Latest gay marriage flareup

[Case Closed]

I am a little stunned this is not on the news a lot right now.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Banning gay marriage is unconstitional

[/ QUOTE ]
Should Iron be allowed to marry his mother or sister? How about his dog? Why can't corporations marry, they're legal entities?

[/ QUOTE ]


I have no idea how you think the last two are good examples. Unless, of course, I missed that amendment that gave animals and corporations equal protection.

[CaptainFreedom]

Guys you are missing something. Dicks in butts!!! Gross!!

I think there's a big double standard when it comes to anal sex between two dudes and anal sex between male and female couples/wives.
I have no idea how or why the guy who called gays perversions isn't banned yet.

[Phil153]

Wow, a lot to answer.

Firstly, no one ever called gays "perversions". I was talking about the act - and that society shouldn't recognize it or put it on par with male-female marriage - and shouldn't have to if they don't want to. This is the whole crux of the reason why gay marriage isn't recognized. If you want to bury these types of comments, then how can we have a candid discussion?

Equal protection - only applies if marriage is taken to mean a union between any two people, and not its original meaning of a man and a woman. Marriage is a special institution that recognizes one man and one woman - homosexual couples are free to contract in any other way they see fit. I don't see this as being different to the law that requires the president to be US born or that allows race-based affirmative action.

[ QUOTE ]
And if what you say is true, then why do you think you have a right to stop them using violence or the threat of it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought I did answer this. Nothing is being stopped with violence. Society has a choice whether or not it wants to accept gay marriage as legitimate, if gays want to get married under the religion of their choice, they can do so according to the whims of that religion.

Difference between racial intermarriage: Well, that's clear discrimination based on race. As I said, if the act is defined as one between a man and woman (which I think it is), then gay marriages can't be marriages. I think it's a stretch to suggest that anyone ever intended marriage to mean "between a white man and white woman".

edit: iron just PMed me and said the perversion comment is bigoted and not allowed here. Fair enough. I will stay out of these threads in future, so enjoy your one sided viewpoint and "vigorous debate".

[Richard Tanner]

A question I've always had: Is the issue here over Gays marrying (using the term) or Gays getting the rights and privileges of marriage.

If the issue is the term, then yeah that seems like a fair, although useless and backhanded, issue. If it's the rights then it's obvious discrimination.

Oh and my bigger issue, what business of the government is it how "two people decide to pair off, split expenses and eventually stop having sex with each other".

Cody

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Equal protection - only applies if marriage is taken to mean a union between any two people, and not its original meaning of a man and a woman. Marriage is a special institution that recognizes one man and one woman - homosexual couples are free to contract in any other way they see fit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, so if we argue that the "original meaning" of a "lunch counter" is "somewhere for white people to eat" then equal protection doesn't apply?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see this as being different to the law that requires the president to be US born or that allows race-based affirmative action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the old "previous inconsistencies justify current and future inconsistencies" defense.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought I did answer this. Nothing is being stopped with violence. Society has a choice whether or not it wants to accept gay marriage as legitimate, if gays want to get married under the religion of their choice, they can do so according to the whims of that religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Society cannot make choices. Society has no rights. Society is not a moral agent.

And violence is employed.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I will stay out of these threads in future, so enjoy your one sided viewpoint and "vigorous debate".

[/ QUOTE ]

kbaithx

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, no one ever called gays "perversions". I was talking about the act - and that society shouldn't recognize it or put it on par with male-female marriage - and shouldn't have to if they don't want to.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you are saying homosexuality is a perversion but homosexuals aren't perverts? Good one.

A large part of society didn't want black people to be able to vote or use the same schools. I don't think it needs to be explained why they weren't allowed to do this even though they wanted to. What is the difference? Oh, right, the gays are choosing to pop boners over something that everyone else finds repulsive. Homosexuality sounds like the biggest conspiracy theory in the history of the universe by your definition.


[ QUOTE ]
homosexual couples are free to contract in any other way they see fit.

[/ QUOTE ]
But those contracts won't be legally recognized. Are you opposed to civil unions? I don't think anyone will care if they don't get to use the apparently magical "marriage" term.


[ QUOTE ]
I will stay out of these threads in future, so enjoy your one sided viewpoint and "vigorous debate".

[/ QUOTE ]
Looks like you learned something from NotReady after all.

[qwnu]

[ QUOTE ]
Difference between racial intermarriage: Well, that's clear discrimination based on race.

[/ QUOTE ]
And what you're vigorously defending is clear discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, if the act is defined as one between a man and woman (which I think it is), then gay marriages can't be marriages.

[/ QUOTE ]
This begs the question completely. The entire debate is about whether or not to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. You seem clearly against this expansion, but I'm not sure why. "It's always been this way" seems pretty weak.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a stretch to suggest that anyone ever intended marriage to mean "between a white man and white woman".

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of younger Americans probably don't know this, but according to wikipedia , "A 1958 Gallup pole [sic - LOL] showed that 96 percent of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage." Now, you could make the argument that this says more about attitudes on race than about attitudes on marriage, but this applies to today's gay marriage debate also (i.e., less about the marriage and more about the gay).

Fifty years ago, nearly 100% of Americans (whites at least) were bigots who thought marriage should be reserved for same-race couples. That definition of marriage has been expanded, and now a majority of Americans have no problem with interracial marriage. The debate is essentially over. You seemed to immediately agree that anti-miscegenation laws are clearly wrong, being a case of "clear discrimination". I'm not sure why you're unable to see the connection to the current debate.

EDIT: FWIW, a further parallel is that opponents of interracial marriage were apparently driven in part by a racist religious ideology, and used selective bible quotes to defend their position.

Edit#2: Let me preempt derailment based on my perhaps ill-advised use of the word "bigot". All I'm saying is that even a lot of those people in 1958 who considered themselves progressive defenders of civil rights were uncomfortable with the idea of interracial marriage, and by today's standards would be viewed as intolerant, if not bigoted. Just as many of those who generally defend gay rights today are unwilling to endorse gay marriage.