Gay Rights are Not Civil Rights

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

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

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

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

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

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

You've never seen a unisex bathroom?

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

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

[LittleGrizzly]

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

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

[Xiahou]

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

Sure, go for it- I think that'd be a popular bill.

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

You've never seen a unisex bathroom?

Try using the women's shower room next time you're at the gym and see if you're "discriminated" against.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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

1. It is against certain religious doctrine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. The voters have decided against gay marriage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Yoyoma1910]

What is to stop someone from marrying a carrot?

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

[Xiahou]

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

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...72&postcount=1

[Strike For The South]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...72&postcount=1

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

[Askthepizzaguy]

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

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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

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

[Redleg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strawman arguement about his position - he has clearly stated that his desire is for the change in the marriage laws should follow the constitutional process. Stating that a civil right is being denied without actually providing the proof of the violation does not constitute proof. State sanctioned marriage is by definition a communal process, which does not necessary imply that it is a right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Goofball]

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

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

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

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

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

Have a nice day.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

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

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

[Goofball]

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

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

Case and point.

Thank you for your contribution.

[Strike For The South]

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

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

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

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

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

Have a nice day.

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

[Goofball]

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

Case and point.

Thank you for your contribution.

[Strike For The South]

Case and point.

Thank you for your contribution.

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

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

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

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

Have a nice day.

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


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

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

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

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

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



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



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



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

[Xiahou]

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

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

[CrossLOPER]

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

Clearly, anyone who thinks gay marriage is OK likes it up the bum.

[Kralizec]

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

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

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

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

[Alexanderofmacedon]

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

and we wonder...

[Redleg]

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

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

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

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

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

Have a nice day.

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

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

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

If you mean me - yes, the argument is entirely mine.

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

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

[Goofball]

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

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

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

Case and point.

Thank you for your contribution.

[Goofball]

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

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

[Redleg]

Case and point.

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

Thank you for your contribution.

Your welcome.

[Yoyoma1910]

When do I get to marry a carrot?