Support for same-sex marriage reaches record high

[sportage]

This is the problem concerning SS marriage. It's analyzed to death.
Imagine if everyone's marriage were analyzed and dissected to such an extent?
Just call it for what it is. Marriage. Period.

Republicans are coming around. Not by choice, instead by realization they can not win this battle. Law and the courts are against them at every turn.
Many decisions by very conservative republican justices.

One huge turn getting little attention and proving the point is in Pennsylvania with gov Corbett decision to no longer fight the inevitable.
He knows the battle is over.

 

[Cozarkian]

This is the problem concerning SS marriage. It's analyzed to death.
Imagine if everyone's marriage were analyzed and dissected to such an extent?

If marriage never existed in the U.S. and we were contemplating whether to enact new laws for it, I would have just as much fun analyzing it to death.

 

[MrPickins]

If marriage never existed in the U.S. and we were contemplating whether to enact new laws for it, I would have just as much fun analyzing it to death.

But it does exist, and there are no valid arguments for restricting that right to heterosexuals.

The entire debate is inane.

 

[shira]

But it does exist, and there are no valid arguments for restricting that right to heterosexuals.

The entire debate is inane.

Of course it is. But those ideologically opposed create all sorts of rationalizations for their beliefs. These rationalizations are so transparently invalid, so clearly not based on any principled thought, that I think it's fair to question to intellect of anyone who makes these arguments.

Unfortunately and as usual, we are a country whose laws cater to the lowest common denominator, and we still have some distance to go before marriage equality is really understood and respected by an overwhelming majority of Americans.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You mean like throwing out the millennial old definition of marriage being between opposite-sex individuals because gay people feel butt-hurt?

Note that this definition of marriage spans across essentially all society. Even ones clearly not christian like Japan and China.

It is unquestionable that it is same-sex marriage supporters that are the ones demanding that society adapt to their belief system.

blahblahblah...

Doesn't matter a whit. Every day your country is moving closer to same sex marriage being legally recognized nationwide. You can continue to make all the absurd arguments that you want, it's all theatre with about this much meaning

 

[mikeymikec]

This is the problem concerning SS marriage. It's analyzed to death.
Imagine if everyone's marriage were analyzed and dissected to such an extent?
Just call it for what it is. Marriage. Period.

The need for analysis and dissection is a symptom of the problem, which is simply that many people want to discriminate against another group and prefer to hide behind rationalisations and pseudo-logic which they haven't really thought about rather than just out-right admit that they "think what homosexuals do is icky".

I think this sort of behaviour is simply evolved playground politics, many people just want to feel superior by giving someone else a hard time, and here's a chance to do that.

I think Stonewall's recent ad was quite good at pointing this sort of thing out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agLrVvCUkzI

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Yeah and 8 Million people really signed up for Obamacare and are consistently paying the premiums every month.

Are you by chance interested in a bridge I could sell you?

Yep, yep and Mitt Romney won by a landslide. Stupid libruls had the whole country fooled with their silly biased polls and facts.

 

[nehalem256]

Except that loving vs virginia makes it a right.

It's a right per the constitution as ruled by the SC, the government can't do anything about that apart from repealing the 14'th amendment

It makes MARRIAGE a right.

Of course Baker v. Nelson also clearly says that marriage is between a man and a woman.

As long as the government doesn't arbitrarily discriminate (by which I mean doesn't have a truly rational and compelling reason for making distinctions) then I have no trouble with "marriage benefits" and "marriage penalties" being given to or withheld from ALL marital unions by the government.

Discriminating between same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships isn't arbitrary as such relationships are obviously different from one another.

Or having sexual relations with your toaster?

You can laugh all you want. You can think anything you want. But the SCOTUS will sooner or later find a Constitutional rights for same-sex couples to marry. And 10 to 20 years from now people will wonder who in their right mind could ever have questioned same-sex marriages.

So marriage is about having sexual relations? Seems pretty obvious based on that why same-sex and opposite sex sexual relationships would be treated differently.

If there is a right to same-sex marriage why didn't the Supreme Court find that right last year when they had every chance to do so. Seems pretty insane to implicitly rule that there is no inherent right to same-sex marriage and then 2 or 3 years later have the exact same justices come to the opposite conclusion.

 

[nehalem256]

It's not a matter if you can show benefit you utter twit, it's a matter of showing harm.

All laws that limit rights are based on showing harm.

Showing harm of polygamous marriages or incest marriages is easy, showing harm of SSM seems to be impossible which is why no one even attempts it, they just ramble instead.

There is no harm from incest marriages if you believe in the definition of marriage perpetuated by same-sex marriage supporters.

What harm can come from allowing a brother and sister to sign contract with each other?😕

Man can marry woman
Woman cannot marry woman (discrimination).

Nothing more than a word game.

Man can marry someone of the opposite sex.
Woman can marry someone of the opposite sex.

No discrimination found.

 

[michal1980]

Discriminating between same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships isn't arbitrary as such relationships are obviously different from one another.
.

See what you don't understand, is that in the liberal mind, a man and woman are exactly the same, they are identical, there is no difference in between the two. In fact they really hate the fact we have terms like man and woman. We all should just be a person, or maybe even a more generic term like being, because person might imply some type of hierarchy.

 

[fskimospy]

It will be really interesting to watch nehalem's meltdown when the Supreme Court strikes down gay marriage bans sometime in the near future.

 

[Retro Rob]

See what you don't understand, is that in the liberal mind, a man and woman are exactly the same, they are identical, there is no difference in between the two. In fact they really hate the fact we have terms like man and woman. We all should just be a person, or maybe even a more generic term like being, because person might imply some type of hierarchy.

A better option would be to simply have children born as genderless and nameless babies till about their third birthday ( when they allegedly "identify"), to clean this confusion on up.

 

[nehalem256]

See what you don't understand, is that in the liberal mind, a man and woman are exactly the same, they are identical, there is no difference in between the two. In fact they really hate the fact we have terms like man and woman.

Oh I understand this completely

We all should just be a person, or maybe even a more generic term like being, because person might imply some type of hierarchy.

Comrade?

It will be really interesting to watch nehalem's meltdown when the Supreme Court strikes down gay marriage bans sometime in the near future.

I think I already covered this. It will be proof that the Supreme Court is a complete farce.

I mean how can you essentially rule that there is no right to same-sex marriage in 2013. And then 2 or 3 years later have the exact same justices rule that there is?

 

[fskimospy]

I think I already covered this. It will be proof that the Supreme Court is a complete farce.

I mean how can you essentially rule that there is no right to same-sex marriage in 2013. And then 2 or 3 years later have the exact same justices rule that there is?

Nice weasel words. "essentially rule" does not equal "rule". If you think they made such a ruling please quote the relevant passage. This is just another case of you not understanding how the law works. I'm not sure if it is due to stupidity or if you are simply unable to overcome your rage at gay people.

Then again, you already knew this.

 

[Retro Rob]

Oh I understand this completely



Comrade?



I think I already covered this. It will be proof that the Supreme Court is a complete farce.

I mean how can you essentially rule that there is no right to same-sex marriage in 2013. And then 2 or 3 years later have the exact same justices rule that there is?

Actually, a farce would be to let this crap continue on. Strike down SSM, bans nationwide, and move on to more pressing issues.

 

[nehalem256]

Nice weasel words. "essentially rule" does not equal "rule". If you think they made such a ruling please quote the relevant passage. This is just another case of you not understanding how the law works. I'm not sure if it is due to stupidity or if you are simply unable to overcome your rage at gay people.

Not understand how the law works?

The Supreme Court had every opportunity to rule that there was a right to same-sex marriage.

They did not rule there was one.

Seems pretty insane to then 2 or 3 years later "discover" said right.

 

[fskimospy]

Not understand how the law works?

The Supreme Court had every opportunity to rule that there was a right to same-sex marriage.

They did not rule there was one.

Seems pretty insane to then 2 or 3 years later "discover" said right.

The Supreme Court has opportunities to make rulings about many things that they later decide to visit.

Yeap. Pretty sure your meltdown is going to be epic. Maybe you can file a friend of the court brief about your toaster, I'm sure they will find it a very persuasive argument.

 

[nehalem256]

The Supreme Court has opportunities to make rulings about many things that they later decide to visit.

If there is a right to same-sex marriage why didn't the Supreme Court rule so when striking down DOMA?

Does the supreme court hate gay people and want to purposefully deny them their rights for an extra couple of years?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Here's the beauty of this whole debate. Eventually, in 5, 10 or 20 years at most, same-sex marriage will be allowed in all 50 states, maybe even a constitutional amendment preventing discrimination due to sexual preference.
But it is happening, no matter how much you want to rant or rave or hold your breath, it's moving in a strong, singular direction. Now how you deal with that reality is your own problem.
Whether or not 2 men or 2 women can marry has ZERO impact on me and my life and that's probably the same for the majority of the population.
Here's a pie chart to help you, since some of you clearly need pictures to help conceptualize an idea/philosophy

 

[nehalem256]

Here's the beauty of this whole debate. Eventually, in 5, 10 or 20 years at most, same-sex marriage will be allowed in all 50 states, maybe even a constitutional amendment preventing discrimination due to sexual preference.
But it is happening, no matter how much you want to rant or rave or hold your breath, it's moving in a strong, singular direction. Now how you deal with that reality is your own problem.
Whether or not 2 men or 2 women can marry has ZERO impact on me and my life and that's probably the same for the majority of the population.
Here's a pie chart to help you, since some of you clearly need pictures to help conceptualize an idea/philosophy

No one has ever claimed it would directly have an impact on you.

But then neither does:
A man marrying a 13 year old girl
A man marrying his sister
A man marrying his dog
A man marrying his porn filled apple computer.
A man marrying a corporation.

Yet you don't see mainstream support for those marriages.

 

[fskimospy]

If there is a right to same-sex marriage why didn't the Supreme Court rule so when striking down DOMA?

Does the supreme court hate gay people and want to purposefully deny them their rights for an extra couple of years?

Already answered.

You should include this argument in your friend of the court brief too, btw. I think that will also be compelling. How is it coming?

 

[Cozarkian]

Nothing more than a word game.

Man can marry someone of the opposite sex.
Woman can marry someone of the opposite sex.

No discrimination found.

You are playing a word game by using generalities so you can avoid analyzing the actual application in specific instances. My analysis will provide consistent results, although I suppose you could argue I was being lazy by using "man" and "woman" and should have clearly identified specific individuals.

Assume John Doe, a black man, and Jane Doe, a black woman, are siblings; Mary Smith, a white woman, is unrelated to them.

John Doe and Jane Doe CANNOT get married.
John Doe and Mary Smith CAN get married.
Jane Doe and Mary Smith CANNOT get married.

The specifics help us identify whether and how a law discriminates. Jane DOE and Mary Smith are treated differently, based on familial status, so we analyze whether <arguments against incest> constitute a legitimate purpose. John Doe and Jane Doe are treated differently, based on gender, so we analyze whether <arguments against SSM> constitute a legitimate purpose.

Here, let me demonstrate why it is important to use specifics:

Jane Doe can ride Bus #247
Mary Smith can ride Bus #247

Jane Doe can ride on at least one end of Bus #247
Mary Smith can ride on at least one end of Bus #247

Jane Doe CANNOT ride on the front of Bus #247
Mary Smith CAN ride on the front of Bus #247
We are finally showing discrimination, but even better:

Jane Doe CANNOT sit on the first seat of Bus #247
Mary Smith CAN sit on the first seat of Bus #247

The above example shows how analyzing specific can show hidden discrimination. Analyzing specifics can also work the other way, to show a lack of discrimination.

Jane Doe, a private sector employee, CAN be fired without due process
Mary Smith, a public sector employee, CANNOT be fired without due process. BUT, with specifics we see:

If Jane Doe is hired as a second grade teacher in classroom #2 at Rising Star Public Elementary School, she CANNOT be fired without due process.

If Mary Smith is hired as a second grade teacher in classroom #2 at Rising Star Public Elementary School, she CANNOT be fired without due process.

If you analyze specific circumstances and test whether specific individuals are treated differently in those circumstances, you have a consistent means for identifying discrimination.

 

[nehalem256]

You are playing a word game by using generalities so you can avoid analyzing the actual application in specific instances. My analysis will provide consistent results, although I suppose you could argue I was being lazy by using "man" and "woman" and should have clearly identified specific individuals.

Assume John Doe, a black man, and Jane Doe, a black woman, are siblings; Mary Smith, a white woman, is unrelated to them.

John Doe and Jane Doe CANNOT get married.
John Doe and Mary Smith CAN get married.
Jane Doe and Mary Smith CANNOT get married.

The specifics help us identify whether and how a law discriminates.

Marriage is fundamentally an opposite-sex institution. Men and women are not interchangable.

This is precisely what the court ruled in Baker v. Nelson.

Men and women are not interchangable so such "discrimination" in marriage is acceptable.

Blacks and whites are interchangable so such discrimination is not acceptable.

 

[Cozarkian]

No one has ever claimed it would directly have an impact on you.

But then neither does:
A man marrying a 13 year old girl
A man marrying his sister
A man marrying his dog
A man marrying his porn filled apple computer.
A man marrying a corporation.

Yet you don't see mainstream support for those marriages.

The first is illegal because of harm to the 13 year old girl
The second is illegal under a variety of harm-based rationales which will set off an incest debate so I'm not going to discuss them with specifics

The 3rd-5th lack any social policy benefit, because your dog/apple computer/corporation lack the ability to meet the solemnization requirement for marriage, so laws allowing such marriage would be futile.

There are social policy reasons for allowing SSM, so the question becomes whether those outweigh the negatives. The graph is designed to belittle those who appear so strongly opposed to SSM that it would seem they fear catastrophic results. The goal is to persuade people the benefits of allowing SSM outweigh the harms by arguing the harms are imaginary.

 

[Cozarkian]

Marriage is fundamentally an opposite-sex institution. Men and women are not interchangable.

This is precisely what the court ruled in Baker v. Nelson.

Men and women are not interchangable so such "discrimination" in marriage is acceptable.

Blacks and whites are interchangable so such discrimination is not acceptable.

That's later on in the argument. Equal protectin analysis has 3 steps:

1. Are people treated differently
2. On what basis are they treated differently - race, gender, etc...
3. Is there a legitimate purpose for the different treatment?

The specific-circumstance analysis is only designed to show how to determine step #1. Your argument that men and women aren't interchangeable takes place in step #3. It is the justification for the differing treatment.

Personally, I agree with you. I think it is silly to pretend men and women are the same and that the court should find the differences between men and women justify the different treatment of them by marriage laws.

That's why I think pro-SSM arguments should focus on the social policy aspects, such as whether gay married couples adopting kids is beneficial compared to leaving kids in foster homes, the cruel medical rules that refuse to treat life-long gay partners as having superior familial rights than parents or siblings, the lack of spousal privilege for life-long gay partners, etc...