reallyscrued
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2004
- 2,617
- 5
- 81
Originally posted by: ericlp
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I can't help but think people were saying the exact same thing half a century ago during the civil rights movement...Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.
Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.
Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.
Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
Tired arguement... apples and oranges... gay agenda does not equal civil rights movement. Not by a longshot.
Gays can do anything anyone else does now.
Tired arguments? Why? Most people don't want to pay their taxes or wear their seat belts... If so, then courts do suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I can think of MANY .... MANY examples were the courts go against the people.
As for gay marriage it was a GWB slam and it was wrong to target a minority group. You'd have to be blind to think the MAJORITY 1 man 1 woman / and the church were NOT mostly for opposing gay people. Especially with all the propaganda in millions if not billions being spent on commercials telling people how wrong it was.
Now that Bush is out of office he can't play his stupid game from his ranch things are changing rather quickly...
I have no problem with it. I say get with the program. Normally I'd agree with you on other issues but I won't agree with you on this one. Since I'm not a church goer and I believe religion is scared of gay people since it's written in the bible to look down upon them and religion is just wrong to begin with. That is what you get when you have too much religious control. Again, get over it and get with the program because major changes are going to happen.
apples and oranges? here is your watermelon!
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Acanthus
For me it has nothing to do with my personal feelings on the matter.
Someones subjective morality should never be law.
As an aside to this discussion, didnt Vermont just legalize gay marriage via legislation? (1st time ever)
Gay marriage has been legal in Vermont for almost a decade now. All The legislation did was rename it from civil union to marriage.
All this legislation did was make gay MARRIAGES legal!!
Sorry a civil union is NOT the same as a MARRIAGE!!
Until you are gay you will not understand why that is!!
A man and a woman in Vermont could get married previously....
a man and a man had to get a civil union....not the same!!
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, I kind of expected this. Minority status given special rights. I have no problem with equal rights, but when that rises to special rights, its plain WRONG. I guess in a similar vein to the affirmative action thread.
Judge waives waiting period for gay Iowa couple
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) ? A same-sex Iowa couple will be allowed to wed as soon as Monday after a judge allowed them to bypass the state's three-day waiting period.
Anytime a group of people (in this case gays) get to bypass the law BECAUSE of their minority status is reverse discrimination. I hope this gets thrown out in appeals.
Originally posted by: Toasthead
how exactly are they different?? Are there different rights given to "married" people versus those in a "civil union"?
The answer is no.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Toasthead
how exactly are they different?? Are there different rights given to "married" people versus those in a "civil union"?
The answer is no.
That is incorrect, there are a significant number of different rights given to married people versus those in a civil union. Civil unions are not acknowledged by all states, so your union is not portable, civil unions are not eligible for the same federal benefits, they can't transfer wealth without incurring tax penalties, health insurance benefits are frequently not transferrable, etc... etc.
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Toasthead
how exactly are they different?? Are there different rights given to "married" people versus those in a "civil union"?
The answer is no.
That is incorrect, there are a significant number of different rights given to married people versus those in a civil union. Civil unions are not acknowledged by all states, so your union is not portable, civil unions are not eligible for the same federal benefits, they can't transfer wealth without incurring tax penalties, health insurance benefits are frequently not transferrable, etc... etc.
Im fairly certain this is the same with gay marriage.
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Toasthead
how exactly are they different?? Are there different rights given to "married" people versus those in a "civil union"?
The answer is no.
That is incorrect, there are a significant number of different rights given to married people versus those in a civil union. Civil unions are not acknowledged by all states, so your union is not portable, civil unions are not eligible for the same federal benefits, they can't transfer wealth without incurring tax penalties, health insurance benefits are frequently not transferrable, etc... etc.
Im fairly certain this is the same with gay marriage.
Really? I know the US recognizes 'legal' marriages from other countries - it's not dependent on states.
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Toasthead
how exactly are they different?? Are there different rights given to "married" people versus those in a "civil union"?
The answer is no.
That is incorrect, there are a significant number of different rights given to married people versus those in a civil union. Civil unions are not acknowledged by all states, so your union is not portable, civil unions are not eligible for the same federal benefits, they can't transfer wealth without incurring tax penalties, health insurance benefits are frequently not transferrable, etc... etc.
Im fairly certain this is the same with gay marriage.
Prior to 1978, Mormon leaders forbid Blacks from holding the Mormon Priesthood. In 1978, due to mounting pressure from pending lawsuits concerning racism, Spencer W. Kimball suddenly received a revelation that Blacks could now enter the temple and hold the Mormon Priesthood. If the Mormon Church had not changed its views on Black people, it would have lost its Tax-Exempt 503(c) status - as pending litigation in several states in America was proceeding.
Today the Mormon Church flatly denies that it's revelation was based on loosing its Tax-Exempt 503(c) status - however a great deal of evidence exists showing that it did.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Toasthead
how exactly are they different?? Are there different rights given to "married" people versus those in a "civil union"?
The answer is no.
That is incorrect, there are a significant number of different rights given to married people versus those in a civil union. Civil unions are not acknowledged by all states, so your union is not portable, civil unions are not eligible for the same federal benefits, they can't transfer wealth without incurring tax penalties, health insurance benefits are frequently not transferrable, etc... etc.
Originally posted by: 1prophet
If gay rights are equivalent to the civil rights movement, can the government then in order to enforce lawsuits go after churches and other religious organizations if they discriminate against gays just like they did with mormon church discrimination against blacks, and would that be a good thing?
Text
Prior to 1978, Mormon leaders forbid Blacks from holding the Mormon Priesthood. In 1978, due to mounting pressure from pending lawsuits concerning racism, Spencer W. Kimball suddenly received a revelation that Blacks could now enter the temple and hold the Mormon Priesthood. If the Mormon Church had not changed its views on Black people, it would have lost its Tax-Exempt 503(c) status - as pending litigation in several states in America was proceeding.
Today the Mormon Church flatly denies that it's revelation was based on loosing its Tax-Exempt 503(c) status - however a great deal of evidence exists showing that it did.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Toasthead
how exactly are they different?? Are there different rights given to "married" people versus those in a "civil union"?
The answer is no.
That is incorrect, there are a significant number of different rights given to married people versus those in a civil union. Civil unions are not acknowledged by all states, so your union is not portable, civil unions are not eligible for the same federal benefits, they can't transfer wealth without incurring tax penalties, health insurance benefits are frequently not transferrable, etc... etc.
Beat me to it
"[The law just struck down] is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficut to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution. This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective.
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.
Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.
Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.
Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
And denying a minority groiup their rights is American?
Your priorities are wrong.
Are you for or against polygamy?
I am for gay rights btw.
When there's a significant movement to legalize polygamy - when there's a groundswell of support for polygamous marriages - we can debate whether polygamy should be legal. Until then, polygamy is a red herring thrown into the gay-marriage argument to sidetrack the central issue. Just like the argument, "What about someone who wants to marry their dog?"
Let's limit this debate to same-sex marriage, shall we? We'll deal with polygamy when it too becomes an important social issue.
Well actually the logic that allows gay marriage doesn't support polygamy.
Most states constitutions and of course the Constitution have an equality clause, (i.e. can't be discriminated against due to race, religion, sex, or creed.
You forgot to bold religion, since most polygamists do so because of their religion.
If a state allows:
Alice and Bob to marry and provide legal benefits then it by law has to allow
Bob and Chuck to marry or they violate the equal protection clause.
The only reason that Chuck is not allowed to marry Bob is due to Chucks sex which as many courts have now agreed a violation of the equal protection clause.
(I'll point out here that many religions already allow gay couples to be married in their churches, it's just the civil rights they are denied. Which is way f'd up in my mind)
Polygamy on the other hand is a strawman.
I don't think you know what a strawman is.
Nowhere in the country is it legal for anyone, hetero or otherwise to receive legal benefits by marrying more than one person, so there is no violation of the equal protection clause.
That's a ridiculous argument. Just because it's not legal anywhere doesn't mean that it's not descrimination.
Polygamy has to be fought through the legislative branches.
On a further note, if certain folks want to prevent gay marriage in the future, you'll have to change those pesky amendments about equal protection to specify who's more equal than others.
Every argument that is made of in favor of gay marriage can also be made in favor of polygamy. Don't be a hypocrite.
Originally posted by: Craig234
We need to be fair to the anti-gay marriage arguments, as we debunk them.
Originally posted by: shira
First, they argued that they wanted to "defend marriage." But exactly how same-sex marriages threaten heterosexual marriages is conveniently left out.
There's more of a point to their argument than the pro-gay-marriage usually recognizes.
Let's take the Medal of Honor. Say the President decided to keep awarding it for what it's awarded for now - but to add, say, big political donors, or soldiers who find ways to save the government a lot of money. Nothing changed for those who get it for the usual reason, but most of us would say it was diluted, and you could describe opponents as 'defending' the traditional Medal of Honor.
So, they have more of a point than just 'there's no difference'; they see the same sort of dilution.
Arguing to them that there's no difference doesn't persuade them, because to them there is, just as arguing there's no difference with the Medal of Honor wouldn't be convincing.
The proble they have is, that the difference rests on bigotry. In the case of the Medal of Honor, there is a qualitative difference between the traditional standard and the new standard, so there is justification for saying it cheapens it. On gay marriage, the diffference they think there is is caused by *their bigotry* to see gays as less deserving, as not having 'real' marriages - so to them it's rea. But they're wrong about gays.
In fact, there areguments generally rest on just that bigotry - including the 'marry your car' type arguments they make.
The anti-same-sex-marriage crowd knows that its arguments are without merit. They see the momentum building in support of same-sex marriage. All they have left is scare tactics.
I don't think they know their arguments are without merit. They're generally just bigots grasping for justification, and thinking they have it with these bogus arguments.
As long as they can feel they're part of a community united 'for principles' to 'oppose the wrongful gay marriage advocates', it's easy for them to kep 'fighting the good fight'.
I think we should all look from time to time at the photos of white mobs who gathered to menacingly threaten the admission of black students in the early 60's. Look at the 'Leave it to Beaver' appearance middle class white people - and the twisted hate on their faces for such a misguided cause, to 'defend' their state honor or whatever the catch phrase was.
Bigots grasping for justification.
I'd be willing to bet that there's a law on the Iowa books that says that ANY couple can petition for a waiver of the 3-day waiting period, and that one of the criteria for granting the petition is that the couple has been prevented from applying for a marriage license because of circumstances beyond their control. And I'll bet there are many, many other such criteria, and that waivers are routinely granted.Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, I kind of expected this. Minority status given special rights. I have no problem with equal rights, but when that rises to special rights, its plain WRONG. I guess in a similar vein to the affirmative action thread.
Judge waives waiting period for gay Iowa couple
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) ? A same-sex Iowa couple will be allowed to wed as soon as Monday after a judge allowed them to bypass the state's three-day waiting period.
Anytime a group of people (in this case gays) get to bypass the law BECAUSE of their minority status is reverse discrimination. I hope this gets thrown out in appeals.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
That's part of separation of powers as well, but the main idea behind a republic is exactly what I explained. And obviously our political system is based on majority rule. The point I was making, though, is that majority rule cannot be used to take certain unalienable rights away from a group of people.
100% false. Thats where your point gets derailed.
That's not really false at all, our system is based around majority rule. Sure it has numerous exceptions to this, but the foundation is definitely majority rule.