Gay Rights are Not Civil Rights

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

I made a strawman SOZ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

.....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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Errrr..... what? :confused:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

What is your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I'm doubtful there are even real gays,

---

Gay giraffes making out.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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:

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.

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Standing up for rationality Ronin?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

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...

---

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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

---

Fantasy? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

Fantasy? :inquisitive:

---

shhhh...don´t burst the bubble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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,

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

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:

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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:

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

...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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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....

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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:

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910

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

---

Agreed. I know this.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910

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.