Gay marriage

[Avatar4321]

So I guess we are going to beat this dead horse again!

:dev1: :firing: Nah. Im done beating the horse. its about time we obliterated it from existance.

 

[Avatar4321]

Apparently.
But as each new person arrives......
History repeats itself.

Repeating the arguments you make helps strengthen your own arguments finding loopholes etc. Besides its an important and fun topic to discuss.

 

[5stringJeff]

Your assumption of the interchangability of murder and gay marriage is tendentious. Your assumption of the contrapositive (that unless there is immediate harm to you there is no basis for prohibition) invalid.

Let me explain a little better. You said:

There are repeated references to belief systems and social theory but no specific explanation of how gay marriage will cost me money, limit my freedom or in any other concrete, objective way hurt me in my actual life.

I think your logic is faulty. Thus I replied:

Using your logic, I could argue that murder should be legalized in New England, because it's not costing me money, limiting my freedom, or hurting me in my life, since I live on the West Coast.

The whole point is that we have to use a greater test of "does it hurt or affect me personally?" to determine whether something should be legal or not, or we could end up justifying the legalization of murder - which is very obviously wrong. The faulty logic is not mine, but yours.

 

[Joz]

Repeating the arguments you make helps strengthen your own arguments finding loopholes etc. Besides its an important and fun topic to discuss.

You misunderstand; I'm not condemning. With each new person comes new ideas.

 

[mrsx]

1) Both murder and homosexuality dramaticly shortens a persons life expectancy.

2) Everything that involves marriage and sex involves life. And you disrespect life and death when you are irresponsible with the power to give or take life.

I am always amazed at some people who seem to think that their sexual conduct effects nobody and nothing. It's short sighted. the power to create life is one that is given to almost all people. And with great power comes great responsibility. Those who dont act responsibly will regret it someday. and their actions will effect GENERATIONS of society. When are people going to wake up and realize there actions have consequences on all of society and not just themselves.

Oh, I see. So "following your logic," if a lesbian has an abortion, it's a good thing, right?

 

[007]

Oh, I see. So "following your logic," if a lesbian has an abortion, it's a good thing, right?

Oh... I see also. So "following your logic", if a queer slurps on his buddy's pole, then that means rain, right?

 

[Avatar4321]

Oh, I see. So "following your logic," if a lesbian has an abortion, it's a good thing, right?

What? Where on earth did you get that conclusion? Probably the same place you got the idea that lesbians would get pregnant and need an abortion...i didnt think we would need to draw a picture on how children are created.

 

[BDD]

WOW you people are naive.....HOW DOES IT HARM SOCIETY????????? what is it doing to you? tell me that??? is it running YOUR life for two people that love eachother to be together???...so ill tell you this....you got a problem with it than you should suffer too, stay alone for the rest of your life, just like they would have to because you are two naive to accept it.

and also Mr. "OCA"

this is not the lamest and weakest argument....

do your homework.....

this has been going on for over 40 years and for the better part of the century!!!

btw....you must be for segregation and discrimination
because when there was still slavery naive people like you thought that african americans shouldnt be free because they wouldnt know what to do with the power and it would lead to chaos...DID THAT HAPPEN?????????? NO

They say that if we allow same-sex marriage its going to run our society into the ground...theres that discrimination again WHICH BTW according to the 14th ammendment is ILLEGAL so next time YOU try to say that this is weak...

CHECK YOUR SELF

you know nothing

segregation,discrimination and racisim are three of the WORST things in our society...

our constituion says that we ALL get equal rights......

How is not being able to love the one you want to and be with them fair??????????

 

[bigdaddygtr]

Let it go Stitch. Its a losing battle around here. And you already have 2 mods posting against you, so it might behoove you to switch topics and let this one die a peaceful death as it has done so many times before.

Just a suggestion!

Yea, if you go against the mod's on this board they suspend you!

And those against Gay marriage are fascist right wing nut jobs who make Atilla the Hun look Liberal. Hey Gunny, you gonna suspend me now cause you're an idiot or just don't like it when people disagree with you?

 

[sealybobo]

I hear that the republicains are trying to pass a law to ban gay marriages in america, but i dont really know why. If you oppose gay marriage, dont get one. Dont mess up other peoples lives because you have a different opinion.

You would think 11 years later and now that gays can marry and adopt that this issue is settled? NOPE. Why? Because gay people forget how badly Republicans treat them and they end up becoming Republicans themselves once these social wedge issues are gone. I personally know log cabin Republicans. GOD I wish they would have their children taken away from them and I wish they were not allowed to be married or share healthcare insurance. Gays forgot about us liberals too quickly. Fuck them!

The National Organization for Marriage says that now Donald’s president, they have a plan to undo marriage equality. But can they do that? Is marriage equality really at risk?

Yeah. Yeah it is. In fact, ever since the Supreme Court granted nationwide marriage equality, a handful of our old friends have been exploring ways that they could weaken or roll back those rights. And now that Republicans control the federal government, they can set those plans in motion. Here’s how they could do it in just three steps.

Step 1 is simply to weaken the protections of marriage. They can’t stop marriage altogether, not at first. But in a variety of states, there are subtler efforts already underway.

For example, the Arkansas Supreme Court just gave the state the green light to withhold certain rights from same-sex married couples. In that case, it was the right to have both parents named on their kid’s birth certificate. The court said that straight couples can automatically be listed as parents, even if one isn’t biologically related to the child. But gay couples can’t. There isn’t even a pretense here of separate but equal. It’s explicitly separate and unequal.

And take a look at what’s happening in Texas: there’s a group of citizens suing to stop Houston from providing spousal benefits like health insurance to the same-sex spouses of city employees. This group says that even though the state has to issue a marriage license, it doesn’t have to go further and treat the couple as though they’re married. There’s also a bill called SB89 that goes even further ― it says that the Texas constitution, which prohibits same-sex marriage, trumps the US Constitution, so the state shouldn’t issue any licenses to same-sex couples at all.

That gets us to step 2: Strategically appointing Republicans in key positions. Among Donald’s picks to fill seats on the Supreme Court: Bill Pryor, a judge who has spoke in favor of letting states arrest gay people for having sex in the privacy of their own homes.

And this step isn’t only about the Supreme Court. Donald’s pick for the Department of Justice is Jeff Sessions, who a decade ago tried to amend the US Constitution to stop gays from marrying. If he becomes Attorney General, Jeff Sessions could ask the Supreme Court to overturn marriage equality on behalf of the US government ― that carries a ton of weight. And we’d only need two justices like Bill Pryor for the court to say “okay.”

And that brings us to Step Three. The opponents of marriage equality have set up constitutional conflicts in the states. Nationally, they’ve installed allies in the courts and at the Department of Justice. And now, they’ll have an excellent shot at using those conflicts and those officials to overturn marriage.

It would be very weird if the Supreme Court reversed the marriage decision after just a few years. But very weird things have been happening lately. And even if this strategy doesn’t work, don’t worry ― they’ve got a backup plan. It’s called the First Amendment Defense Act, and it wouldn’t let the government undo your marriage ― it would let random strangers undo your marriage.

It does that by granting all people ― which, remember, includes corporations now ― the right to decide that they will not honor your marriage license. So you can get married, but then your insurance could refuse to extend coverage to your spouse. If you need time off to care for your sick partner, your boss can say, “no, I don’t think you’re married.” And if you think taxes are complicated now, wait until you have no idea whether some official at the IRS will insist that you’re still single.

And until then, you’ll still be able to get married. But marriage won’t mean what it once did. Marriage once meant that you’d get a whole suite of rights and protections. But soon it could mean that you’ll have no idea when those rights might just disappear. Marriage will constantly change depending on where you go, and who you’re talking to.

 

[WillReadmore]

Your assumption of the interchangability of murder and gay marriage is tendentious. Your assumption of the contrapositive (that unless there is immediate harm to you there is no basis for prohibition) invalid.

Let me explain a little better. You said:

There are repeated references to belief systems and social theory but no specific explanation of how gay marriage will cost me money, limit my freedom or in any other concrete, objective way hurt me in my actual life.

I think your logic is faulty. Thus I replied:

Using your logic, I could argue that murder should be legalized in New England, because it's not costing me money, limiting my freedom, or hurting me in my life, since I live on the West Coast.

The whole point is that we have to use a greater test of "does it hurt or affect me personally?" to determine whether something should be legal or not, or we could end up justifying the legalization of murder - which is very obviously wrong. The faulty logic is not mine, but yours.

But, your quote of yourself made no sense at all.

The point is that if we are to deny equal access to the law, we have to have a reason for doing so. Amendment 14 covers that. And, that reason has be be seen as sufficient by the courts, of course.

Also, it doesn't have to do with one state v. some other state, as states are already required to recognize the marriages performed in other states as per Article IV Section 1. Article IV cases were working their way through their courts at least to the point when same sex marriage passed by the SCOTUS.

So far, nobody has been able to come up with a justification for discriminating against same sex couples that passes judicial review.

Remember Scalia in his dissent of Lawrence v Texas, where he stated that once consensual relations between same sex couples is legal, there is no remaining reason for denying marriage. And, if you read the history of Lawrence, there really was no question concerning same sex relations at that time - even in Texas!

 

[WillReadmore]

allright, tell me why you guys are against gay marraige?

Because it would mean widespread acceptance of a sexual practice that is demonstrably harmful and dangerous to society.

This already got addressed by the SCOTUS in Lawrence v Texas.

Your nonsense couldn't even win among Catholics!!