gay marriage ban (Page 5)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2006-03-23 2:08 PM in reply to: #377636 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban possum - 2006-03-23 3:04 PM this is not a math problem EVERYTHING is a math problem; finding the right equation is just difficult sometimes.
|
|
2006-03-23 2:10 PM in reply to: #377638 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban But you're right...in this case the answer is just so incredibly simple. My frustration is in why others don't see it that way. run4yrlif - 2006-03-23 3:08 PM possum - 2006-03-23 3:04 PM this is not a math problem EVERYTHING is a math problem; finding the right equation is just difficult sometimes.
|
2006-03-23 2:10 PM in reply to: #375942 |
Champion 5183 Wisconsin | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban i'm still swooning... |
2006-03-23 2:15 PM in reply to: #375942 |
Elite 2777 In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats. | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban Well.. as Forrest and I would say "I'm not a smart man", but yes penis/vaginal sex is what makes me heterosexual. You see I love a lot of males ie my brothers, my dad, my close friends, but I don't have sex with them, you see if I went Brokeback with my pal then I'd be homosexual. Now a more vexing problem is all the women I love, some of which I would **********and then I'd be guilty of Adultery. Do we need a constitutional amendment for Adultery. Hmmmm. |
2006-03-23 3:04 PM in reply to: #377636 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban possum - 2006-03-23 3:04 PM swoon. You're right possum it is your life, and that's why the semantics matter. The courts will be looking closely at just these types of "semantic" arguements to determine whether the government can restrict who legally marries to heterosexuals. It is precisely these semantics that attorneys on both sides of the fence are culling over even as we speak. They may seem "swoon" boring to you, but it is "Clap-of Thunder"...where the battle lies. And while run4yrlif might think the answer is so simple, and also may lement why others don't see it that way.., this is the attitude that is the problem. It is the attitude that will actually hinder effectuating change. It's a defeatest attitude, it accomplishes nothing. It says, we're right because we are and if you can't see that then ....It also serves to alienate your oponent by degrading their arguement. You aren't addressing the faults of the opposition, nor backing your position with meaningful authority. It marginalizes their arguement, and dismisses it with a verbal sway of the hand. In a debate on meaningful issues it serves only to further alienate your opposition and cause them to seek to fight harder, without doing anything to further your postion. Effectuating change for the positive takes more than just outlining a problem. Any idiot can look at society and outline its problems: poverty, racism, bigotry, crime, fatherless households. (see even this idiot can do it) But how do you effectively make changes. That's what I've been trying to get across over and over and trying to lead this debate towards. Not just a discussion of what's wrong, and what's fair/unfair but propositions to effectuate change. Talk of the potential government interest that might be espoused is key. It's not semantics. What a marriage is isn't semantics, it's the battle. Coredump saying he doesn't agree with a definition of marriage is great, as far as his opinion goes, but it adds nothing to the debate. What definition would you accept and where is your authority for that definition. |
2006-03-23 3:11 PM in reply to: #377711 |
Champion 11641 Fairport, NY | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban ASA22 - 2006-03-23 4:04 PM ... What definition would you accept and where is your authority for that definition. Good stuff. Time for an exercise. Ok people, complete the following sentence: (Singular. There's a one sentence limit.) The purpose of marriage in modern Western society is ______. |
|
2006-03-23 3:13 PM in reply to: #377711 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban ASA22 - 2006-03-23 4:04 PM And while run4yrlif might think the answer is so simple, and also may lement why others don't see it that way.., this is the attitude that is the problem. Why isn't it any simpler than this: treat couples equally under the law, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity or sexual identity. |
2006-03-23 3:15 PM in reply to: #375942 |
Extreme Veteran 404 Chicago, Il | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban I really think we'd all be better off if we adopted the French way of doing things: a religious marriage completely separate from the state-sanctioned civil unions. That way you could have either or both if you wanted. I know a couple who has had a marriage ceremony (presided over by a reform Rabbi) yet refuse to participate in a state-sanctioned marriage out of a kind of a protest (and a kind of keep your laws off my relationship). I also know couples who have had courthouse marriages and no religious ceremony whatsoever. Personally, I find it asinine that churches can't "marry" (religous marriage) anyone they damn well please. Stupid that they have to have a state marriage certificate. Anyway, I think ASA is talking about the difference between a right and a priviledge, which was something really important when discussing, say, women in the military (specifically, that girl applying to the Virginia military academy). Yet I think it has been pretty clearly established that our country treats marriage as a right and bestows benefits on married couples not available to others. Bottom line? If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. |
2006-03-23 3:23 PM in reply to: #377723 |
Elite 2777 In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats. | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban marmadaddy - 2006-03-23 4:11 PM ...to insure the responsible and orderly care of that microcosm of society known as the family and to facilitate the procreation of offspring as an extension of marital love so as to further the existance of man as God intended. (dang)ASA22 - 2006-03-23 4:04 PM ... What definition would you accept and where is your authority for that definition. Good stuff. Time for an exercise. Ok people, complete the following sentence: (Singular. There's a one sentence limit.) The purpose of marriage in modern Western society is ______. Edited by gullahcracker 2006-03-23 3:25 PM |
2006-03-23 3:34 PM in reply to: #377730 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban Hey akabak is back!!!!! Good to hear from you again. I agree marriage is a right, but the question that keeps getting raised at either the Constitutional Amendment level, the Legislative level or the litigation level is "What is marriage?" or "Who can marry?" or Is there a rational basis for the governments different treatment of same sex couples and heterosexual couples? Someone earlier actually set out some of what the government has espoused as thier compelling governmental interest to treat gay couples differently than heterosexual couples, of course that seemed to get skipped over by almost everyone and the fact remains is that is where the battle ground will be fought. On that issue. And to answer runfryrlif short answer is that contrary to popular belief the government can descriminate under certain circumstances.(highly simplified I admitt) Like it or not, that's why its not that simple. |
2006-03-23 3:43 PM in reply to: #375942 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
|
2006-03-23 3:54 PM in reply to: #377754 |
Extreme Veteran 404 Chicago, Il | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban ASA22 - 2006-03-23 3:34 PM Hey akabak is back!!!!! Good to hear from you again. I agree marriage is a right, but the question that keeps getting raised at either the Constitutional Amendment level, the Legislative level or the litigation level is "What is marriage?" or "Who can marry?" or Is there a rational basis for the governments different treatment of same sex couples and heterosexual couples? Someone earlier actually set out some of what the government has espoused as thier compelling governmental interest to treat gay couples differently than heterosexual couples, of course that seemed to get skipped over by almost everyone and the fact remains is that is where the battle ground will be fought. On that issue. Yep. Back. Briefly. I know a lot of arguments have to do with procreation, but they don't really stand up in the face of the kinds of families we have today. Lots of gay folks have kids either through artificial inseminations or adoption, which means that the idea of marriage as a way to ensure the well-being and care of offspring still applies. And lots of straight folks either can't or don't have kids. Anyway ... this may get me stoned by my fellow queers, but I'm not on board with marriage all that much, myself. My sweets and I aren't going to do it even though we can. I see no need for it in my life--partly because my circumstances allow. I am self-supporting, I have no children, I have a family that validates my relationship despite its being unconventional (so they will not intervene with my lover's and my wishes). I don't plan on having to live off social security (though, of course that can change). I am not (nor is my sweetheart) a veteran. And so on. I'm happy to give up the benefits to keep the state out of my business. So I guess I'm not interested enough to spend too much time on it, though I do open my wallet here in Massachusetts on occasion. |
2006-03-23 4:06 PM in reply to: #375942 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban Coredump saying he doesn't agree with a definition of marriage is great, as far as his opinion goes, but it adds nothing to the debate. What definition would you accept and where is your authority for that definition. I base it in Civil Rights and Equal Protection. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Section 1. US Code, Title 42, Section 1981. "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other." -- Additionally, I don't think the definition of marriage matters. However you define it and play semantic games with defining it, it is recognized by our goverment and afforded certain benefits, priveleges, and rights ( as already outlined, such as tax benefits, estate issues, etc. ). To deny a group the ability receive such benefits based upon their sexual orientation runs against the very nature of our Freedom in the same way denying women or blacks the ability to vote did.
|
2006-03-23 4:08 PM in reply to: #377765 |
Master 2231 Des Moines, Iowa | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban surfwallace - 2006-03-23 3:43 PM Or maybe because I asked him WTF he was doing in my attic. You don't walk into another man's house and just invite yourself into their attic. Now that law has more value on the books in most states. Attic Forced Entry....isn't that a capital crime in Texas? |
2006-03-23 4:09 PM in reply to: #375942 |
Champion 5183 Wisconsin | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban when I say "swoon" after a post by jim or chris, it means "swoon" like, I swoon for them. I swoon a lot when they speak. Amanda, I respect that you have no need or interest in marriage- most days I wish I felt the same way. Semantics are very important. And I am so glad we have lawyers to take care of that for us. Just wanted to remind the masses that it is more than that. sex is what makes you a heterosexual? and heterosexuals get to get married? so if you aren't having sex are you still heterosexual? Did you fall in love with your wife before or after you had sex with her? |
2006-03-23 4:17 PM in reply to: #375942 |
Pro 3883 Woodstock,GA | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban For what it is worth you all know my political leanings, however I have no problem with gay marriage (somebody go pick Jim up off the floor). I have friends that are gay and I would love to see them have the same opprtunity that my wife and I have. That being said I agree with ASA on his point that a good argument has not been made on this issue by the gay community. There are too many homophobic people out there who think that by allowing gay marriage that you are perpetuating the lifestyle and devaluing heterosexual marriage. In order to convince these people a good rational argument has to be made supporting your cause (just some advice here Rosie O'Donnell is NOT the person you want as your spokesperson). I hope that eventually some compromise can be worked out to where gay couples have at least the legal rights as hetero marriages. Like I have said before though, if you don't like who is in office let your vote be your voice.
|
|
2006-03-23 4:29 PM in reply to: #377808 |
Extreme Veteran 307 Madison, WI | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban Rocket Man - 2006-03-23 4:17 PM For what it is worth you all know my political leanings, however I have no problem with gay marriage (somebody go pick Jim up off the floor). I have friends that are gay and I would love to see them have the same opprtunity that my wife and I have. That being said I agree with ASA on his point that a good argument has not been made on this issue by the gay community. There are too many homophobic people out there who think that by allowing gay marriage that you are perpetuating the lifestyle and devaluing heterosexual marriage. In order to convince these people a good rational argument has to be made supporting your cause (just some advice here Rosie O'Donnell is NOT the person you want as your spokesperson). I hope that eventually some compromise can be worked out to where gay couples have at least the legal rights as hetero marriages. Like I have said before though, if you don't like who is in office let your vote be your voice.
well, if the shoe were on the other foot, and marriage for all was the norm...what kind of good arguments could be made on behalf of those seeking to limit it to heterosexuals? It would seem unfathomable for solid arguments to be made on behalf of discrimination. I think in general you are right that we (those in favor of marriage for all) have the burden of persuasion, and I think that we're making gains on that front. The only way to convince the homophobes is to educate them...once thier biases dissappear, their compassion for other people and desire to see all treated equally (you know, equal protection) should kick in. |
2006-03-23 4:31 PM in reply to: #377808 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2006-03-23 4:37 PM in reply to: #377799 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban possum - 2006-03-23 5:09 PM when I say "swoon" after a post by jim or chris, it means "swoon" like, I swoon for them. I swoon a lot when they speak. Amanda, I respect that you have no need or interest in marriage- most days I wish I felt the same way. Semantics are very important. And I am so glad we have lawyers to take care of that for us. Just wanted to remind the masses that it is more than that. sex is what makes you a heterosexual? and heterosexuals get to get married? so if you aren't having sex are you still heterosexual? Did you fall in love with your wife before or after you had sex with her? Gotcha...Didn't get what you were getting at. And the point is well taken that there are actual people and lives behind this arguement, more than what ever semantic arguement is going on in the Courts. Excellent point. Sorry I missed it. |
2006-03-23 4:39 PM in reply to: #377826 |
Pro 3883 Woodstock,GA | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban well, if the shoe were on the other foot, and marriage for all was the norm...what kind of good arguments could be made on behalf of those seeking to limit it to heterosexuals? It would seem unfathomable for solid arguments to be made on behalf of discrimination. I think in general you are right that we (those in favor of marriage for all) have the burden of persuasion, and I think that we're making gains on that front. The only way to convince the homophobes is to educate them...once thier biases dissappear, their compassion for other people and desire to see all treated equally (you know, equal protection) should kick in. Good point! However what we are talking about is a change to societies accepted norms. In your hypothetical you could argue that heteros get to be married and homosexuals don't on the sole point of reproduction and the "family unit". That isn't what this arguement is about though, it's about changing a society's view on what is the "norm". Educating people is a great first step, the ignorance out there on "How people turn gay" or how something made so and so "turn gay" (especially in the South) is amazing. I for one (and I could be wrong) are of the mind that your are born gay and don't wake up one morning and decide to be gay. At least this is what I have gathered from my friends who are gay, they all say that they knew they were gay from a very young age. I am on your side on this so please don't take what I say the wrong way, it is intended to be a view from an outsiders perspective. |
2006-03-23 4:40 PM in reply to: #377792 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban coredump - 2006-03-23 5:06 PM Coredump saying he doesn't agree with a definition of marriage is great, as far as his opinion goes, but it adds nothing to the debate. What definition would you accept and where is your authority for that definition. I base it in Civil Rights and Equal Protection. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Section 1. US Code, Title 42, Section 1981. "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other." -- Additionally, I don't think the definition of marriage matters. However you define it and play semantic games with defining it, it is recognized by our goverment and afforded certain benefits, priveleges, and rights ( as already outlined, such as tax benefits, estate issues, etc. ). To deny a group the ability receive such benefits based upon their sexual orientation runs against the very nature of our Freedom in the same way denying women or blacks the ability to vote did.
I agree with you except you miss the fact that the Government can treat groups differently if there is a compelling state interest. This is well established, and as a previous poster has pointed out the government has espoused what it considers as a compelling governmental interest for different treatment. |
|
2006-03-23 4:41 PM in reply to: #377765 |
Extreme Veteran 414 Reston, VA | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban surfwallace - 2006-03-23 3:43 PM You don't walk into another man's house and just invite yourself into their attic. Now that law has more value on the books in most states. That's what I like about Texans. Nothing like good ol' fashioned horse sense. |
2006-03-23 4:49 PM in reply to: #377808 |
Extreme Veteran 414 Reston, VA | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban Rocket Man - 2006-03-23 4:17 PM just some advice here Rosie O'Donnell is NOT the person you want as your spokesperson lol - how bout Elizabeth Taylor as the spokesmodel for the sanctity of heterosexual marriage? Or Britney "72 Hours" Spears? Or both of those clowns on "Who wants to Marry a Millionaire"? Now we're talkin! :D |
2006-03-23 4:58 PM in reply to: #377840 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban ASA22 - 2006-03-23 3:40 PM coredump - 2006-03-23 5:06 PM I agree with you except you miss the fact that the Government can treat groups differently if there is a compelling state interest. This is well established, and as a previous poster has pointed out the government has espoused what it considers as a compelling governmental interest for different treatment. Coredump saying he doesn't agree with a definition of marriage is great, as far as his opinion goes, but it adds nothing to the debate. What definition would you accept and where is your authority for that definition. I base it in Civil Rights and Equal Protection. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Section 1. US Code, Title 42, Section 1981. "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other." -- Additionally, I don't think the definition of marriage matters. However you define it and play semantic games with defining it, it is recognized by our goverment and afforded certain benefits, priveleges, and rights ( as already outlined, such as tax benefits, estate issues, etc. ). To deny a group the ability receive such benefits based upon their sexual orientation runs against the very nature of our Freedom in the same way denying women or blacks the ability to vote did.
I must have missed what that compelling interest that justifies the suspension of equal rights to gays. Can you point me to it? -Chris |
2006-03-23 5:07 PM in reply to: #377848 |
Extreme Veteran 414 Reston, VA | Subject: RE: gay marriage ban coredump - 2006-03-23 4:58 PM I must have missed what that compelling interest that justifies the suspension of equal rights to gays. Can you point me to it? Since the right to marry is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution, laws that restrict marriage must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest, and there must be no less-restrictive alternative. I'm not making this up - it's what we lawyers call "black letter law". And core, you're not missing anything - no compelling interest has yet been advanced. |
|