Virginia Marriage Ballot Issue

[JD50]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is no "right" protected under our constitution for marriage.

There is a right to be treated equally to other citizens with respect to the law. It's about fairness. That right is violated when you offer marriage (and the rights and responsibilities that go with it) to one group of citizens, but deny it to another group of citizens, when there is no convincing reason for denying it.

If that is how you view it then I must bring up the whole polygamy and incest issue. If everyone should be treated equally then how can you deny the right to polygamists and incestous couples?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is no "right" protected under our constitution for marriage.

There is a right to be treated equally to other citizens with respect to the law. It's about fairness. That right is violated when you offer marriage (and the rights and responsibilities that go with it) to one group of citizens, but deny it to another group of citizens, when there is no convincing reason for denying it.

You said that much better than I did, but essentially that is what I saw saying. It is a right when you apply it to one group but not another based upon non-equal treatment. Everybody has the right for equal treatment under the law

 

[OrByte]

those that vote against gays being able to marry are exhibiting an irrational fear. It displays a lack of tolerance for people, different people.

I think the bigot label is justified.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is no "right" protected under our constitution for marriage.

There is a right to be treated equally to other citizens with respect to the law. It's about fairness. That right is violated when you offer marriage (and the rights and responsibilities that go with it) to one group of citizens, but deny it to another group of citizens, when there is no convincing reason for denying it.

If that is how you view it then I must bring up the whole polygamy and incest issue. If everyone should be treated equally then how can you deny the right to polygamists and incestous couples?

Frankly I don't care.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is no "right" protected under our constitution for marriage.

There is a right to be treated equally to other citizens with respect to the law. It's about fairness. That right is violated when you offer marriage (and the rights and responsibilities that go with it) to one group of citizens, but deny it to another group of citizens, when there is no convincing reason for denying it.

If that is how you view it then I must bring up the whole polygamy and incest issue. If everyone should be treated equally then how can you deny the right to polygamists and incestous couples?

Frankly I don't care.

and that is why polygamists and incestous couples do not have marriage rights..no one really cares.

BUT. If you JD50 care soo much for the protection of the marriage rights for these groups then by all means take up the fight. You certainly have an argument.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: OrByte
those that vote against gays being able to marry are exhibiting an irrational fear. It displays a lack of tolerance for people, different people.

I think the bigot label is justified.

And I think the bigot label is overused. You obviously do not understand why someone would vote against gay marriage, as most of us do not understand why someone would vote for gay marriage. If I was voting against gay marriage because I hate gays then yes it would make me a bigot, but that is not my reason for voting against it (although it did not come up in my state, I would vote against it if it did).

I am assuming that you would vote for polygamy and the marriage of siblings if it came up? It doesn't hurt anybody right?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is no "right" protected under our constitution for marriage.

There is a right to be treated equally to other citizens with respect to the law. It's about fairness. That right is violated when you offer marriage (and the rights and responsibilities that go with it) to one group of citizens, but deny it to another group of citizens, when there is no convincing reason for denying it.

If that is how you view it then I must bring up the whole polygamy and incest issue. If everyone should be treated equally then how can you deny the right to polygamists and incestous couples?

Fine. Let the advocates of incestuous marriages (I have never heard of such a person - please provide a SINGLE example, with a web link) and polygamy come forth, and explain their case. But we're not talking about incest or polygamy - we're talking about same-sex marriage.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is no "right" protected under our constitution for marriage.

There is a right to be treated equally to other citizens with respect to the law. It's about fairness. That right is violated when you offer marriage (and the rights and responsibilities that go with it) to one group of citizens, but deny it to another group of citizens, when there is no convincing reason for denying it.

So I guess I'll point out that nobody is restricted from getting married. It's just that a valid marriage would be between a man and a woman. I couldn't marry another man. I can't marry two women either. That is the definition of marriage that society has set.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is no "right" protected under our constitution for marriage.

There is a right to be treated equally to other citizens with respect to the law. It's about fairness. That right is violated when you offer marriage (and the rights and responsibilities that go with it) to one group of citizens, but deny it to another group of citizens, when there is no convincing reason for denying it.

If that is how you view it then I must bring up the whole polygamy and incest issue. If everyone should be treated equally then how can you deny the right to polygamists and incestous couples?

Frankly I don't care.

and that is why polygamists and incestous couples do not have marriage rights..no one really cares.

BUT. If you JD50 care soo much for the protection of the marriage rights for these groups then by all means take up the fight. You certainly have an argument.

That is a great philosophy you guys have there. So its not equal rights for all that you are concerned about, it is equal rights for only those that have enough people to make a lot of noise about it?

Your main argument for gay marriage is that everyone should have equal rights, but then you go on to say that you don't care about polygamists and incestous couples because no one has taken up the cause, but aren't they entitled to the same equal rights that everyone else is, or do you not care?

So was slavery OK before there were enough people to make it a national issue? Was racial discrimination ok before MLK started marches? Was segregation on a bus ok before Rosa Parks? I guess in your world it was, because until then there weren't enough people fighting for it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is no "right" protected under our constitution for marriage.

There is a right to be treated equally to other citizens with respect to the law. It's about fairness. That right is violated when you offer marriage (and the rights and responsibilities that go with it) to one group of citizens, but deny it to another group of citizens, when there is no convincing reason for denying it.

If that is how you view it then I must bring up the whole polygamy and incest issue. If everyone should be treated equally then how can you deny the right to polygamists and incestous couples?

Fine. Let the advocates of incestuous marriages (I have never heard of such a person - please provide a SINGLE example, with a web link) and polygamy come forth, and explain their case. But we're not talking about incest or polygamy - we're talking about same-sex marriage.

I thought you were talking about equal rights for all? That is the argument you use to call us bigots when we don't agree with you.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is no "right" protected under our constitution for marriage.

There is a right to be treated equally to other citizens with respect to the law. It's about fairness. That right is violated when you offer marriage (and the rights and responsibilities that go with it) to one group of citizens, but deny it to another group of citizens, when there is no convincing reason for denying it.

So I guess I'll point out that nobody is restricted from getting married. It's just that a valid marriage would be between a man and a woman. I couldn't marry another man. I can't marry two women either. That is the definition of marriage that society has set.

Bingo

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is no "right" protected under our constitution for marriage.

There is a right to be treated equally to other citizens with respect to the law. It's about fairness. That right is violated when you offer marriage (and the rights and responsibilities that go with it) to one group of citizens, but deny it to another group of citizens, when there is no convincing reason for denying it.

If that is how you view it then I must bring up the whole polygamy and incest issue. If everyone should be treated equally then how can you deny the right to polygamists and incestous couples?

Frankly I don't care.

and that is why polygamists and incestous couples do not have marriage rights..no one really cares.

BUT. If you JD50 care soo much for the protection of the marriage rights for these groups then by all means take up the fight. You certainly have an argument.

I've never even read of a single case of an incestuous couple who have come forward and asked for the right to marry. If there is not even a single case of such a couple, why is there a need to even consider something like this?

As for polygamy, I don't know much about it. IF there are huge numbers of would-be polygamists wanting to marry more than one spouse, then perhaps they should start making their case to the general public. But it seems limited to a bunch of religious "crazies" up in Utah.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte
those that vote against gays being able to marry are exhibiting an irrational fear. It displays a lack of tolerance for people, different people.

I think the bigot label is justified.

And I think the bigot label is overused. You obviously do not understand why someone would vote against gay marriage, as most of us do not understand why someone would vote for gay marriage. If I was voting against gay marriage because I hate gays then yes it would make me a bigot, but that is not my reason for voting against it (although it did not come up in my state, I would vote against it if it did).

I am assuming that you would vote for polygamy and the marriage of siblings if it came up? It doesn't hurt anybody right?

I absolutely understand why people would vote against gays being allowed to marry.

1. the bible tells them so
2. they want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage
3. they dont want Teh Ghey to spread
4. Some sort or "Nature" argument

all of the above = irrational. irrational fear breeds bigoted behavior.

as for polygamy and or incest. You and I had this discussion before, and you know why I would vote against it. The State cannot reasonably protect a minor, or a younger brother or sister from possible statutory rape, or coercion. These are things that we expect the State (any State) to enforce against.

so tell me, what are your personal reasons against gay marriage?

edit: actually dont tell me, I dont want to hijack this thread anymore.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: JD50
It sure didn't take long for the "bigot" card to be played. Just because someone has different views than you does not make them a bigot or an ignoramus. You being unable to accept someone elses views and not insult them makes you an ignorant, close minded fool. I'm sick and tired of people on this board calling anyone that disagrees with gay marriage a bigot.

Hello, did you even read his post? I called him ignorant because he seems to think voting is a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights - when it in fact, it is neither a right, nor does the Bill of Rights even remotely mention voting. That's ignorance. To further use those false claims as the basis for a disingenuous argument that my initial analogy is wrong is reasonable to interpret as bigotry. You do know what a bigot is, right? Someone who holds an unreasonable prejudice... Seems to describe him well, since he can't make a reasonable argument.

Calling someone out for having a poor understanding of Constitutional & voting law isn't close-minded - it's being critical and not buying a disingenuous argument.

Why am I not surprised you can make no more sophisticated retort than calling me 'ignorant' & 'close-minded'? People who think extending the rights enjoyed by straight folks to homosexuals do so with an understanding of the history of oppression in the United States. People who think them queers shouldn't be allowed to be married don't know the difference between 'rites' & 'rights' & forget about the First Amendment.

If you want to make an argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on appeals to 'morals' or the Bible, I would be happy to read it with an open mind. Until then, you're a part of the tyrant majority. Again, be glad you're not required to pass a critical thinking & civics exam to vote.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: JD50
I am assuming that you would vote for polygamy and the marriage of siblings if it came up? It doesn't hurt anybody right?

Incest creates a much larger chance of a child being born with a birth defect therefore it DOES hurt somebody.

I can't think up a rational argument against polygamy.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
So I guess I'll point out that nobody is restricted from getting married. It's just that a valid marriage would be between a man and a woman. I couldn't marry another man. I can't marry two women either. That is the definition of marriage that society has set.

We wouldn't make much progress in this world if all we did was follow the traditions that society has already set.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is no "right" protected under our constitution for marriage.

There is a right to be treated equally to other citizens with respect to the law. It's about fairness. That right is violated when you offer marriage (and the rights and responsibilities that go with it) to one group of citizens, but deny it to another group of citizens, when there is no convincing reason for denying it.

If that is how you view it then I must bring up the whole polygamy and incest issue. If everyone should be treated equally then how can you deny the right to polygamists and incestous couples?

Frankly I don't care.

and that is why polygamists and incestous couples do not have marriage rights..no one really cares.

BUT. If you JD50 care soo much for the protection of the marriage rights for these groups then by all means take up the fight. You certainly have an argument.

I meant, I don't care what they do. Same as my stance on gays. God'll judge them when he wants. As long as they don't affect anybody else (such as murder), then they can do what they want.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is no "right" protected under our constitution for marriage.

There is a right to be treated equally to other citizens with respect to the law. It's about fairness. That right is violated when you offer marriage (and the rights and responsibilities that go with it) to one group of citizens, but deny it to another group of citizens, when there is no convincing reason for denying it.

If that is how you view it then I must bring up the whole polygamy and incest issue. If everyone should be treated equally then how can you deny the right to polygamists and incestous couples?

Fine. Let the advocates of incestuous marriages (I have never heard of such a person - please provide a SINGLE example, with a web link) and polygamy come forth, and explain their case. But we're not talking about incest or polygamy - we're talking about same-sex marriage.

I thought you were talking about equal rights for all? That is the argument you use to call us bigots when we don't agree with you.

I'm talking about real rights for real people. You know - people that actually exist in the real world. As opposed to people that only exist in your stupid fantasy arguments against same-sex marriage. Furthermore, it is pretty clear that laws against polygamy are not a violation of equality, in the sense that all people get to marry the same number of people, i.e., one spouse. If there was a group of people that were allowed to marry up to ten spouses, and a group that only got to marry one spouse, then you would have a violation of principles of equality.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte
those that vote against gays being able to marry are exhibiting an irrational fear. It displays a lack of tolerance for people, different people.

I think the bigot label is justified.

And I think the bigot label is overused. You obviously do not understand why someone would vote against gay marriage, as most of us do not understand why someone would vote for gay marriage. If I was voting against gay marriage because I hate gays then yes it would make me a bigot, but that is not my reason for voting against it (although it did not come up in my state, I would vote against it if it did).

I am assuming that you would vote for polygamy and the marriage of siblings if it came up? It doesn't hurt anybody right?

I absolutely understand why people would vote against gays being allowed to marry.

1. the bible tells them so
2. they want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage
3. they dont want Teh Ghey to spread
4. Some sort or "Nature" argument

all of the above = irrational. irrational fear breeds bigoted behavior.

as for polygamy and or incest. You and I had this discussion before, and you know why I would vote against it. The State cannot reasonably protect a minor, or a younger brother or sister from possible statutory rape, or coercion. These are things that we expect the State (any State) to enforce against.

so tell me, what are your personal reasons against gay marriage?

I'd say thats pretty irrational. If I said "The state cannot reasonably protect a young boy from being molested by his adopted gay parents" then you would label me a bigot, how is that statement any different when talking about incest, or even straight couples for that matter. You also know why I would vote against gay marriage, if you believe my views to be irrational then your reasons for voting against polygamy and incest would be just as irrational.

A view that is irrational to you might be completely rational to someone else. You calling them a bigot simply because you deem their view irrational makes you close minded and ignorant. I do not think that you are either, but those of you that throw out the "bigot" card any chance you get really make me wonder...

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
So I guess I'll point out that nobody is restricted from getting married. It's just that a valid marriage would be between a man and a woman. I couldn't marry another man. I can't marry two women either. That is the definition of marriage that society has set.

We wouldn't make much progress in this world if all we did was follow the traditions that society has already set.

I wasn't talking about following tadition. I was pointing out that society brought the issue to a vote and it was overwhelmingly decided that marriage was between one man and one woman.

Some traditions are actually beneficial, and in many situations, necessary to progress.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: JD50
I am assuming that you would vote for polygamy and the marriage of siblings if it came up? It doesn't hurt anybody right?

Incest creates a much larger chance of a child being born with a birth defect therefore it DOES hurt somebody.

I can't think up a rational argument against polygamy.

We do a lot of things that can potentially hurt babies. Perhaps we should outlaw smoking, caffeine, *any* drinking, loud noises, any artificial foods/ingredients, or anything else that has the potential to harm a fetus. Any violation is an automatic arrest.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: JD50
I am assuming that you would vote for polygamy and the marriage of siblings if it came up? It doesn't hurt anybody right?

Incest creates a much larger chance of a child being born with a birth defect therefore it DOES hurt somebody.

I can't think up a rational argument against polygamy.

What does this have to do with having children, a gay couple cannot even have a child.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: JD50
I am assuming that you would vote for polygamy and the marriage of siblings if it came up? It doesn't hurt anybody right?

Yes, they do. Polygamy reinforces the notion that men are superior to women (which is explicitly illegal under the Constitution & who knows how many lower level laws), and incestuous couples produce genetically unhealthy offspring (this is a public health issue).

The argument that legalizing gay marriage is analagous to legalizing pedophilia, or polygamy, or incest, or bestiality, or whatever, is tired, and thoroughly false.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is no "right" protected under our constitution for marriage.

There is a right to be treated equally to other citizens with respect to the law. It's about fairness. That right is violated when you offer marriage (and the rights and responsibilities that go with it) to one group of citizens, but deny it to another group of citizens, when there is no convincing reason for denying it.

So I guess I'll point out that nobody is restricted from getting married. It's just that a valid marriage would be between a man and a woman. I couldn't marry another man. I can't marry two women either. That is the definition of marriage that society has set.

Do you think gays should do a Ted Haggard and exercise their "freedom" to marry by marrying a person of the opposite sex? Do you advocate that????? Do you think that is beneficial for society as a whole? What about the damage done to the spouse, and any children that are brought into the marriage? Suggesting that gay people should go out and marry some random stranger of the opposite sex is just stupid.
BTW a definition is not an argument. And definitions can be changed when there are good reasons to do so - as has happened in Massachucetts, where the definition of marriage encompasses either opposite-sex or same-sex couples.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: aidanjm


I'm talking about real rights for real people. You know - people that actually exist in the real world. As opposed to people that only exist in your stupid fantasy arguments against same-sex marriage. Furthermore, it is pretty clear that laws against polygamy are not a violation of equality, in the sense that all heterosexuals get to marry the same number of people, i.e., one spouse. If there was a group of people that were allowed to marry up to ten spouses, and a group that only got to marry one spouse, then you would have a violation of principles of equality.

Ok, so, those that practice incest and polygamy aren't "real people" to you, and I'm the bigot, lol. Also, there is no law against being gay, all gays have the same marriage rights as straight people. They are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex. The problem comes in because they do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, just as a polygamist does not want to marry just one person of the opposite sex.

Once again, I can understand why people are for gay marriage even though I do not agree with them, but you using the "equal rights for all" argument is not being honest.