Gay Is Not OK

[Craig234]

You've got to see what they're spending money on in California.

NSFW!!!

http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines...nted-at-state-printer-20120209,0,688435.story

Be sure to click on the image from the pamphlet.

How honest of you.

Oh, so they're not actually doing this after catching it.

Anita Gore, the deputy director of public affairs for the State Department of Public Health, tells FOX40 that the print job is under investigation.

She says that there’s an appropriate way to educate people about sexual health and an inappropriate way and that this printing was inappropriate.

She also says procedures designed to review materials before they go to press, were “breached.”

 

[sportage]

All I will add, and that will be it, is...
Marriage is not owned by heterosexuals. Never has been. Never will be.
Not anymore than being free to vote and sit where you want to on a bus is owned by white men.
All are US constitutional rights issues, if you don't like using the words civil rights.
What happens in our American society (take note kiddies) is,
the court applies the law of the land to an issue, and rules on that application.
End of discussion. Period!
No public ballot vote. No religious qualification. No bat-shit running for president's concern.
Law, Constitution, Judges, Courts. That is about it. Alpha/Omega.
And THAT is how is works in America, and always HAS worked in America, and always will work in America. And for every American.
Like it or not....

 

[cybrsage]

The rights to citizenship of a child are not rights that belong to the mother or father. They are the rights of the child.

Certainly they are. It is the right of the mother or father to grant natural born status to the child. The child is born with it BECAUSE of the sex of the parent in some cases. This shows that women are treated as more important by INA 301 then men are.

Stop being silly, just say you were wrong like an adult and move on.

Nope.


Clearly you are projecting.

I had high hopes you would act like an adult. I suppose I am too much of an optimist. Oh well, at least you show we cannot take you seriously about anything.

 

[cybrsage]

Gay people don't choose to be gay. Polygamists choose to be Polygamists and it just so happens there is a very bad and sick history behind the practice of polygamy. And don't try to dispute that.

Wait, you are saying a person does not choose to fall in love with someone of the same sex, but that a person does choose to fall in love with more than one person.

How do you rationalize that again?


Many things have bad histories behind them, using that as an excuse to deny rights to a group of people is wrong. Who is hurt when two men and a woman get married into one unit?

 

[actuarial]

In my state, the laws say you must be of opposite sex and both human.

Okay, maybe more specifically I should have said you need a minor edit of marriage laws to accommodate same sex, and a major overhaul for polygamy.

Current laws discriminate based on number. They are both discrimination. Why is one discrimination more important than another? Why is one groups rights more important than another groups rights?

They don't discriminate based on number at all. They discriminate based on marital status. And that's only if you use the loosest definition of the word discrimination. In the legal sense, that is not a protected class in America (but sex is), and in Canada you do not have the right to equal treatment based on marital status (and if you did, the tax code would be invalid).

Just because you throw our the word discrimination doesn't make all arguments equal. Do all of your arguments also apply to intra-familial marriage? That's discrimination based on relation. Why don't you start advocating for them using your exact same arguments? It's marriage and it's discrimination, all the same arguments apply right?

Note: I am not comparing polygamy to the above, I'm just showing you that there is no basis for connecting wildly different things to help further your agenda.

Why can't it? Dependants are already part of the current tax system.

I like how you completely ignored marriage breakdown. For dependants, which spouses can claim which spouses? What about each other's children? Finally, the benefits of marriage were not meant to extend to massive groups of people.

It would be a trial run to work out the kinks in the system. It can be changed after that

You don't think that maybe you should at least attempt to make a usable system as opposed to just allowing judges to do whatever they please? You also didn't mention anything about it being temporary before. I imagine you're just backtracking now.

You still haven't answered why you're willing to denying one group their rights just because you think another group is being discriminated against?

I'll repeat my prior question: Do you also feel all those deeply religious people who are fighting for polygamy should also be fighting for gay marriage?

 

[actuarial]

Why is one discrimination more important than another? Why is one groups rights more important than another groups rights?

I wanted to pick this out for a separate post.

I have never once said one group's rights are more important that another's. What I have said is one issue is about rights while the other is not, and I have also said that the arguments don't apply equally.

In Canada, both are true based on the the equal rights portion of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You are guaranteed equal treatment of the law based on sex, but are not based on marital status. Unless you can show that polygamy is sexual discrimination (I have shown this earlier for gay marriage), the arguments are broken apart.

In the United States, based on a little research (you can correct me if I'm wrong here), it seems they are both rights issues but are disconnected legally by a variety of Supreme Court decisions regarding Equal Protection Scrutiny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_...e_various_levels_of_Equal_Protection_scrutiny

The Supreme Court has defined these levels of scrutiny in the following way:
Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin or infringes a fundamental right): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.
Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest.[22]
Rational-basis test (if the law categorizes on some other basis): the law is constitutional so long as it is "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.

Gay marriage should fall under Intermediate scrutiny due to gender categorization, while polygamy would fall under Rational-basis test. That right there completely breaks apart the fight from a legal perspective.

 

[cybrsage]

Okay, maybe more specifically I should have said you need a minor edit of marriage laws to accommodate same sex, and a major overhaul for polygamy.

Yeah, but if we are changing the laws anyway, we might as well grant rights to all people and not just a special segment of people.

Just because you throw our the word discrimination doesn't make all arguments equal. Do all of your arguments also apply to intra-familial marriage? That's discrimination based on relation. Why don't you start advocating for them using your exact same arguments? It's marriage and it's discrimination, all the same arguments apply right?

Actually, there is no legal reason to prevent it either. The closest that can be used in genetic problems. Provided two immediate family members are both rendered infertile, what is the problem with it.

Of course, age and being human must be kept.

I like how you completely ignored marriage breakdown. For dependants, which spouses can claim which spouses? What about each other's children? Finally, the benefits of marriage were not meant to extend to massive groups of people.

They file as a unit, just like current married people do. A family unit can already be two adults and as many children as are physically possible to have. Octomom had 8, so if she had a husband, that would be 1 filer and 9 dependants. This could easily be a group of 5 adults and 5 children, it would appear still as 1 filer and 9 dependants.

EDIT: If they are aghast at the high taxes they would pay due to combining all the income, they can file seperately as married people can do. They would have to decide which of them claim which children, just like married people do right now.

You don't think that maybe you should at least attempt to make a usable system as opposed to just allowing judges to do whatever they please? You also didn't mention anything about it being temporary before. I imagine you're just backtracking now.

I actually have one setup, but I did not post it due to trying to maintain brevity. I felt it was not fair to push for a system without actively trying to create one first to see if it was even doable.

You still haven't answered why you're willing to denying one group their rights just because you think another group is being discriminated against?

I am not. I think government should get out of marriage altogether and create civil unions only. I have said this repeatedly.

I'll repeat my prior question: Do you also feel all those deeply religious people who are fighting for polygamy should also be fighting for gay marriage?

I think government should get out of marriage altogether and create civil unions only. These civil unions would all be equal under the law. Religious groups can marry, but the marriage is meaningless before the law. These same groups will also still be able to create a civil union, which will have meaning before the law. The person gets their legal civil union certificate (like they get a marriage certificate today), and also gets their religious marriage certificate (I think the Catholic Church already does something like this now, not positive).

Everyone wins, no one loses. People can call the civil unions marriage if they like, I do not care. I simply want the government out of marriage.

 

[dank69]

Yeah, but if we are changing the laws anyway, we might as well grant rights to all people and not just a special segment of people.




Actually, there is no legal reason to prevent it either. The closest that can be used in genetic problems. Provided two immediate family members are both rendered infertile, what is the problem with it.

Of course, age and being human must be kept.




They file as a unit, just like current married people do. A family unit can already be two adults and as many children as are physically possible to have. Octomom had 8, so if she had a husband, that would be 1 filer and 9 dependants. This could easily be a group of 5 adults and 5 children, it would appear still as 1 filer and 9 dependants.

EDIT: If they are aghast at the high taxes they would pay due to combining all the income, they can file seperately as married people can do. They would have to decide which of them claim which children, just like married people do right now.




I actually have one setup, but I did not post it due to trying to maintain brevity. I felt it was not fair to push for a system without actively trying to create one first to see if it was even doable.



I am not. I think government should get out of marriage altogether and create civil unions only. I have said this repeatedly.



I think government should get out of marriage altogether and create civil unions only. These civil unions would all be equal under the law. Religious groups can marry, but the marriage is meaningless before the law. These same groups will also still be able to create a civil union, which will have meaning before the law. The person gets their legal civil union certificate (like they get a marriage certificate today), and also gets their religious marriage certificate (I think the Catholic Church already does something like this now, not positive).

Everyone wins, no one loses. People can call the civil unions marriage if they like, I do not care. I simply want the government out of marriage.

Children typically are not earners. BTW Octomom has 14 children. The Duggars have ~20 children.

 

[werepossum]

I have no problem with them posting "Gay is not okay", or thinking it, or saying it. I only have problems with people trying to use government to control what other adults may do with their lives - how they may pursue happiness, without materially affecting others, in accordance with their own desires and understanding (or lack thereof) of G-d. Everyone has a right to his/her/its own opinion and the right to convince others of the validity of that opinion. No one has a right to control others' behavior where it does not materially affect them (or reasonably do so in the future) using the armed might of government.

 

[cybrsage]

In the United States, based on a little research (you can correct me if I'm wrong here), it seems they are both rights issues but are disconnected legally by a variety of Supreme Court decisions regarding Equal Protection Scrutiny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_...e_various_levels_of_Equal_Protection_scrutiny



Gay marriage should fall under Intermediate scrutiny due to gender categorization, while polygamy would fall under Rational-basis test. That right there completely breaks apart the fight from a legal perspective.

AH! Very good point, I had not thought of that. You are correct, they would be covered under different schools of thought on rights. I recant their sameness in the view of the law.

 

[cybrsage]

Children typically are not earners. BTW Octomom has 14 children. The Duggars have ~20 children.

TOO MANY KIDS!!!! UGH!

It does not matter if they are earners, more earners simply pushes the numbers up to a higher bracket. I was showing that three earners does not require a change in the system, it already supports more than 1 earner and more than 1 dependant.

 

[cybrsage]

I have no problem with them posting "Gay is not okay", or thinking it, or saying it. I only have problems with people trying to use government to control what other adults may do with their lives - how they may pursue happiness, without materially affecting others, in accordance with their own desires and understanding (or lack thereof) of G-d. Everyone has a right to his/her/its own opinion and the right to convince others of the validity of that opinion. No one has a right to control others' behavior where it does not materially affect them (or reasonably do so in the future) using the armed might of government.

Agreed, which is why government should get out of the marriage business and only be in the civil union business. It makes it cleaner and easier for all.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Certainly they are. It is the right of the mother or father to grant natural born status to the child.

False. The rights of individuals are decided between the state and the individual.

The child is born with it BECAUSE of the sex of the parent in some cases. This shows that women are treated as more important by INA 301 then men are.

This has nothing to do with the rights of men or women.

Stop being silly, just say you were wrong like an adult and move on.

I'm not wrong. The simple fact is that men and women are persons, and all persons enjoy equal protection under the constitution. Read the 14th amendment.

I had high hopes you would act like an adult. I suppose I am too much of an optimist. Oh well, at least you show we cannot take you seriously about anything.

Thank you for continuing to supply bolstering data for my increasingly certain hypothesis.