Printable View
Conneticut this time....
link
I didn't even know they were debating it:dizzy2:
Anyway's it makes me happy. So what do you guys think? Is the # of legalizing states going to snowball or is it going to be confined to staunch blue states like the current 3?
I think for awhile it will be confined. The pull point will be when a other states do not recognize these marriages. That is the issue that may drive it to the supreme court.
Debate??!!! No, No, No. That's not how it works anymore. They did debate it when they decided in favor of civil unions a few years ago in order to keep marriage between one man and one woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
The current decision was by the Supreme Court of the State who has decreed that the people of CT shouldn't have the power to decide things that the court has a strong opinion of.
The only State to legitimately allow Gay Marriages is Mass. Others only allow it because the courts decided to overturn the law.
The thing is a vote of the people only trumps a state constitution when that vote adds an amendment. In this case it did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Shame on them for thinking the amendment wasn't necessary, eh? It's funny how some people can say "I don't want an amendment, but I want marriage to remain between one man and one woman.". This should show them that that outcome isn't realistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
Make up your minds or the Supreme Court will make it up for you. It will be nearly impossible to undo their decision once it has been made.
Another session of legislation from the court. Great. Constitution be darned, let's rule based on what we want to be!
CR
The purpose of the courts is to interpret the law and the constitution. They did that. The people have the power to overturn it by amending the constitution. This is how america works :dizzy2:
The funny thing is that Slavery - arguably the most egregious breach of human rights and dignity was never ruled as unconstitutional. They recognized that it was acceptable during the writing of the Constitution and thereby acceptable practice. It took a few amendments to push black rights into the Constitution as it should have. They did it the right way because they recognized that the Constitution IS the perception that governs our legal reality.
If they had added an amendment FOR gay marriage or abortion, I would disagree, but I would understand. The current practices are so far beyond the ideals enshrined in the Constitution that it is laughable. They make a mockery of everything the Document stands for. We could probably hook up a few wires under the oldest cemetery in America and power every power grid in the world from all of the perpetually rolling caskets.
The Supreme court has become a modern version of The Oracle. "Truths are constantly revealing themselves to us that illuminate the TRUE meaning of the Constitution!"
Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Making laws are much easier then amending a constitution, so it is easier to pass unfair laws. The state's and US constitutions protect us from quickly passed laws and regulations.
In Connecticut the state constitution guarantees equal protection for all people under the law. Not the separate but equal civil unions, but equal.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Not only that, but if you do not allow some liberal churches to perform gay marriages is than not taking peoples right to religious freedom away?
What are you talking about? You believe that the law against gay marriage impacts the ability of religious institutions to perform gay marriages?Quote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
That's one unfortunate looking woman.
She's actually a well know model :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
If a church preforms a standard marriage it is recognized as legal, if people had the license. Another church performs a gay marriage a state may not recognize the marriage as legal. I believe in some states if a priest/pastor preforms a marriage without a license they can loss the ability to marry people.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
What about the fact that two people of the same sex can't marry is sexually discrimination. The only reason they can't marry is because of there gender. Sounds like sexual discrimination.
What about the fact that allowing Gay couples to marry will not affect you or me, or anyone else. So much fro freedoms.
I don't understand how at this point this can even be an issue. Please explain to me why Gay couples should not be given the same rights as straight couples?
Gay marriage diminishes marriage in general. I withdraw my support for state sanctioned marriage if gay marriage exists. We should have a national discussion about what marriage in is and what it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
How does it diminish marriage in general? Why would you withdraw your support, are you a bigot?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Letting two people of the same sex marry id not going to affect your marriage, or any one else's, because marriage means something different to each couple.
Tuff, I doubt you are a bigot. You are more likely holding on to some feeling that being gay is somehow wrong.
please don't bandy about words like "bigot". Tuff is certainly not one.
I say I did not think he was one. I was using that word to try and get Tuff to really look at why he is against something that will not affect him in any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
Thumbs up, welcome to the club Connecticut!Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
*California, here*
Edit: That didn't express my sentiment well enough.
WELCOME, CONNECTICUT! Glad to have ya.
If a State wants gay marriage, I believe that they can legislate the change.Quote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
I my view is that homosexuality is a fetish. I do not believe that there is anything inherent about it. My opposition to supreme court decisions that repeal laws is different. I hate the idea of making things up about constitutions - projecting morality into them that is not there.
Here are two examples of laws that can be viewed as unconstitutional:
A. Miscegenation laws were clearly unconstitutional after the adoption of the 14th amendment, but not before.
B.Women had been citizens since the nations inception - yet they required the 19th amendment in order to get the right to vote - no court should have overturned laws that did not allow women to vote until after that amendment was ratified.
The current trend in the judicial system is radical and unacceptable. It is clearly far outside of the jurisdiction that the founding fathers had envisioned and should cease. If you want something put into the Constitution you should go for it, but we have a process that I trust much more than making things up and disenfranchising the electorate.
Doubt it, but either way, my post still stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
You're against it as a matter of principle, though. Would you really feel any better about it if it were legislated?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
You're wrong. Can't really say it better than that. You are entitled to your opinion but I've known a lot of gay people and I'll take their word on the nature of being gay over a straight person's.Quote:
I my view is that homosexuality is a fetish.
I believe existing Constitutional rights already reflect the rights of gay people to pursue happiness and form families. It is the people who want to encode a removal of rights for a specific part of the population who go after a Constitutional Amendment.Quote:
The current trend in the judicial system is radical and unacceptable. It is clearly far outside of the jurisdiction that the founding fathers had envisioned and should cease. If you want something put into the Constitution you should go for it, but we have a process that I trust much more than making things up and disenfranchising the electorate.
So if people are being discriminated against then we need to make laws that eliminate those discrimination when it is against the law to discriminate in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Plus you never answered any of my other questions. Does that mean it your state passed a law allowing gay marriage you would be alright with it?
This issue is not going to go away, one way or another.
Early reports show that Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative designed to reverse the recent state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage is probably going to be passed. Now, this most likely isn't going to happen in Connecticut, but assuming that gay marriage is banned in California then it will galvanize the bases of both sides - culture war reinvigorated.
Personally, I think if we see a cascade of courts doing what those in California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have done, the conservative outcry (against judicial activism, NOT gay marriage) will be so great that there will be ramifications.
My State has the most absurd abortion laws in the world. I view them as evil, but since they were unaffected by the Roe ruling and democratically enacted - They are democratically legitimate. Supreme court rulings like this rub salt into already open wounds and are no way to maintain a functional government and system.Quote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
This decision is a disgrace. I understand the idea of dialogue on the topic, but the strong-arming of the majority is unacceptable. Civil Unions were a distraction and simply fed the fire in Connecticut. The electorate in that State should feel betrayed by their government.
good for connecticut, i guess. honestly, i don't really care that much. i've given up on the northeast, a cold and dreary place.
All well and good, but you are not answering my questions to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Why do we need a dialogue? Not allowing gay marriage is discrimination.
Allowing gay marriage will not adversely affect anyone. No dialogue needed.
Here's what I want to know -- why do they always do this right before an election? Didn't MA's supreme court do much the same thing exactly four years ago? It's like they want to turn out the anti-gay-marriage base. I'd say it's almost as suspicious as the National Journal discovering that the Dem candidate for Prez is teh most lubrul person evar every four years like clockwork ...
This is not the first time the issue has been overturned in CA, btw. A lot of fear tactic radio ad spots have been flooding the voters, too, just in the last week or so. They make this really grandiose, cue theatrical stinger music claims about how the sanctity of marriage won't be protected... but they never say how. And "we don't have to accept this." Accept what? The icky gay people? *Shrug*Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
Its just that your side seems to use that argument for nearly everything. Before you know it we won't have the right to decide much at all. There will be arguments that, since incomes are not equal people are being discriminated against. Since there is discrimination, why do we need to discuss economic legislation?Quote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
Your side thinks that it is O.K. to tax the wealthy at a profoundly higher rate than everyone else. Is that discrimination? Should there be no more dialogue about tax rates? If you change one should you be constitutionally bound to change them all equally? That would go against the graded system that everyone supports.
The Supreme court is used way to frequently as an outlet for bratty jerks to get their way when their arguments arn't getting the traction they wanted. We should use the courts when we need it and they should have the foresight to avoid massively shattering decisions.
Am I the only one who still thinks this battle is worth fighting? Is everyone else just exhausted or realize that our opinions no longer matter and that they will all be overturned anyway? We could put the ban into our State Constitution - but they would be overturned at the federal level. The misconception is that if we give them civil unions it will keep them at bay. It won't. This is appeasement for the ravenous wolves. We need to get the balls to put a silver bullet in the heart of their movement and pass an amendment now.
In what way has it been overturned? Court ruling? Law passed? Other ballot initiatives?Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
And for the record, there are two arguments against gay marriage: "sanctity of marriage" and "judicial activism". Judicial activism holds more water IMHO but it's not as effective a message to the masses (and the religious right) as Sanctity of Marriage.
When 10% of the population controls 90% of the wealth, and 1% of the population controls 30% of the wealth, what alternative tax structure would make sense to you? A "fair" flat tax rate would overtax people who already make barely enough, or less, than they need for basic living and secure retirement. And undertax people who have billions more than they need.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Wait... which party just had two turns to stuff the court and the justice department with hardliner ideological cronies? The Libertarians? No not them. Hmm.. the Greens? Nope. The Dems? Hmm... no, not those ones either...Quote:
The Supreme court is used way to frequently as an outlet for bratty jerks to get their way when their arguments arn't getting the traction they wanted. We should use the courts when we need it and they should have the foresight to avoid massively shattering decisions.
If memory serves, in 2004 we had the same damn ballot over the same damn issue. Overturning it. And it will probably happen again this year. Hooray, the state is safe from gay people wrecking marriage for four more years. Now, let's get back to the latest Paris Hilton sex tape and the documentary on Britney and K-Fed.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
So it IS okay to discriminate against some people, just not people with sexual fetishes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
What if I said that most rich people were born that way?
Please don't use this argument. Every President has been doing this since FDR tried to pack the Court in the 1930s when it was overturning his New Deal legislation left and right. Do you honestly think that Obama and a heavily Democratic Senate will show the Right any mercy when it comes time to nominate appellate and Supreme Court justices? Shaping the courts is one of the president's most underrated powers.Quote:
Wait... which party just had two turns to stuff the court and the justice department with hardliner ideological cronies?
So, in this case, the Court overturned a direct popular vote? Well, I can see why it's so unpopular among the Right now.Quote:
If memory serves, in 2004 we had the same damn ballot over the same damn issue. Overturning it. And it will probably happen again this year.
I suspect that we will have civil unions -- termed marriages -- between same sex couples in many states in the not-to-distant future. In practice, this will spread to all states.
The issue is emphatically NOT addressed in the U.S. Constitution, therefore the 10th ammendment notes that it is up to each state to decide such things for itself in accordance with its laws, so long as those laws/decisions do not contravene the rights of another U.S. citizen. Since extending "marriage" to include your same-sex couple does not impinge on my rights directly (doesn't make my marriage any less meaningful/beneficial), states may decide to make such unions legal.
Where it will get interesting is the "full faith and credence" clause to the U.S. Constitution. I suspect that -- absent some compelling data that same-sex marriage somehow debases and harms traditional marrriage (thus constituing a impingement of another's rights) -- ALL states will be required to treat such marriages as legal unions with all rights, duties, and privileges thereunto apertaining EVEN if the state in question opposes such unions and does not allow them to be performed in that state.
I suspect that the court would have to rule thus even now based upon Massachusett's decision alone.
Don't you think that the DOMA should provide cover given the "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." part of the full faith and credit clause?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
In this case, the interstate commerce clause actually has some teeth though. There are too many legal/monetary benefits and implications with "marriage" to deal with these unions state by state. A generic "civil union" compliance law at the federal level might cover it, each state can comply with it's rules and has flexibility, but must accept other states' contracts regardless of the type of union.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Possibly. It would certainly allow all marriages to be labeled something else or provide some other means of making it seem more palatable; but I don't think it would allow for any substantive difference. Even if another state specifically denies such unions, the legal rights/duties/etc. would have to be honored -- even if not labeled a "marriage" by the other state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I would personally love to see what will go down if they try to connect marriage to interstate commerce. Hoo boy. :hide:
Again we are just talking about gay marriage. So lets have the dialog.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
What are your reasons that homosexuals couples should not have the right to marry? How will it negatively affect you?
AhhhQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
This reminds me of a great joke about 4 nuns that die and go to heaven....
If you would like to hear the rest please PM me. :beam:
Not having very ... hmm... "friendly" answers to these questions seems to be one of the main reasons for falling back on the "States rights, I'm a strict Constitution adherent" response.Quote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
Hey, I won't deny that. But if someone acts like it's just "liberals" "abusing" the courts for ideological advantage, that criticism works both ways.Quote:
Please don't use this argument. Every President has been doing this since FDR tried to pack the Court in the 1930s when it was overturning his New Deal legislation left and right. Do you honestly think that Obama and a heavily Democratic Senate will show the Right any mercy when it comes time to nominate appellate and Supreme Court justices? Shaping the courts is one of the president's most underrated powers.
Personally I think we have the courts to thank for a lot of very good decisions such as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia Loving vs. Virginia decision which ended the continuing persecution of miscegenated (mixed race) couples. And contrary to the "go through the legislative branch" argument, I think that an impartial, unelected judiciary which then has the freedom to pursue questions of Constitutionality without immediate fear of reprisal or veto is a good thing, not a bad thing. Especially given how many watershed cases for civil rights have been decided in the courts. Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Endo Ex Parte Endo and other related laws to the Japanese American internment during WWII.
I think sometimes people forget there are three branches of government, not two, and the proper function of Constitutional democracy in our country has net benefitted from the judiciary's role in our government, not been undermined by it. But maybe people whose histories and personal experiences do not include LEGISLATIVE OPPRESSION would not see why this was a good thing.
You are asking a cyclical question. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman and is special. Two men should not be able to get married because there is not one man and one woman. A man marrying a toaster wouldn't overtly affect me in any way either.Quote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
What is marriage? Why do we have it? What are your reasons why a man shouldn't marry a toaster? Because it is ludicrous and is obviously not a marriage. I stand by the right of the people to enact ludicrous laws, but not to have them imposed on us.
I believe that society should be able to decide which types of relationships it admires most. Neither men nor women are excluded from the practice of marriage, but fetishists can't warp the institution at their leisure. There is no discrimination - marriage in the State is open to all and is a privilege - not a right.
You didn't answer the question. You hinted around that there is some "reason" we want marriage to only be between a man and a woman, but you didn't make it explicit. What is it, childrearing? That argument has been brought up many times and retired. If childbearing is the only reason we affirm man-woman marriage, then should we revoke the "privilege" of marriage for barren couples, or couples which choose not to have children? IF childbearing is your hidden reason, then perhaps the marriage "privilege" should be revoked, as it's giving unfair tax advantages and rights to a couple which doesn't need them with regards to raising children.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
You are using the exception to negate the rule. A traditional marriage between one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children is something that society has deemed unique and worthy of special note. Not allowing barren couples to be wed would be discrimination based on disability and is the exception to the rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
I'm all for the dialogue on what marriage means and why we have it if you feel it is necessary, but I think I have answered the question at hand.
He asked me why two people of the same gender shouldn't be married and I said because it would not be a union between one man and one woman and that the union of one man and one woman is unique and special. What else do you want me to say about it from a secular and legal point of view?
The government has other procedures for sharing assets and power of attorney if you are of the same gender, utilized by friends and family. You guys are saying that the government should make up a new institution without the consent or interest of the people and I fundamentally reject that idea.
Why don't you write what you wanted me to say and I will accept or reject it?
You compared man-man to man-toaster. Toaster is an inanimate object. You can't dedicate your life meaningfully to a toaster or have the toaster make hospital decisions for you when you are incapacitated. So give me a meaningful explanation of why a gay marriage doesn't need all the same "unique and special" legal recognitions of rights as a couple other than comparing gay people to inanimate objects.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
How dare you judge the love between a man and his toaster? I'd bet the toaster would have professional knowledge about when it was time to pull the plug...Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Marriage is special because it is between a man an a woman. Because it exemplifies the ideal it has been allotted special recognition and privileges. A union between two men or two women is not the same kind of special and shouldn't be allotted those privileges. It is not mystical. You can't put a piece of your body in one end of their body and then 9 months later a human being comes out. You have to admit that action is pretty freaking unique and worthy of note.
You can argue that society has no right to define an ideal or give special recognition to the naturally incredible miracle of life - but I would disagree. Are you guys going to take the issue up with mother nature and sue her because the relationships that you support don't have that amazing element of surprise inherent in them?
Anybody who doesn't see how unique the 1male/1female relationship is is already at least half way out of their minds. I think it deserves its own recognition and shouldn't be crowded out by court mandated, politically charged, sexual confusion.
This is getting circular very fast. Marriage is man + woman, man + woman is good, so marriage is good for man + woman.
Remember that "pursuit of happiness" business? It wasn't just for one kind of person. The "well gay people can marry too, they just have to marry someone of the opposite gender" argument is really bad, please don't repeat it.
What the U.S. hasn't mmm "gotten over yet", is that, for willing couples, same sex + same sex is good too, and so is being able to share medical decisions, and share property, and have the law recognize that as a couple, they have certain rights over their relationship and property that biological family shouldn't simply be able to step in and usurp when one partner dies, or is injured or ill.
And further, that acknowledging this in no way diminishes the good of man + woman, or in any way detracts from or harms their relationship or their legal status as married couples in the U.S.
It still comes down to, however, this is an issue of prejudice and not wanting to accept something different which in no way other than being different affects or harms or diminishes you or your rights or your marriage/future marriage.
More wisdom you'd like to share? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Well for one, it's not even alive. But, I don't see the problems of someone making love to a toaster - granted that it isn't my toaster. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Well I dont find fault with the logic that the Court used to strike down the Civil Union law and make the definition of marriage apply to any couple.
The logic of the court falls in line with the Equal Opporunity laws that have been legislated by both the United States Congress and from what I can read that most states have also legislated also.Quote:
Originally Posted by initial article
Just to throw a bit of history into the equation the purpose of a state sanctioned marriage was never about love or emotion it was about something else entirily
A toaster is not a connecting adult.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
People have children without being married all the time. Some married couples don't have children. Some married couples can't have children, should we not let them get married.
You say people who share a fetish should not be able to get married. Some states still have laws that make fellatio and cunnilingus illegal. Should couples who partake in these not be allowed to marry? What about couples into S&M, or swinger?
Marriage = 1 man and 1 women and we should not change that definition is your other argument. Well in this country at one time Black = Slave.
As far as mother nature, do your research other animals in nature display gay behavior. Plus, mother nature would have people die of simple diseases, should we let people die as well. Mother nature would have men having sex with every women he could, should we applaud this behavior, which is more dangerous to marriage.
Your finale point was that marriage between a man and a women is special. How does letting gay couples marry make your or my marriage less special?
It all comes down to the fact that you don't like what gay people do, so you can't bring yourself to allow anything that would make being gay "ok".
Ever hear of "Tyranny of the mob"?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
How does this effect any of you? I understand the use of the term marriage and maybe I can see the bullying of the churches but in what honest to God way will this have a negative effect on the country? The USA has extended larger rights to smaller groups of people in the past so whats the big deal? The judicial activism I dont like but as this kind of thing should go through legislature but that doesnt seem to be what some of yall are arguing.
Awsome. :2thumbsup:
I had no idea that this issue was so cut and dry. Those 3 Constitutional scholars that dissented must need to go back to university.
You guys seriously think that in nature two animals of the same gender have that spark of life inherent to their relationship? You can honsetly say that the union between a man and woman is not special? Same gender Animals hump the legs of humans more often than I've seen them hump one another.
How politically correct can we be? It's gotten to the extent that we deny basic realities. Perception is reality then, eh?
Redleg, you support this ruling, huh? They've gotten to you too? You are now signing off on one more domino fallen to to judicial activism.
Again how will gay marriage take away from the union of a man and a woman? It will not.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
This has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with allowing people to enjoy the rights regardless of who they love.
Like it has been said, marriage has historically rarely been about love. It is a nice compliment, but that has never been the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
When marriage recognizes the union between one man and one woman as special - allowing two men to or two women to get married says that the union between one man and one woman is not special. It nullifies the whole point of the institution as it stands.
Does that not make sense? It is special now, if you open it up further it will not be special? The whole concept worthy of note is demolished. We should all just go to civil unions if that is the case, because marriage has lost its meaning in the state. I don't like the idea of the State acknowledging "love". They have no business in metaphysical concepts. As it stands now, marriage is special for the physical reality. After it's wings are clipped it will be special for love, and love is metaphysical and faith based - out of their jurisdiction.
What is the point of the institution?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
That's a good question. It is to celebrate the unique relationship between one man and one woman. If it no longer does that, it is no longer necessary for the State to be involved at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
There are always civil unions. I think the way forward is to keep the State out of marriage and just let any two people - be they brother and sister, brother and brother, man and wife, man and other man, girl and girl, friend and friend - join into joint civil responsibility.
Religious institutions do metaphysical recognition much better anyway.
I don't believe in State marriage if it is incapable of its simple and reasonable purpose.
No it would not make the marriage of a man and a woman any less special. A marriage is special becasue of the people in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
So what is the point of the institution? If it is for children, should we not allow a women who can't have kids not marry, what about a man. Should we not allow couple who do not want children to marry.
If children is not the point what is?
By the way the sanctity of marriage argument has been used before.
https://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y1...cartoonjpg.gif
https://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y1...e_toon_sml.jpg
I think the whole idea of state sanctioned marriage is wrong and stupid. It was originally designed to protect women from the abuses of men, but those days are long past.
But as long as we keep the legal institution, it's hard to see where the state can deny marriage licenses to gay people, to me at least.
Now, may the gay agenda can move on to forcing all churces to perform gay weddings, whether they like it or not. If they complain, shut 'em down... :smash:
That I dont agree with. One mans freedom ends where another begins. They church can decline any wedding it does not want to take on. Not to mention most gays are areligious anyway. I dont think that'll be a problemQuote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
You don't agree now. I'm sure that, given a few years, you will agree with that too. Most people who identify as homosexuals are not a-religious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Those cartoons are more true than you know. It is funny that when conservatives say "slippery slope" or that these rulings will lead to new attacks on traditionally understood institutions, we are laughed at. When we recognize that people love pets and some love them too much, we can't point to new Spanish laws that give apes quasi-human rights - or to laws that make reproduction in marriage a nonissue. We are just being bigots. There is no way that man and ape will ever be married because that would be crazy. I'm sure that people used to say that about Gay marriage; "what is the purpose of that?" they'd say. I think that many conservatives have better imaginations than their liberal counterparts. Foresight is a gift when fighting things that you believe serve little purpose other than to take decisions away from the electorate and muddy important waters.
I think that the government should get out of the marriage business to be honest. Civil unions should be open to any two human beings for any reason whatsoever. It's funny. This is yet another position that Alan Dershowitz and myself agree on.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I like this idea because it doesn't acknowledge sexual relationships - only that there is some sort of relationship. This would open civil unions up to single mothers who are done with sexual relationships and just want to strengthen their children's futures, or brothers and sisters who are not all that interested in sex or dating and would rather focus on other things. All without sanctioning homosexuality as somehow worthy of note.
Tuff, do you know any homosexuals? I doubt it, but just asking.
I mean, I do. My location is full of them. And guess what? They're no different from you or me. They vote, they pay taxes, they have their favorite football teams. Giving them their right to actually marry those they love will not harm you, me, or anyone here. Of course churches should not be forced to, however, gays should not be denied the right to marry in this country.
Oh, and you repeat that marriagethat those damned homosexuals shouldn't stain it. Then, you say,Quote:
between one man and one woman as special
If love doesn't make marriage special, I don't know what does anymore.Quote:
marriage has historically rarely been about love.
Fine, but until that change takes place, we must give gay couples the rights the straight couples have. Not "same but different" but the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I know many homosexuals. Most of whom have been in and out of heterosexual relationships and then change their sexual orientation description between "we are all creatures capable of love" to "Bi" "Straight" and "Gay". Most homosexuals that I know are profoundly confused and don't fit neatly into any one category, despite how intensely they claim to at various points in their lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
Modern concepts of homosexuality are confusing and bizarre issues for the modern era to deal with. I don't believe that homosexuals are different at all in any biological way. I would be as adamantly against two heterosexual males who wanted to tie the knot if it makes you feel any better.
And they still should be denied marriage? If they love each other, they don't have a right to marry?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
....and that is the whole problem. You are against something others are doing that will not affect you in one bit. If that not a mark against peoples freedoms I don't know what is.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Like I've said; Love is not a qualification for marriage in the State. I love my family, friends and pets and inanimate objects.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
What if you love five women? Six? Should you be allowed to marry all of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
Right. How would that affect you if I married 5 women that I love?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Some here are perfectly content in keeping certain arbitrary barriers up while demolishing others. I try to keep a consistent stance on issues.
I believe the point was that a gay couple loves each other just as a straight couple loves each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
No one here is supporting marriage between inanimate objects, animals, children, multiple people. We are talking about 2 consenting adults having the right to enter into a marriage, regardless of their sex.
Why not? I'm not talking about marriage between two toasters, rather one human and a toaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
You are not talking about those things because they haven't been brainstormed by progressives yet, just as gay marriage hadn't been brainstormed by most progressives when sodomy laws were overturned. As soon as some people start making an emotional case for bringing their pets into the hospital and leaving inheritances to their pets or more than one lover, you will be for it as well.
So many people have more than one lover, the government's prohibition of multiple marriages actually strains and destroys marriages because it forces the husband to choose between which family he lives with!!!!!!!! Lets get on it progressives!
A toaster can't give consent.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Does it have to? I can destroy it without legal trouble, as long as it is mine. Is consent really an issue with inanimate objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
What can a toaster do in bed?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Good for you:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
The whole "slippery slope" defense was BS when they used it against inter-racial marriages. Guess what, nothing went down any slope.
Not allowing gay couples to marry is nothing more then simple sexual discrimination.
You haven't lived, my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
About the slippery slope thing - I don't believe that the miscegenation law repeal has anything to do with the current situation. Those laws should have been nullified by the 13th and 14th amendments, but were in place after that because of real biological bigotry. The current situation would be comically absurd to me if it wasn't such a real threat. Certain legal rulings have opened up the floodgates for these rulings on gay marriage and we used gay marriage as a stop-gap against those rulings, but our foresight was dismissed. I don't have a problem with changing marriage laws, but the way it is going on is unconscionable. It is underhanded and undemocratic - spurred on by fallacious charges of discrimination.
Well, I'm sure it can make some hot, lovely,Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: