Court restores Nebraska samesex marraige ban

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, ultimately to decide this the USSC is going to have to decide whether or not homosexuality is a "class".

The good news is, you're not on the Supreme Court. 😀

In other words, is it a choice or not. If it IS a choice, too bad for them.

The larger question is why the particular petty instance of whether it's a choice is even an issue. The majority still doesn't have the right to tyrannize a minority group with legislative discrimination against them for no demonstrable reason.

You (in the more generalized sense) will always be free to be your own brand of bigot. You just can't legislate against those who happen to be the target of your bigotry.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, ultimately to decide this the USSC is going to have to decide whether or not homosexuality is a "class".

The good news is, you're not on the Supreme Court. 😀

In other words, is it a choice or not. If it IS a choice, too bad for them.

The larger question is why the particular petty instance of whether it's a choice is even an issue. The majority still doesn't have the right to tyrannize a minority group with legislative discrimination against them for no demonstrable reason.

You (in the more generalized sense) will always be free to be your own brand of bigot. You just can't legislate against those who happen to be the target of your bigotry.

*shrug* I agree with you to a point. We all are bigots and have our own little discriminations whether we admit it or not. Your comments really dont offend me because I know this. Im sure there are things about me you find offensive, and thats fine. As long as I dont injure someone, then thats just the way it is.

Discrimination is a touchy thing now. It seems any time someone's feelings are hurt, they cry discrimination. Which IMHO is BS. The homosexualality issue is one of those issues. I happen to believe people are not "born" gay. So that is why I believe the way I do. You may feel differently, and thats your perrogative. There is credible scientific evidence to support BOTH of our views, so I wont get in a debate about that. The bottom line is this will not go away until the USSC makes some decision as to whether it is a lifestyle choice or not. It's illegal and wrong to discriminate against something you have no control over; however, I can discriminate all I want if I dont like your lifestyle choices. That's the law.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: Zaitsev
What completely mystifies me is that, most likely, the lawyers arguing and the judges ruling on these cases probably lived during the civil rights movement 😕

Most if not all of the people who are against gay marriage and equal rights for gays would be against equal rights for any race that is not theirs, but today that is far too unpopular of a stance, so they would never admit to it. In fact those same people will try and insist this argument is not the same, but it is.

Since when did being homosexual or gay constitute a race of people???

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
No, the only difference is how far stretched the Constitution should be stretched. Lets leave it at that. Name calling does no one any good.

When the only difference in the outcome is whether the law or the decision will arbitrarily discriminate against an entire class of people with absolutely no justification in fact or in effect on anyone else, the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution should be applied as broadly as possible.

The ONLY possible outcome of arbitrary legislated discrimination against an entire class of people is that it will lead to further discrimination against other classes of people. It that's what you favor, I hope you're a member of the next class to be persecuted. That experience may help to inform your future decisions... if you're still allowed to participate in society once those restrictions are applied.

Since when did the people who call themselves homosexual or gay become a class of people?

Can anybody start a movement and have those people in that movement be called a class of people??

 

[Pens1566]

Class, group, minority, subset, whatever. Now you're just using semantics as an argument since you obviously can't prove any of your earlier points.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, ultimately to decide this the USSC is going to have to decide whether or not homosexuality is a "class".

The good news is, you're not on the Supreme Court. 😀

In other words, is it a choice or not. If it IS a choice, too bad for them.

The larger question is why the particular petty instance of whether it's a choice is even an issue. The majority still doesn't have the right to tyrannize a minority group with legislative discrimination against them for no demonstrable reason.

You (in the more generalized sense) will always be free to be your own brand of bigot. You just can't legislate against those who happen to be the target of your bigotry.

*shrug* I agree with you to a point. We all are bigots and have our own little discriminations whether we admit it or not. Your comments really dont offend me because I know this. Im sure there are things about me you find offensive, and thats fine. As long as I dont injure someone, then thats just the way it is.

Discrimination is a touchy thing now. It seems any time someone's feelings are hurt, they cry discrimination. Which IMHO is BS. The homosexualality issue is one of those issues. I happen to believe people are not "born" gay. So that is why I believe the way I do. You may feel differently, and thats your perrogative. There is credible scientific evidence to support BOTH of our views, so I wont get in a debate about that. The bottom line is this will not go away until the USSC makes some decision as to whether it is a lifestyle choice or not. It's illegal and wrong to discriminate against something you have no control over; however, I can discriminate all I want if I dont like your lifestyle choices. That's the law.

Oh my God no! You're going to attack me because I put mustard on my chicken as a part of my wonderful lifestyle choice? How about you let me live my lifestyle up to the point it steps on yours. Offending your bigotry is not an offense. You are the one with the problem. And now nice to assume everybody is also bigoted like you. Better than sleeping pills, eh?

 

[Pens1566]

How do legally recognized unions for homosexuals hurt anyone? Other than pissing off the bigots and bible-thumpers?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yep! You also have freedom of speech, regardless of how uninformed and bigoted it may be. The biggest difference between our views is, only one of us is trying to impose discriminatory sanctions against an entire group of people for nothing more than their choice of love interetsts.

Well this is the root of the issue...marriage is very much a choice, and as such, there is no explicit language in the Constitution that protects the right to marriage.

The absence of a privilege or option in our society is not discrimination...granted, those most opposed to gay marriage must very well be bigots from your perspective, but you also need to recognize that their beliefs on homosexuality are based on well entrenched societal norms that will be quite difficult to eliminate.

What we are talking about here are the LEGAL implications of marriage...there is nothing preventing a gay couple from forming a household...however, gay couples are denied many of the privileges extended to heterosexual couples, and that is not right.

The government should get out of the marriage business altogether, as the term marriage tends to refer more to the ceremonial aspect of the union.

I say civil unions for everyone, and the rights extended to a household as a result of that union...and marriage ceremonies in the venues that couples choose for themselves, independent of government intervention.

 

[Aisengard]

Starbuck, I completely agree.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Starbuck, I completely agree.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
I say civil unions for everyone, and the rights extended to a household as a result of that union...and marriage ceremonies in the venues that couples choose for themselves, independent of government intervention.

that's not going to happen. it's like expecting the government to stop taxing citizens. the government IS involved in civil marriage. CIVIL MARRIAGE. Like it or not. So either same-sex couples are going to be able to marry - and receive the same legal protections, take on the same legal responsibilites - or they are not. The law does discriminate unfairly on this issue, because men and women do not have the same rights with respect to who they can marry - e.g., a heterosexual man may marry a woman, but a lesbian woman may not marry a woman. Clearly the heterosexsual man and the lesbian woman do NOT have the same rights before the law, they are not being treated equally before the law.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Yep! You also have freedom of speech, regardless of how uninformed and bigoted it may be. The biggest difference between our views is, only one of us is trying to impose discriminatory sanctions against an entire group of people for nothing more than their choice of love interetsts.

Well this is the root of the issue...marriage is very much a choice, and as such, there is no explicit language in the Constitution that protects the right to marriage.

The absence of a privilege or option in our society is not discrimination...granted, those most opposed to gay marriage must very well be bigots from your perspective, but you also need to recognize that their beliefs on homosexuality are based on well entrenched societal norms that will be quite difficult to eliminate.

What we are talking about here are the LEGAL implications of marriage...there is nothing preventing a gay couple from forming a household...however, gay couples are denied many of the privileges extended to heterosexual couples, and that is not right.

The government should get out of the marriage business altogether, as the term marriage tends to refer more to the ceremonial aspect of the union.

I say civil unions for everyone, and the rights extended to a household as a result of that union...and marriage ceremonies in the venues that couples choose for themselves, independent of government intervention.

Well thats pretty much what I said, but I guess youre still a biggot coz apperanly I am too 😉

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Yep! You also have freedom of speech, regardless of how uninformed and bigoted it may be. The biggest difference between our views is, only one of us is trying to impose discriminatory sanctions against an entire group of people for nothing more than their choice of love interetsts.

Well this is the root of the issue...marriage is very much a choice, and as such, there is no explicit language in the Constitution that protects the right to marriage.

The absence of a privilege or option in our society is not discrimination...granted, those most opposed to gay marriage must very well be bigots from your perspective, but you also need to recognize that their beliefs on homosexuality are based on well entrenched societal norms that will be quite difficult to eliminate.

What we are talking about here are the LEGAL implications of marriage...there is nothing preventing a gay couple from forming a household...however, gay couples are denied many of the privileges extended to heterosexual couples, and that is not right.

The government should get out of the marriage business altogether, as the term marriage tends to refer more to the ceremonial aspect of the union.

I say civil unions for everyone, and the rights extended to a household as a result of that union...and marriage ceremonies in the venues that couples choose for themselves, independent of government intervention.

Well thats pretty much what I said, but I guess youre still a biggot coz apperanly I am too 😉

bigots AND a pipedreamers! 😛

I jest.

But really, it will never happen. I don't know why people even bring the idea of, "civil-unions for all" up.

It is unrealistic. The government is in the business of marriage. I am quite certain those that are anti gay marriage would even agree with this.

SO there must be equal treatment for everyone.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
I say civil unions for everyone, and the rights extended to a household as a result of that union...and marriage ceremonies in the venues that couples choose for themselves, independent of government intervention.

that's not going to happen. it's like expecting the government to stop taxing citizens. the government IS involved in civil marriage. CIVIL MARRIAGE. Like it or not. So either same-sex couples are going to be able to marry - and receive the same legal protections, take on the same legal responsibilites - or they are not. The law does discriminate unfairly on this issue, because men and women do not have the same rights with respect to who they can marry - e.g., a heterosexual man may marry a woman, but a lesbian woman may not marry a woman. Clearly the heterosexsual man and the lesbian woman do NOT have the same rights before the law, they are not being treated equally before the law.

They are allowed to marry the opposite gender, thats the key. The law clearly reconizes two seperate genders and ALLOWS laws to be passed based on this fact. Though some laws are not applied equally to all. Case in point: selective service, this ONLY applies to men, but the courts allow it to stand.

But currently the requirements for marriage are applied equally to all: one of each gender, non-direct kin, a party can not already be married. That last requirement has been a point of conflict before in our country's past, and inspite of religon, was forced out of our Union and made illegal. And people currently do go to jail for that behavior.

Can our society dictate to minority of people who chose to live like that? Yes it can - and it has also stood conisituational muster.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
I say civil unions for everyone, and the rights extended to a household as a result of that union...and marriage ceremonies in the venues that couples choose for themselves, independent of government intervention.

that's not going to happen. it's like expecting the government to stop taxing citizens. the government IS involved in civil marriage. CIVIL MARRIAGE. Like it or not. So either same-sex couples are going to be able to marry - and receive the same legal protections, take on the same legal responsibilites - or they are not. The law does discriminate unfairly on this issue, because men and women do not have the same rights with respect to who they can marry - e.g., a heterosexual man may marry a woman, but a lesbian woman may not marry a woman. Clearly the heterosexsual man and the lesbian woman do NOT have the same rights before the law, they are not being treated equally before the law.

They are allowed to marry the opposite gender, thats the key. The law clearly reconizes two seperate genders and ALLOWS laws to be passed based on this fact. Though some laws are not applied equally to all. Case in point: selective service, this ONLY applies to men, but the courts allow it to stand.

But currently the requirements for marriage are applied equally to all: one of each gender, non-direct kin, a party can not already be married. That last requirement has been a point of conflict before in our country's past, and inspite of religon, was forced out of our Union and made illegal. And people currently do go to jail for that behavior.
Can our society dictate to minority of people who chose to live like that? Yes it can - and it has also stood conisituational muster.

Right. And I dont see the masses getting upset about this. Homosexuality is just the minority flavor of the month is all.

 

[LcarsSystem]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
I say civil unions for everyone, and the rights extended to a household as a result of that union...and marriage ceremonies in the venues that couples choose for themselves, independent of government intervention.

that's not going to happen. it's like expecting the government to stop taxing citizens. the government IS involved in civil marriage. CIVIL MARRIAGE. Like it or not. So either same-sex couples are going to be able to marry - and receive the same legal protections, take on the same legal responsibilites - or they are not. The law does discriminate unfairly on this issue, because men and women do not have the same rights with respect to who they can marry - e.g., a heterosexual man may marry a woman, but a lesbian woman may not marry a woman. Clearly the heterosexsual man and the lesbian woman do NOT have the same rights before the law, they are not being treated equally before the law.

They are allowed to marry the opposite gender, thats the key. The law clearly reconizes two seperate genders and ALLOWS laws to be passed based on this fact. Though some laws are not applied equally to all. Case in point: selective service, this ONLY applies to men, but the courts allow it to stand.

But currently the requirements for marriage are applied equally to all: one of each gender, non-direct kin, a party can not already be married. That last requirement has been a point of conflict before in our country's past, and inspite of religon, was forced out of our Union and made illegal. And people currently do go to jail for that behavior.
Can our society dictate to minority of people who chose to live like that? Yes it can - and it has also stood conisituational muster.

Right. And I dont see the masses getting upset about this. Homosexuality is just the minority flavor of the month is all.

If you truly believe that then why are you, and people like you so adamantly against gay marriage if you have nothing to worry about?😕

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: LcarsSystem

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
I say civil unions for everyone, and the rights extended to a household as a result of that union...and marriage ceremonies in the venues that couples choose for themselves, independent of government intervention.

that's not going to happen. it's like expecting the government to stop taxing citizens. the government IS involved in civil marriage. CIVIL MARRIAGE. Like it or not. So either same-sex couples are going to be able to marry - and receive the same legal protections, take on the same legal responsibilites - or they are not. The law does discriminate unfairly on this issue, because men and women do not have the same rights with respect to who they can marry - e.g., a heterosexual man may marry a woman, but a lesbian woman may not marry a woman. Clearly the heterosexsual man and the lesbian woman do NOT have the same rights before the law, they are not being treated equally before the law.

They are allowed to marry the opposite gender, thats the key. The law clearly reconizes two seperate genders and ALLOWS laws to be passed based on this fact. Though some laws are not applied equally to all. Case in point: selective service, this ONLY applies to men, but the courts allow it to stand.

But currently the requirements for marriage are applied equally to all: one of each gender, non-direct kin, a party can not already be married. That last requirement has been a point of conflict before in our country's past, and inspite of religon, was forced out of our Union and made illegal. And people currently do go to jail for that behavior.
Can our society dictate to minority of people who chose to live like that? Yes it can - and it has also stood conisituational muster.

Right. And I dont see the masses getting upset about this. Homosexuality is just the minority flavor of the month is all.

If you truly believe that then why are you, and people like you so adamantly against gay marriage if you have nothing to worry about?😕

Just participating in a convorsation is all. Unlike others who are throwing around names and getting all uptight lol

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Interesting viewpoint

You actually think Richard Cohen is unbiased....rofl

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Class, group, minority, subset, whatever. Now you're just using semantics as an argument since you obviously can't prove any of your earlier points.

Thats what I find intreresting about you. You don`t read a word anybody says.
You are incapable of sound reasoning due to the fact you just won`t admit that those of us who ooppose gay/lesbian marraiges are correct in out assertion that lifestyle is a choice.

You are way to closed minded to keep this nonesense up.

Iether prove your point using facts or keep up with your meaningless dribble!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LcarsSystem

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
I say civil unions for everyone, and the rights extended to a household as a result of that union...and marriage ceremonies in the venues that couples choose for themselves, independent of government intervention.

that's not going to happen. it's like expecting the government to stop taxing citizens. the government IS involved in civil marriage. CIVIL MARRIAGE. Like it or not. So either same-sex couples are going to be able to marry - and receive the same legal protections, take on the same legal responsibilites - or they are not. The law does discriminate unfairly on this issue, because men and women do not have the same rights with respect to who they can marry - e.g., a heterosexual man may marry a woman, but a lesbian woman may not marry a woman. Clearly the heterosexsual man and the lesbian woman do NOT have the same rights before the law, they are not being treated equally before the law.

They are allowed to marry the opposite gender, thats the key. The law clearly reconizes two seperate genders and ALLOWS laws to be passed based on this fact. Though some laws are not applied equally to all. Case in point: selective service, this ONLY applies to men, but the courts allow it to stand.

But currently the requirements for marriage are applied equally to all: one of each gender, non-direct kin, a party can not already be married. That last requirement has been a point of conflict before in our country's past, and inspite of religon, was forced out of our Union and made illegal. And people currently do go to jail for that behavior.
Can our society dictate to minority of people who chose to live like that? Yes it can - and it has also stood conisituational muster.

Right. And I dont see the masses getting upset about this. Homosexuality is just the minority flavor of the month is all.

If you truly believe that then why are you, and people like you so adamantly against gay marriage if you have nothing to worry about?😕

Just participating in a convorsation is all. Unlike others who are throwing around names and getting all uptight lol

all talk no proof.....

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Class, group, minority, subset, whatever. Now you're just using semantics as an argument since you obviously can't prove any of your earlier points.

Thats what I find intreresting about you. You don`t read a word anybody says.
You are incapable of sound reasoning due to the fact you just won`t admit that those of us who ooppose gay/lesbian marraiges are correct in out assertion that lifestyle is a choice.

You are way to closed minded to keep this nonesense up.

Iether prove your point using facts or keep up with your meaningless dribble!!

HAHAHA! pot and kettle man...

you are too close-minded to figure out that your argument does not matter.

Maybe this will help you: Christianity is a "lifestyle choice" too, yet nothing prohibits you from practicing your religious freedoms (unless of course your practices prohibit the freedoms of others.)

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
I say civil unions for everyone, and the rights extended to a household as a result of that union...and marriage ceremonies in the venues that couples choose for themselves, independent of government intervention.

that's not going to happen. it's like expecting the government to stop taxing citizens. the government IS involved in civil marriage. CIVIL MARRIAGE. Like it or not. So either same-sex couples are going to be able to marry - and receive the same legal protections, take on the same legal responsibilites - or they are not. The law does discriminate unfairly on this issue, because men and women do not have the same rights with respect to who they can marry - e.g., a heterosexual man may marry a woman, but a lesbian woman may not marry a woman. Clearly the heterosexsual man and the lesbian woman do NOT have the same rights before the law, they are not being treated equally before the law.

They are allowed to marry the opposite gender, thats the key. The law clearly reconizes two seperate genders and ALLOWS laws to be passed based on this fact. Though some laws are not applied equally to all. Case in point: selective service, this ONLY applies to men, but the courts allow it to stand.

But currently the requirements for marriage are applied equally to all: one of each gender, non-direct kin, a party can not already be married. That last requirement has been a point of conflict before in our country's past, and inspite of religon, was forced out of our Union and made illegal. And people currently do go to jail for that behavior.

Can our society dictate to minority of people who chose to live like that? Yes it can - and it has also stood conisituational muster.

You are a reasonable man with a reasonable point of view. I know, therefore, that you will love my plan which will provide genuine equality to all:

The government will pair each male and female citizen to each other in marriage by random selection using computers. Nobody will get to choose who he or she wishes to marry but everybody will be married to somebody of the opposite sex. Here we have perfect equality and justice as a rational mind like yours will be forced to agree, unless of course your view is all a big pretense to pretend that the right to marry whom you want should be all about whom you love. If we introduce that filthy notion into our reckoning it will, of course, blow our cover and show us as the bigots we are. Because we always know we are monsters when we seek to prevent people from love in the same high form we have it.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Class, group, minority, subset, whatever. Now you're just using semantics as an argument since you obviously can't prove any of your earlier points.

Thats what I find intreresting about you. You don`t read a word anybody says.
You are incapable of sound reasoning due to the fact you just won`t admit that those of us who ooppose gay/lesbian marraiges are correct in out assertion that lifestyle is a choice.

You are way to closed minded to keep this nonesense up.

Iether prove your point using facts or keep up with your meaningless dribble!!

What part of prove it or shut up don't you understand????? I know "it's hard work", but I have faith that you can figure it out.

 

[Pens1566]

A brief refresher:

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Actually science has not determined that gay people were born that way. Until science does determine that then we can say that being gay is a concious choice can we not?
If we can - then I would ask this simple question -
Why make a concious choice to go against the norms of society as a whole?
Why does somebody who chooses to be gay need to have Civil protections? When all they do is have to choose to not be gay and all will be well?

Being anti gay is NOT racist or moronic or sociopathic!
These people choose to be gay. Thus you make your bed you take the consequences.

Its a choice!! They were not born that way!

There is some priceless logic for ya! Science hasn't proven it yet, so it can't be true.

Since you seem to already know this, why don't you just tell us how. You've stated it as fact, now where is your proof.

Evidence article & some just plain old common sense, why would anyone choose to be gay??? Give us some of the reasons, perks, benefits of that choice.

 

[acejj26]

Why can't a 40 year old man marry a 12 year old girl, if they so choose? Why can't someone take on more than one spouse? Once you say that marriage isn't just one adult man and one adult woman, then that opens the door for other marriages that society doesn't approve. If gays should be allowed to marry, what's wrong with polygamy? Why can't children marry? I'm for defining marriage in the traditional sense so as to avoid these questions, not so much as to discriminate against homosexuals.