, Rhyfelwyr?

:eyebrows:

[Rhyfelwyr]

You know, when I was around 11 or 12 I got the notion stuck in my head that I liked women.

I don't suppose you'd like to talk me out of it, Rhyfelwyr?

:eyebrows:

Nah that's normal.

Gay people just need to get rid of their notions and act in their natural manner.

No more ridiculous effimeninity please, that's a quite modern invention, ties in with the whole image for them.

[Prince Cobra]

Nah that's normal.

Gay people just need to get rid of their notions and act in their natural manner.

No more ridiculous effimeninity please, that's a quite modern invention, ties in with the whole image for them.

Well,not a single family ( and in historical background dynasty) was ruined by this "modern invention". Homosexuals also have their hearts broken(I think there were even some dramatic examples ending with suicides)
And how would you comment the animal homosexuality?

[Askthepizzaguy]

All right, all right, agreed.

The obnoxiously flamboyant acting does grate on my nerves. Normal or natural gays call them "queenies" because they are annoyed by them too. Fortunately they are the small minority. They just get a lot of media attention because they are a negative and controversial stereotype.

I also happen to think that acting obscenely in public, or in front of children, is bad behavior for anyone of any sexual orientation, and what goes on at pride parades is not for children to see. I wish they'd tone it down, but I'd rather see people enjoying themselves instead of hating one another.

Other than that, I'm on board with defending whatever law-abiding people do, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy it.

[Ronin]

Nah that's normal.

Gay people just need to get rid of their notions and act in their natural manner.

No more ridiculous effimeninity please, that's a quite modern invention, ties in with the whole image for them.

of course....:rolleyes2:

the reason I like being with girls instead of being with a guy sucking is :daisy: is simply because the idea hasn't come into my mind.

thanks for clearing that up....I never understood how my entire sexual identity was such a frail thing...

I´m scared now...what if I get one of those pesky ideas all of a sudden????? :wall:

people are what they are....the idea that one would should a sexual orientation that brings you nothing but trouble in our world is ridiculous.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Standing up for rationality Ronin?

For shame. Surely you realize rationality has a liberal bias.

[Rhyfelwyr]

people are what they are....the idea that one would should a sexual orientation that brings you nothing but trouble in our world is ridiculous.

And yet they do. Reminds me of a guy in my school a couple of years below me, he kept lisping away to his friends about how he was deciding whether or not he was gay. Guess what - he decided he was.

Note how he decided.

He knew he could, and indeed should, be normal - he just chose not to be.

And now he wants to wreck an ancient institution for that... no thanks. :no:

[Strike For The South]

And yet they do. Reminds me of a guy in my school a couple of years below me, he kept lisping away to his friends about how he was deciding whether or not he was gay. Guess what - he decided he was.

Note how he decided.

He knew he could, and indeed should, be normal - he just chose not to be.

And now he wants to wreck an ancient institution for that... no thanks. :no:

Anecdotal evidence means nothing.

[Askthepizzaguy]

And now he wants to wreck an ancient institution for that... no thanks. :no:

I'd like to point out that in ancient times this institution allowed a man to divorce his wife at will (still the same in some Islamic cultures), take multiple wives, did not punish cheating, allowed the noble who owned the land to have sexual rights to the wife on the first night of their union, and that in the Bible itself it reads that if a man is to rape a woman, what he must do to rectify the situation is to pay her father a few silver shekels and then marry her, and all is well. One might also observe the tradition of arranged marriage, where little girls are pawned off in the to wealthy men to be used as sex objects, in many cases.

So ancient institutions have changed over time, (thank God/Allah/TheFlyingSpaghettiMonster), and it should again. This time, to include people who have been left out unjustly.

If you really want things to stay as they were, then I suppose polygamy is OK. That's another form of traditional marriage. And they married awfully young back then, too.


Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her...

[Rhyfelwyr]

And which of the above is comparable to homosexuals being unable to marry?

Calvin sorted pretty much everyting you listed in Geneva anyway. :beam:

Is there any scientific evidence behind the causes of homosexuality?

EDIT: Stop quoting OT! :wall:

[Strike For The South]

Well Im glad this has descended into quoting the bible my work here is done.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well Im glad this has descended into quoting the bible my work here is done.

At least you can't blame it on me this time.

[Askthepizzaguy]

EDIT: Stop quoting OT! :wall:

Why?

It's part of Christian belief, and it's still the basis of Jewish religious law. If it's an embarrassment for you, remove it from your holy text.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why?

It's part of Christian belief, and it's still the basis of Jewish religious law. If it's an embarrassment for you, remove it from your holy text.

Because it is always taken spectacularly out of context. Much of the OT was only ever meant to apply to Jews, and much of it (especially in the Pentateuch as you quoted) has changed in a number of new covenants God formed with Israel.

The message of the NT to Christians is often very much different, you must see the whole Bible as God implementing his ways step-by-step.

And now, you may say that the only specific reference to sodomy is in the OT, however it is not given as a 'statute unto your people' for Israel as many other laws were. Also, the whole message of the NT of turning away from carnal desires (eg homosexuality since it is no use for procreation) clearly condems homosexual pracitices.

Plus of course God himself smote Sodom for the people's sin, notably that of sodomy.

You don't have to believe it, but please at least acknowledge other's beliefs for what they are.

[m52nickerson]

You don't have to believe it, but please at least acknowledge other's beliefs for what they are.

Fantasy? :inquisitive:

[Ronin]

And yet they do. Reminds me of a guy in my school a couple of years below me, he kept lisping away to his friends about how he was deciding whether or not he was gay. Guess what - he decided he was.

Note how he decided.

He knew he could, and indeed should, be normal - he just chose not to be.

And now he wants to wreck an ancient institution for that... no thanks. :no:

anecdotal evidence of one messed up kid in your school isn't really relevant.

Children are born in heterosexual orientated society....a kid going through puberty that starts noticing that is sexual instincts don't match what society tells him is the norm will probably feel confused by this....this is not surprising.

and for the record....if this ancient institution of yours can be entered into at 3 am by 2 people drunk out of their minds in front of an Elvis impersonator in Vegas I say that any sense of this being a sacred act is pretty much gone by now.

[Ronin]

Standing up for rationality Ronin?

For shame. Surely you realize rationality has a liberal bias.

It has come to my attention that reality has a liberal bias....

it's shameful really...somebody should complain to the manufacturer...:coffeenews:

[Ronin]

Fantasy? :inquisitive:


shhhh...don´t burst the bubble.

[PBI]

Is there any scientific evidence behind the causes of homosexuality?


Actually there is some evidence that some men may be genetically predisposed towards homosexuality; supposedly the relevant gene is also linked to increased female fertility, hence suggesting why it wouldn't be evolutionarily disadvantageous (of course, if you believe that evolution is a lie and gay people were created as they are by God 4000 years ago it would also explain away that little conundrum ~;)). I posted a link to it in a previous Gay Marriage thread, can't remember which I'm afraid.

Not that it's relevant to our side of the debate whether homosexuality is genetically determined or not. However presumably evidence of a genetic cause would be an absolute death blow to the Christian opposition to homosexuality, since the manifest evidence of how God intended his creation to be all along would override a few ambiguously phrased sentences in the Old Testament?

Also,



And yet they do. Reminds me of a guy in my school a couple of years below me, he kept lisping away to his friends about how he was deciding whether or not he was gay. Guess what - he decided he was.

Note how he decided.

He knew he could, and indeed should, be normal - he just chose not to be.


That anecdote doesn't necessarily imply he had a choice to decide as he wanted. For hundreds of years people couldn't decide whether the earth was round or flat, but that didn't mean they could just choose whichever option complied with scripture and it would become true: The earth was round all along, people just didn't have enough evidence to be sure yet.

[Incongruous]

Fantasy? :inquisitive:

Oh, if only I were so certain I had the power of mind to take down, the accumulated theological system of centuries, of millions of people, in one fell swoop, with the use of a single word.:shame:

But then again, my head probably would not fit through the door:embarassed:

[PBI]

By that logic, none of us would ever post anything in the Backroom at all; on just about any topic there will always be a great many people who are quite convinced my opinion is completely wrong, how could I be so arrogant as to think I know better than all of them?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think you're arrogant at all PBI, but when people start calling others beliefs fantasy, it is a little insulting.

It is suggesting that so much of human history, so much suffering, so many great minds have all revolved around mere fantasy - quite a claim to make.

[Ronin]

It is suggesting that so much of human history, so much suffering, so many great minds have all revolved around mere fantasy - quite a claim to make.

no one made such a claim......all the suffering caused by religion is quite real :book:

[Ser Clegane]

Please stay on topic, gentlemen.

Apart from the fact that simply labeling religion as "fantasy" is at least somewhat disrespectful (and actually borderline trolling), the nature of raligion is not really the topic of this particular thread.

The thread title already clearly implies that the focus should be on the legal aspects of the issue.

Thanks

:bow:

[Whacker]

...the nature of religion is not really the topic of this particular thread.

The thread title already clearly implies that the focus should be on the legal aspects of the issue.

Respectfully, Ser Clegster...

I have found that they are almost inextricably linked, the topic and religion.

If is my personal experience that religion is the direct cause of the near complete majority of cases of hate and/or bigotry towards homosexuality that I have ever encountered in discussions, along with a sense of willful ignorance and rejection of scientific findings. This thread has done nothing if it hasn't reinforced that experience for me. At some point it becomes near impossible to continue the discussion when dogma becomes the basis for different party's arguments.

At any rate, this thread makes me sad in a number of ways, and a number of good posts by others were summarily ignored. /shrug

[Ser Clegane]

I have found that they are almost inextricably linked, the topic and religion.


That might well be the case - nevertheless Strike made a very clear point that the topic for this thread is the purely legal/constitutional aspect (and his response to religion suddenly coming up as a topic confirmed this).

We had a number of threads where the aspect of religion has been discussed, no need to drag this one there as well (apart from that - even when discussing the aspect of religion, I would consider a discussion about religion as such as somewhat OT).

Any further discussion about whether it is off-topic or not would now be Backroom-Watchtower or PM material

:bow:

[Askthepizzaguy]

Because it is always taken spectacularly out of context. Much of the OT was only ever meant to apply to Jews, and much of it (especially in the Pentateuch as you quoted) has changed in a number of new covenants God formed with Israel.

The message of the NT to Christians is often very much different, you must see the whole Bible as God implementing his ways step-by-step.

And now, you may say that the only specific reference to sodomy is in the OT, however it is not given as a 'statute unto your people' for Israel as many other laws were. Also, the whole message of the NT of turning away from carnal desires (eg homosexuality since it is no use for procreation) clearly condems homosexual pracitices.

Plus of course God himself smote Sodom for the people's sin, notably that of sodomy.

You don't have to believe it, but please at least acknowledge other's beliefs for what they are.

It's very tempting to debate you on religion, because you're articulate and you don't seem like you're the type who would ad hominem me. Unfortunately Ser Clegane already put and end to the debate.

Perhaps another time, and elsewhere. In spite of my ardent rhetoric against religion, I am comfortable around most religious people and find the discussion quite fascinating, so long as no one takes too much offense at the discussion.

If I've offended anyone with my assertions or arguments, I'd like to apologize. I'm sometimes blunt, and I don't know everything, and so sometimes I come off as arrogant. However, it's not because I am arrogant, it's because I am an open speaker who is unafraid to discuss controversial issues. I will say things which will directly contradict the beliefs of 4 billion or more people.

Why would I be so... arrogant? Because history has shown us that sometimes, the grand majority of people can be dead wrong about something, and their beliefs can cause the direct suffering of billions. Not all religion falls under this category, but I find that it is usually the case when the religion escapes the confines of belief and becomes an ideology, a doctrine, a law, and motivates politics.

That being said... it's time to get off this subject before I get thrown in a dungeon somewhere.

:hide:



anecdotal evidence of one messed up kid in your school isn't really relevant.

Children are born in heterosexual orientated society....a kid going through puberty that starts noticing that is sexual instincts don't match what society tells him is the norm will probably feel confused by this....this is not surprising.

and for the record....if this ancient institution of yours can be entered into at 3 am by 2 people drunk out of their minds in front of an Elvis impersonator in Vegas I say that any sense of this being a sacred act is pretty much gone by now.

Add to that the divorce rate, and it will tell you how seriously more than 50% of heterosexual couples take this sacred institution. I honestly don't see how gays would destroy marriage. Some have been together for 40 years, and are just waiting to be recognized as a legitimate couple by the state, regardless of what the Bible belt has to say.


It has come to my attention that reality has a liberal bias....

it's shameful really...somebody should complain to the manufacturer...:coffeenews:

I've tried. But I've found that the manufacturer doesn't listen to the prayers of his customers. Or if "he" does, he answers those prayers with the same rate of success as a horseshoe, lucky rabbit's foot, pagan ritual, voodoo curse, and wizard's spell. He also doesn't appear to care for one religion over the other, so it seems clear to me that if there is one true faith, God isn't listening to just his followers. Seems evident that there isn't one true faith, or at least he doesn't play favorites if there is.


I don't think you're arrogant at all PBI, but when people start calling others beliefs fantasy, it is a little insulting.

It is suggesting that so much of human history, so much suffering, so many great minds have all revolved around mere fantasy - quite a claim to make.

A lot of suffering has come from unwavering belief in something that is not evidently proven. It's not belief that is the problem, but the actions resulting from that belief. See: Human sacrifice, mass suicide, cannibalism, holy wars, religious persecution, etc. Often the worst tragedies in human history, in fact I would say all of them committed by humans against other humans, were a result of some belief system imposing it's violent will onto others, whether there is a certain God involved or not. The exuberance of faith in something, be it religion or ideology or philosophy or self, is often disastrous.

Why it's relevant here, is because due to only two arguments; one, being it's unprecedented nature, and two, due to religious intolerance, the equal status of gays and their legitimate relationships are being repressed. Many are fearful of what could happen.

Fear is not the same as sound reasoning. Some say that allowing gays equal marriage rights would then open a pandora's box to polygamy. Need I remind people that polygamy, for example, has been around since the beginning of marriage. Hinduism, ancient Judaism, Mormonism, some Muslim sects, and many other religions, nations, and groups since the beginning of written history have practiced this. So to say that legalizing gay marriage will result in polygamy is the same as saying that landing on the moon will result in NASA.

Arranged marriages, underage marriages, and other practices considered aberrant in our society are time-honored and practiced across the world. That's not to say I don't find the idea backward, but to say that gay marriage will pervert marriage is to ignore the FACT that for THOUSANDS OF YEARS marriage has meant something entirely different from what some uptight Americans consider "traditional marriage". Not to mention the fact that for every one of those millenia, women were considered inferior and property.

Time's a-changin'. You need a better argument than the slippery slope. You need a better argument than it hasn't been done before. You need a better argument than religion. And votes, in and of themselves, do not constitute sound basis for law.

Explain why gays do not deserve equal marriage rights. Is it because they can't have children? Fact is, they can and do have children. There are lots of gay people with kids. Should we take them away? They raise those kids. Are they unfit parents? Many of them stay together for their entire lives. Is this not the same promise and commitment as heterosexual marriage? Many want to visit their spouses in the hospital, but due to hostility towards gays in our culture and the lack of their legal protections, they aren't allowed to. There is the problem of property upon a person's death.

Gays should get all of these protections. If the squeamish don't like it, call it a legal union. But frankly, if you allow that, you're allowing gay marriage and just calling it something else. And if you're going that far, I do not see what the big deal is over the word. If two drunks can get married in vegas and have in annulled the next day, but two gay people cannot spend a lifetime together and get at least the same legal respect given to the irresponsible drunkards, that's insulting.

The state is secular, and there is no argument, none, that explains why gays should not be given the same rights as straights, especially given our commitment to ban laws which are sexist and unnecessarily discriminatory. This is discrimination, this is sexism, and it is totally unnecessary.

If you have a difference of opinion, I welcome it. But the explanation should have gender-neutral reasoning behind it, or else it is sexist by definition.

If I have to accept that a person born as a woman, who looks like a man, talks like a man, acts like a man, and is legally a man, can give birth to a baby, then I'm sorry, but our culture has already decided that the legal status of gender should be neutral in most respects, and is welcoming of those whose gender is ambiguous or outside the norm, and guess what? They can get married.

Why can't gay people?

[Strike For The South]

I sit here and I laugh. How does the "bible belt" always get painted for holding the country. All I see is the running back to the old arguments. Lets not talk about the constitutionality of using the courts for this. Lets blame religion and the backwards people the believe.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Old attitudes and fears are what stands in the way of legalized marriage between two competent adults.

The courts and the process of making something a law, that's a separate argument. A lot of people consider Roe V Wade bad law because of how the law came about. I think that's a valid argument. I am just not prepared to outlaw all abortion.

We can discuss how the law is made in a separate discussion, and you might have a legitimate case. But here, I have yet to see a case made against the possible legalization of gay marriage.

[Strike For The South]

The courts and the process of making something a law, that's a separate argument. A lot of people consider Roe V Wade bad law because of how the law came about. I think that's a valid argument. I am just not prepared to outlaw all abortion.

We can discuss how the law is made in a separate discussion, and you might have a legitimate case. But here, I have yet to see a case made against the possible legalization of gay marriage.

This was about the courts to begin with but we somehow got away from that....

[Askthepizzaguy]

The original post does talk about precedence and court cases, true. But the OP also talked about slavery, and quote:

First lets forget the fact that gays arent nearly subject to 1/100000000 of the prejudice that blacks were.

And the topic of discussion is "Gay rights are not civil rights", inviting the discussion to open up to something beyond court cases and legal precedence. In fact, one could argue that this quote invites us to debate whether or not gays have been discriminated against in the past and under current law.

It seems to me the subject has not been confined to mere legal precedence, on either side. I think that to demand that at this point is a smokescreen for not being able to respond to my points, to be frank. However, I could be mistaken. Feel free to correct me at your leisure.

[Strike For The South]

The original post does talk about precedence and court cases, true. But the OP also talked about slavery, and quote:


And the topic of discussion is "Gay rights are not civil rights", inviting the discussion to open up to something beyond court cases and legal precedence. In fact, one could argue that this quote invites us to debate whether or not gays have been discriminated against in the past and under current law.

It seems to me the subject has not been confined to mere legal precedence, on either side. I think that to demand that at this point is a smokescreen for not being able to respond to my points, to be frank. However, I could be mistaken. Feel free to correct me at your leisure.

Im not really harping on you merely the fact that these kind of arguments always descend into who can feign the most emotional outrage. You were responding to someone's posts Im not going to fault you for that.

At any rate, The OP is an idiot and should be avoided at all costs. I mean the title itself is poorly planned.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Im not really harping on you merely the fact that these kind of arguments always descend into who can feign the most emotional outrage. You were responding to someone's posts Im not going to fault you for that.

At any rate, The OP is an idiot and should be avoided at all costs. I mean the title itself is poorly planned.

Shhh... don't let him hear you say that. And you could get busted by a moderator for abusing the OP.

I had actually forgotten that you started the thread, to be honest! I must admit I am a little distracted at the moment. :laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

At any rate, The OP is an idiot and should be avoided at all costs. I mean the title itself is poorly planned.Well he is a bit of a daft prick but not here. The title is perfectly specific and concise. The Gay Rights movement is trying to extend the interpretation that has been given to the constitution since the 1960's - briefly, 'no public and civil racial discrimination' - to hold that it is also unconstitunional to have public or civil discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is the subject.

[Strike For The South]

Well he is a bit of a daft prick but not here. The title is perfectly specific and concise. The Gay Rights movement is trying to extend the interpretation that has been given to the constitution since the 1960's - briefly, 'no public and civil racial discrimination' - to hold that it is also unconstitunional to have public or civil discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is the subject.

You're so sexy with your words ~:flirt:

[Yoyoma1910]

Whatever moral or ethical concerns one may have, the precedence of creating a constitutional amendment, in order to overturn a judicial decision, whether moral or otherwise, is in existence.



In 1794-1795 the 11th amendment to the Constitution of the United States was enacted to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia of 1793.


It states:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


Is the granting of immunity from repercussion more moral than allowing one the right of legal recourse?

[Strike For The South]

Whatever moral or ethical concerns one may have, the precedence of creating a constitutional amendment, in order to overturn a judicial decision, whether moral or otherwise, is in existence.



In 1794-1795 the 11th amendment to the Constitution of the United States was enacted to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia of 1793.


It states:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


Is the granting of immunity from repercussion more moral than allowing one the right of legal recourse?

This is true. Honestly I wouldn't mind an amendment but the courts are using the existing language rather than passing legislation.

[Yoyoma1910]

This is true. Honestly I wouldn't mind an amendment but the courts are using the existing language rather than passing legislation.

The courts do not pass legislation. Their duty is to interpret the law as applicable.




While I find no fault with the courts of California in their decision, I also find no fault with the people of this state for overturning the ruling with proper legislative procedure.

[Strike For The South]

The courts do not pass legislation. Their duty is to interpret the law as applicable.

Agreed. I know this.



While I find no fault with the courts of California in their decision, I also find no fault with the people of this state for overturning the ruling with proper legislative procedure.

Perhaps this is the best route to take. The court made a decision on shaky evidence and the people voted it down. I simply do not like all the liberal interpretations of the constitution. People these days seem to want to throw away the legislature and go straight to the courts

I don't think we really disagree.

[Yoyoma1910]

Perhaps this is the best route to take. The court made a decision on shaky evidence and the people voted it down. I simply do not like all the liberal interpretations of the constitution. People these days seem to want to throw away the legislature and go straight to the courts

I don't think we really disagree.



No, but I disagree that this is anything new, or that liberal interpretations are worse than conservative. No man can make judgments if he is unable to think. But, if the people believe that judgment is not to their stance, they can then enact stricter or separate laws that affect how the judge will stand on a case. It's all part of the checks and balances that are necessary for our communities and country to work.


This is how our country has always functioned. We enact laws and precedents, then something happens that changes their viability or the social outlook, and things are set in to action that bring about changes.


Why were the Articles of Confederation replaced by the Constitution? They were ineffective, but certainly the overturning of ones central government for another could be considered a liberal goal.

[Strike For The South]

No, but I disagree that this is anything new, or that liberal interpretations are worse than conservative. No man can make judgments if he is unable to think. But, if the people believe that judgment is not to their stance, they can then enact stricter or separate laws that affect how the judge will stand on a case. It's all part of the checks and balances that are necessary for our communities and country to work.

This is how our country has always functioned. We enact laws and precedents, then something happens that changes their viability or the social outlook, and things are set in to action that bring about changes.

Why were the Articles of Confederation replaced by the Constitution? They were ineffective, but certainly the overturning of ones central government for another could be considered a liberal goal.

Conservative rulings simply allow for the legislation to do its job. I'll use Roe V Wade as an example. That was an extremely liberal ruling that haunts us to this day. Instead of having sensible abortion laws we have two extremes at each-others throats. The court should've stayed out and let the legislature do its job. I dont mind a progressive USA, I mind a court that hamstrings future legislature by making such sweeping dividing rulings (liberal or conservative)

The articles were passed by the state legislatures, they way it was supposed to be.

[Yoyoma1910]

Conservative rulings simply allow for the legislation to do its job. I'll use Roe V Wade as an example. That was an extremely liberal ruling that haunts us to this day. Instead of having sensible abortion laws we have two extremes at each-others throats. The court should've stayed out and let the legislature do its job. I dont mind a progressive USA, I mind a court that hamstrings future legislature by making such sweeping dividing rulings (liberal or conservative)

The articles were passed by the state legislatures, they way it was supposed to be.


Roe vs. Wade was a complex case. The initial ruling in Texas sided with "Roe," who claimed that her pregnancy was due to rape, but refused injunction.