And this is my point. We don't need the court to carve out a special class in order to force the issue and strike down laws. The gay agenda is doing gangbuster work at advancing their cause. Through public opinion and legislation marriage will be redefined as they wish.Originally Posted by Genius
1. This was actually the same excuse they used for being against interracial marriages. The claim was that Whites could marry each other, and Blacks could marry each other. Hence both had the same rights. And to allow "Perverts" to marry interracially when nobody else weren't interested in doing that shit would be giving those same so-called perverts "special rights" that decent, law-biding citizens simply did not have. and boy, that wouldn't be fair at all! Never mind that by expanding the current marriage laws, they made it so that it was open to ALL, even to those supposedly super-moral bigots who weren't interested in marrying a N-word and couldn't understand why others would want to.
Likewise, expanding the marriage laws for LGBT people does not give them speical rights that you don't have... all it means is that even though YOU have zero interest in doing so, now YOU can marry the same sex. Just like how you claim that LGBT people have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex who they have zero interest in. It just became a two-way street now, buddy. The best part? Your pool of potential marriage candidates just got bigger, because all the gay men aren't snapping up the women in order to "fit in with society while living a lie". They now see that they can have a normal life with other men, which leaves you with MORE wives to choose from.
Win-win.
2. a lot of the states' civil unions actually don't have all the benefits that a government-sanctioned marriage does. gay couples still can be kept apart from each other in hospitals, etc. No tax benefits like hetero couples do, and so on forth..... a lot of the little things that marriage gives you but you take for granted, a civil union does not have. Basically it's the shining example of why "Separate but Equal" is nothing but a myth because there is no such thing.
3. why should sexuality be defined? heterosexuals don't need a whole barrage of psychological tests every time they want to do things like get married. So why should LGBT people be subjected to that?
The difference being that I'm not denying that homosexuals are people.
My actual only problem with this whole thing is that they insist on calling it marriage, which is a perversion of the word and the historical meaning.
And there is no way my marriage pool gets bigger. I don't want anything to do with a woman that has no idea her husband is gay.
Separate but equal doesn't apply because homosexuality isn't a class of person. Another reason it needs a definition. As far as I'm concerned, homosexuals are men, and lesbians are women. All of our anti-discrimination laws apply fairly to them.2. a lot of the states' civil unions actually don't have all the benefits that a government-sanctioned marriage does. gay couples still can be kept apart from each other in hospitals, etc. No tax benefits like hetero couples do, and so on forth..... a lot of the little things that marriage gives you but you take for granted, a civil union does not have. Basically it's the shining example of why "Separate but Equal" is nothing but a myth because there is no such thing.
I'm not the one trying to legalize homosexual marriage. If you want to legalize something, first you have to define what it is.3. why should sexuality be defined? heterosexuals don't need a whole barrage of psychological tests every time they want to do things like get married. So why should LGBT people be subjected to that?
White people...have a definition. Black people...have a definition. Women...have a definition. Men...have a definition. Old people...have a definition. All these groups that have laws against being discriminated have clearly defined characteristics.
What is the definition of homosexuality? How is it defined so that it has a box on a form you can check off. How is it defined so that you know when you're discriminating against it?
I don't have any interest in the State going around and trying to fit anybody's sexuality inside of a box.
It could be said that Heterosexuality is clearly defined. It's where people are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and could never find people of the same gender as them attractive at all. simple as that.
likewise, Homosexuality is people being sexually attracted to people the same gender they are, and cannot change that fact no matter how much they try. Simple as that. how is it fuckin' hard to define something like that??
Even Bisexuality can be easily defined as a middle medium between Heterosexuality and Homosexuality, ie people who are attracted to both sexes. Simple!
I know there are people out there who doesn't believe that there are such a thing as true bisexuality.... but I don't give a fuck what those idiots think. I've known I was bisexual for a very long time... ever since I was like 6 years old and I was very open about it. And yes, I've had to deal with people thinking it was just some form of attention-seeking or a phrase... espeically now that I'm in what you would call a "Heterosexual marriage" with my husband, who is wholly straight. I've dated plenty of women before I met him though... but I didn't switch teams or anything like that.... I'm still Bisexual, even when my own mother wishes I wasn't.
And no, I'm not suddenly going to leave him for some random chick if this gay marriage goes though. I just simply support this crazy idea that everyone should have the equal chance to marry the person who they love. In my case I was extremely lucky that my soul mate just happened to be the opposite gender.... made things easier for me. but I would had still choosen to live with him forever had he been a woman instead. I want everyone to have the same chance I had, to be able to meet their soul-mates for life... and not having to worry whenever society will make it hard for them to do that.
You see? the whole thing is outlined in three neat boxes... easy for anybody to understand.
I've actually heard people seriously refer to gay people as if they were a whole species of animal... and even likened it to having sex with animals. They weren't kidding. So yeah, it definitely does remind me of the times when people in the 50's saw Blacks as something akin to monkeys and thus it would be like having sex with an animal if you married one.The difference being that I'm not denying that homosexuals are people.
My actual only problem with this whole thing is that they insist on calling it marriage, which is a perversion of the word and the historical meaning.
As for history... ROTFL!!! you do realize that Gay Marriage is older than time itself? it's surfaced in countries all over the world, throughout time. Heck, ancient Christians even allowed it at one point: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/sco...2mc/serge.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
Also, the marriages between women and men back then were not the same types of marriages as the ones we have today. In most ancient countries, it pretty much amounted to having legal slaves for life that you could fuck and not having to worry about your offspring being treated like illegitimate bastards. Marrying women mean that Men could own them, and not worry about other men making off with them, because the women were property. Heck, this kind of set up is often described in the bible all the time:
Clearly, modern marriages are nothing like that at all.
Two people of the same gender manifesting an intent to become married. Pretty good working definition.
Then man the fuck up with your "conservative" philosophies and declare the state should have no role in sanctioning anyone's marriage.
We have unemployment near 8%, anemic growth prospects, and we borrow 40 cents of each dollar the federal government spends and you retards expend energy defending bigotry and discrimination. And you wonder why people associate the GOP and its waterboys with idiocy and lost elections these days. The bottom line is the state is drawing a distinction between people, it's discriminating in application of its marriage laws . Marriage, having been defined as a fundamental right right, means that discriminating with respect to such laws requires the government to show a compelling interest justifying the discrimination. Show us a compelling state interest why marriage laws should discriminate in this manner and then your argument would merit respect. All of the arguments generally amount to thinly-veiled bigotry and laughable pseudoscience.
Marriage should be a legally binding contract between two consenting adults. I'm fairly sure the laws of your land are made without reference to any religious establishment, so why is anyone referencing a religious definition as a reason why two men or two women cannot be legally married?
Because most people who are against it usually references the bible or religion as a reason not to allow that.
Christians want to impose their religion through the law of the land. All while protesting the way Muslim countries do the same.
This thread was meant to talk about the validity of SCOTUS striking down prop 8 not the validity of homosexuality. They are two different things. I have zero issue with homosexuality, I do however have an issue with the court overturning the prop by creating a new protected class.
Did you know that there was actually laws in some states that prevented disabled people from ever marrying each other or disallowed them to have children? In fact, they were pretty much cut off from the rest of society in many respects. a lot of those laws were still in effect well into the 50's to 70's. Blacks and Whites were actually allowed to marry each other in most states by the 70's, yet disabled people still weren't allowed that right in half the states.
In fact a lot of local courts in a lot of the states kept on denying petitions to allow disabled people of all types to be able to marry each other. Or they briefly went with it for a while and then later backpedaled on their early ruling. This was despite the public's increasing support for all people with disabilities too at this.
So in order for Deaf people and other disabled people to be able to live normal lives like everyone else, The main federal court had to make them a protected class in order for ALL states to allow marriage and kids between all people with disabilities.
Something for you to think about, Jam.
If your ultimate goal is to end discrimination against non-mainstream consenting unions, why limit it to just two?
I'm pretty okay with polygamists as long as they don't force their kids into doing the same shit. Like those Mormon Polygamists, who keeps on making their 12-year-old daughters marry their 40-year-uncles and basically gets away with that shit because they intentionally cut off themselves from the rest of the world.
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon216.htm
Now that's some sick shit. My stance on that is make that shit illegal until the polygamist groups wisen up and stop taking child brides for themselves.
I've met a couple non-Mormon polygamists though, and they were pretty cool if still weird to me. and unlike the Mormon they're pretty free in doing several combinations like one wife, two husbands..... stuff like that. Sometimes it was two wives, two husbands living in the same house and they'd switch with each other. So it's not just one man having a harem of wives or something like that.
But I still worry about how super-easy it is for a pedophile to take avanage of an set-up like that and gain access to kids that way. those people need to fix it so that they can't be exploited that way.
I'll bite.
where did you meet non mormon polygymists?
Did you know that it is still illegal for brothers and sisters to marry?
hey jam did you know a mouth is a mouth?
This is an interesting point. When the courts stepped in to reverse segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, they were not creating a new protected class. That class already existed via the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870. The Courts were simply validating that it should be enforced properly.
I suppose one could make the claim that the Courts are now trying to push gay marriage as some sort of 14th Amendment protection. Though I think it fails for the same reason that Brown doesn't -- namely that sexual orientation is not a protected class. At least not at the federal level.
Claydon--New York, where else? met some really interesting people there while Mr.H and I was in the process of becoming naturalized citizens.
JAM-- Do you even listen to yourself talk? Not all disabilities are genetic, and some disablites such as Deafness actually does not prevent them from being able to raise normal, well-adjusted kids. So it cannot be compared to a brother and sister breeding dumb, disfigured offspring. In fact a large majority of disabilities came about due to accidents, etc.
How would you feel if somebody said to you: "Oh, your marriage is now invalid because you lost both your legs and thus cannot function as a good husband/father to your family"?
Or even this: "Your mom was pregnant with you when a drunk driver hit her. Luckily the two of you survived. but you gained your disablity due to it, and have been disabled since birth. Because of this, we cannot let you marry the woman you love and have kids with her!"
It's not even a matter of genetics... it's all about seeing people who were severely crippled or handicapped by something, as second-class citizens... or even worse, sub-human. It was why a lot of states kept on back-pedaling when they said they would allow crippled people to marry, etc.....
And THAT, is why the top federal courts had to create a new protected class for people in order to grant them equal rights.
Sometimes things like this is totally necessary, whenever you like it or not.
It's not the job of the courts to create protected classes. The vehicle for that is amending the Constitution, which is accomplished by actions of Congress and the state legislatures (and certification of the process by the Secretary of State).
Just because you feel something is necessary doesn't mean that you should get it by illegal means, whether you like it or not.
And how is it illegal? explain that, please.
What I mean is, is that all past protected classes were made because the Constitution stated that all humans had equal rights, right? So the rights act for Race, Disablities, etc were all to rule that as human beings they were not to be denied those rights.
hence, creating protected classes this way was NOT ILLEGAL.
If the law says that you need to amend the Constitution and you don't do it that way... how is that NOT illegal?
lol. Marriage and the like is actually not in the Constitution. It however, says that all humankind is created equal, and as such does have equal rights.
I think it would be pretty damn easy to create something like the disability act of 1973 (which made people with an disability a protected class), only expect for LGBT people, without even altering the constitution AT ALL.
So your agruement is flawed.In fact, you know what was unconstitutional? when Anti-gay opponents urged the government to alter the constitution to state that marriage was between a man and a woman only. the government never went though with it.
We already have equal rights. Gay people want extra rights. There's a difference. I can't marry a man. They can't marry a man. That is equality under the law.
I never said it was.
Actually, it doesn't say that in the Constitution. That's the Declaration of Independence. And you're paraphrasing. It actually says this: "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."
Note that the Declaration of Independence has no force of law. It is simply a political statement (albeit an extremely powerful one).
Actually, they sorta did. The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996.
Funny you cite that place. I was a moderator there for 8 years, until it was recently sold and they shut down the forum. lol
I for one will not rest until "marriage equality" exists. I can't think of a single reason why brothers and sisters can't marry other than someone else's perceptions of morality.
Also please show us where in the constitution it says "all humankind is created equal". Oh yeah it doesn't.
What you are arguing would also invalidate the concept of men's and women's rooms and Hell even seperate locker rooms at the congressional gym.
The definition of marriage has nothing to do with how you prefer to achieve orgasm, it has to do with gender. And anyone who knows what the fuck they are talking about can tell you that gender receives only partial protected status.
Marriage laws are currently applied equally across all protected classes. And even if homosexuality was a protected class, you could still argue that defining marriage on gender grounds is applied evenly.
It is impossible to even have a discussion with you because you lack the ability to analyse the issue outside the scope of emotion and rainbows and unicorns.
Last edited by JAM; 03-05-2013 at 11:24 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
