The civil rights of homosexuals

[alan1]

Aaah ... but the rights offered by marriage are already afforded by default to them due to blood relations. Hospital decisions, insurance, etc..

Hospital decisions, insurance, etc are rights/decisions I specified in a legal document drafted by my attorney. Homosexuals can do the same.

However, after all that the costs and red tape you have to cut to get it, and even then they are not as binding and strong as those afforded through marriage. Marriage is affordable to all, while not all can afford the getting the documents unbreakable. Too many legal battles are waged in which the partner is often weasled out by those with blood relations.

Even an internet created will, Wills overview - LegalZoom.com is legally binding and affordable.
Blood relations that are weaseling inheritance will do so regardless of the genders of their "dearly departed", because they are weasels.

 

[KittenKoder]

Hospital decisions, insurance, etc are rights/decisions I specified in a legal document drafted by my attorney. Homosexuals can do the same.

However, after all that the costs and red tape you have to cut to get it, and even then they are not as binding and strong as those afforded through marriage. Marriage is affordable to all, while not all can afford the getting the documents unbreakable. Too many legal battles are waged in which the partner is often weasled out by those with blood relations.

Even an internet created will, Wills overview - LegalZoom.com is legally binding and affordable.
Blood relations that are weaseling inheritance will do so regardless of the genders of their "dearly departed", because they are weasels.

True, however overturning marriage rights is harder and most do not try simply because of the difficulty of doing so.

 

[alan1]

However, after all that the costs and red tape you have to cut to get it, and even then they are not as binding and strong as those afforded through marriage. Marriage is affordable to all, while not all can afford the getting the documents unbreakable. Too many legal battles are waged in which the partner is often weasled out by those with blood relations.

Even an internet created will, Wills overview - LegalZoom.com is legally binding and affordable.
Blood relations that are weaseling inheritance will do so regardless of the genders of their "dearly departed", because they are weasels.

True, however overturning marriage rights is harder and most do not try simply because of the difficulty of doing so.

Depends upon how much money is at stake.

 

[KittenKoder]

Even an internet created will, Wills overview - LegalZoom.com is legally binding and affordable.
Blood relations that are weaseling inheritance will do so regardless of the genders of their "dearly departed", because they are weasels.

True, however overturning marriage rights is harder and most do not try simply because of the difficulty of doing so.

Depends upon how much money is at stake.

Granted, but you must admit that the marriage one is by far more difficult to break than any other.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Well, if marrying the person you love falls under the pursuit of happiness, then that would be how their civil rights are being violated.

How so?
The pursuit of happiness is granted, not happiness itself.
Even heterosexuals cannot marry somebody of the same sex, regardless of how happy it might make them.

The pursuit of happiness for homosexuals who want to marry is to be allowed to marry who they want. Getting married doesn't grant happiness, but for people who want to marry, if they weren't allowed to, then their right to pursuit of happiness is being violated.

Here is another point: it can be safely assumed that homosexuals who are religious believe they were created as homosexual by their creator. Let's say that those homosexuals also believe they should marry the person they love, cause its part of their religion. Ist not allowing them to marry infringing on their freedom of religion? Think of it this way: if you're a Christian, and you want to marry but the government wouldn't recognize you're marriage because it doesn't allow religious marriage, wouldn't that be infringing on your freedom of religion?

Is there any reason beyond religion why people wish to keep homosexuals from marrying? Doesn't that violate freedom of religion to leglislate religious beliefs?

 

[alan1]

Well, if marrying the person you love falls under the pursuit of happiness, then that would be how their civil rights are being violated.

How so?
The pursuit of happiness is granted, not happiness itself.
Even heterosexuals cannot marry somebody of the same sex, regardless of how happy it might make them.

The pursuit of happiness for homosexuals who want to marry is to be allowed to marry who they want. Getting married doesn't grant happiness, but for people who want to marry, if they weren't allowed to, then their right to pursuit of happiness is being violated.

Here is another point: it can be safely assumed that homosexuals who are religious believe they were created as homosexual by their creator. Let's say that those homosexuals also believe they should marry the person they love, cause its part of their religion. Ist not allowing them to marry infringing on their freedom of religion? Think of it this way: if you're a Christian, and you want to marry but the government wouldn't recognize you're marriage because it doesn't allow religious marriage, wouldn't that be infringing on your freedom of religion?

Is there any reason beyond religion why people wish to keep homosexuals from marrying? Doesn't that violate freedom of religion to leglislate religious beliefs?

See the line in bold.

 

[Gurdari]

The pursuit of happiness is granted, not happiness itself.
Even heterosexuals cannot marry somebody of the same sex, regardless of how happy it might make them.

Nice. SO, homosexuals cannot marry the person they choose... since that means by definition they are attracted to member sof the same sex, non?

Right-wingers should be all over kicking the government 'out of the nation's bedrooms', as it were, in this case... unless it's just a case of prejudice towards a sexual orientation?

 

[Gurdari]

As long as everybody is treated the same in the law, it's not a civil rights violation.
I love my children, I can't marry either them.
I love my brother, I can't marry him.
I love my sister, I can't marry her.
I love my parents, I can't marry either of them.
A marriage between me and any of the above falls into all three categories you mentioned.
Me not being allowed to marry any of them is not a violation of my civil rights.

There is another that I love deeply and passionately, and she loves me the same way. We can't get married either. But it's for different reasons that I cannot share here.

So, as long as gay people cannot marry their siblings or parents or children - you're in the same boat. The difference is they can't marry their chosen mate, while you can.

 

[manu1959]

why does anyone care if two people want to get married............

 

[del]

why does anyone care if two people want to get married............

beats the piss out of me.

 

[alan1]

As long as everybody is treated the same in the law, it's not a civil rights violation.
I love my children, I can't marry either them.
I love my brother, I can't marry him.
I love my sister, I can't marry her.
I love my parents, I can't marry either of them.
A marriage between me and any of the above falls into all three categories you mentioned.
Me not being allowed to marry any of them is not a violation of my civil rights.

There is another that I love deeply and passionately, and she loves me the same way. We can't get married either. But it's for different reasons that I cannot share here.

So, as long as gay people cannot marry their siblings or parents or children - you're in the same boat. The difference is they can't marry their chosen mate, while you can.

I'm just asking somebody to point out where any civil rights are being violated.
See the line in bold, I already stated that I can't get married to the one I love either. It's not for any of my previous stated reasons, and it's not a civil rights violation against me,
it just is.

 

[alan1]

why does anyone care if two people want to get married............

Personally, I don't care.

I'm not the one that brought marriage into this conversation, I was asking what civil rights were being violated. So far, I don't think anybody has shown that there are.
And, in my first post, I mentioned the part about the military being able to take action against homosexuals, I see that as a civil rights violation, because it is action that only applies to homosexuals, and nobody else in the military.

 

[Amanda]

I think it can be all of the above.

Then restricting the gender of the two who sign into the contract breaks one of those completely as rights (love), also it defeats the third completely since most of those privileges are specifically for loved ones, taking those with someone the person does not love would defeat their purpose completely.

As long as everybody is treated the same in the law, it's not a civil rights violation.
I love my children, I can't marry either them.
I love my brother, I can't marry him.
I love my sister, I can't marry her.
I love my parents, I can't marry either of them.
A marriage between me and any of the above falls into all three categories you mentioned.
Me not being allowed to marry any of them is not a violation of my civil rights.

There is another that I love deeply and passionately, and she loves me the same way. We can't get married either. But it's for different reasons that I cannot share here.

Wrong species?

j/k

 

[alan1]

Then restricting the gender of the two who sign into the contract breaks one of those completely as rights (love), also it defeats the third completely since most of those privileges are specifically for loved ones, taking those with someone the person does not love would defeat their purpose completely.

As long as everybody is treated the same in the law, it's not a civil rights violation.
I love my children, I can't marry either them.
I love my brother, I can't marry him.
I love my sister, I can't marry her.
I love my parents, I can't marry either of them.
A marriage between me and any of the above falls into all three categories you mentioned.
Me not being allowed to marry any of them is not a violation of my civil rights.

There is another that I love deeply and passionately, and she loves me the same way. We can't get married either. But it's for different reasons that I cannot share here.

Wrong species?

j/k

Ouch.

I already said that I cannot share the reasons here, maybe I should have said "I will not share the reasons here".
Were I tell you now, you'd probably feel about an inch tall, even though you were just kidding around.

 

[xotoxi]

Hey, nobody's perfect. I grew up with athsma, a condition so bad it's even hard to spell. And then I also suffer from anxiety, which of course can be lessened with medication, exercise, proper nutrition, and comedy.

Can homosexuality, if genetic, be cured? If it's a genetic thing (like most gays assert), then perhaps it can be fixed in vitro. That may sound arrogant to say, but what if it could be treated in vitro?

Why wasn't your "athsma" cured in vitro?

 

[Amanda]

As long as everybody is treated the same in the law, it's not a civil rights violation.
I love my children, I can't marry either them.
I love my brother, I can't marry him.
I love my sister, I can't marry her.
I love my parents, I can't marry either of them.
A marriage between me and any of the above falls into all three categories you mentioned.
Me not being allowed to marry any of them is not a violation of my civil rights.

There is another that I love deeply and passionately, and she loves me the same way. We can't get married either. But it's for different reasons that I cannot share here.

Wrong species?

j/k

Ouch.

I already said that I cannot share the reasons here, maybe I should have said "I will not share the reasons here".
Were I tell you now, you'd probably feel about an inch tall, even though you were just kidding around.

Maybe. You can always PM me. I'm a romantic at heart.

 

[Anguille]

why does anyone care if two people want to get married............

Personally, I don't care.

I'm not the one that brought marriage into this conversation, I was asking what civil rights were being violated. So far, I don't think anybody has shown that there are.
And, in my first post, I mentioned the part about the military being able to take action against homosexuals, I see that as a civil rights violation, because it is action that only applies to homosexuals, and nobody else in the military.

Forget about marriage, aren't there still some laws on the books in some states that make gay sex a crime?
I did a bit of a Google and there seems to have been several till at least recently.

 

[KittenKoder]

why does anyone care if two people want to get married............

Personally, I don't care.

I'm not the one that brought marriage into this conversation, I was asking what civil rights were being violated. So far, I don't think anybody has shown that there are.
And, in my first post, I mentioned the part about the military being able to take action against homosexuals, I see that as a civil rights violation, because it is action that only applies to homosexuals, and nobody else in the military.

Forget about marriage, aren't there still some laws on the books in some states that make gay sex a crime?
I did a bit of a Google and there seems to have been several till at least recently.

The marriage thing was a back and forth between MM and I, kind of playing devil's advocate of sorts, kept it going because it was nice to debate without excessive name calling and rants.

As for those laws, there are a few still, but they are being overturned very quickly thankfully.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hospital decisions, insurance, etc are rights/decisions I specified in a legal document drafted by my attorney. Homosexuals can do the same.

However, after all that the costs and red tape you have to cut to get it, and even then they are not as binding and strong as those afforded through marriage. Marriage is affordable to all, while not all can afford the getting the documents unbreakable. Too many legal battles are waged in which the partner is often weasled out by those with blood relations.

Even an internet created will, Wills overview - LegalZoom.com is legally binding and affordable.
Blood relations that are weaseling inheritance will do so regardless of the genders of their "dearly departed", because they are weasels.

As I keep pointing out, any competent financial or estate planner will tell you that relying simply on "We're married" to handle everything is stupid and just asking for trouble and extra expense. When my dad died, some of the property he and my mom owned in practice was listed only in his name. They were married for almost forty years, and it was still an enormous hassle for my mother to deal with because there was no will.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, if marrying the person you love falls under the pursuit of happiness, then that would be how their civil rights are being violated.

How so?
The pursuit of happiness is granted, not happiness itself.
Even heterosexuals cannot marry somebody of the same sex, regardless of how happy it might make them.

The pursuit of happiness for homosexuals who want to marry is to be allowed to marry who they want. Getting married doesn't grant happiness, but for people who want to marry, if they weren't allowed to, then their right to pursuit of happiness is being violated.

Here is another point: it can be safely assumed that homosexuals who are religious believe they were created as homosexual by their creator. Let's say that those homosexuals also believe they should marry the person they love, cause its part of their religion. Ist not allowing them to marry infringing on their freedom of religion? Think of it this way: if you're a Christian, and you want to marry but the government wouldn't recognize you're marriage because it doesn't allow religious marriage, wouldn't that be infringing on your freedom of religion?

Is there any reason beyond religion why people wish to keep homosexuals from marrying? Doesn't that violate freedom of religion to leglislate religious beliefs?

Oh, good grief. What a load of horsecrap.

Even assuming one believes that there's a guaranteed right to pursuit of happiness, there's no guarantee whatsoever that you're going to catch it. And refusing to help you catch it is in no way violating your right to pursue it. Is ANYONE preventing homosexuals from trying to acquire legal sanction for their relationships? No. They are just as free to pursue that as the rest of us are to pursue a society that doesn't legally sanction homosexual relationships, if that's what we want.

As for violating religious belief, is anyone stopping them from believing any damned thing they want? No, they aren't. I sincerely doubt any of us CARE what's going on in their heads one way or another. Likewise, no one is stopping them from acting on any belief they may have that God made them that way and wants them to have homosexual relationships. If their belief happens to be that God wants everyone else to recognize and sanction those relationships, well, that's too damned bad, because in this country, we don't have the right to impose our beliefs onto others, who ALSO have the right to believe as they choose.

Also, we have a long history of prohibiting religious practices which violate other laws. Animal sacrifice, for example, is highly restricted and completely prohibited in some areas.

It's always fun watching you squirm around like a worm in hot ashes, trying to wriggle your way to a justification of forcing others to do what you want against their will.