Black Republican: Don’t Equate Black Rights And Gay Rights

[Gadawg73]

The bottom line is that gays believe a couple of **** buddies should get government benefits for the sole reason that they are sleeping together.

No, actually they believe that people who love each other should be allowed to marry

This is the kind of broad language I have a problem with.

My daughter and I love each other but we are also being denied the so-called “right” to marry.

So which is it, a fight for everyone’s right to marry whomever they choose or a fight to include a well-funded special interest group into a historically exclusive contract?

The LAW says you can not marry your daughter.
You need a better legal argument there Rocky.
Or A legal argument.

 

[rightwinger]

The bottom line is that gays believe a couple of **** buddies should get government benefits for the sole reason that they are sleeping together.

No, actually they believe that people who love each other should be allowed to marry

This is the kind of broad language I have a problem with.

My daughter and I love each other but we are also being denied the so-called “right” to marry.

So which is it, a fight for everyone’s right to marry whomever they choose or a fight to include a well-funded special interest group into a historically exclusive contract?

You are intentionally being a Rockhead

As in most threads on this topic we have to remind the Rockheads that we are not talking about incest, pedophilia, bestiality or marriage to a plastic doll. We are talking about marriage between two consenting adults who happen to love each other

Why do I keep bringing up the "love" aspect? Because to Rockheads, they only look at gay sex when they talk gay marriage. In their twisted world, homosexual relationships are about sordid relationships in restrooms and they cannot acknowledge the fact that two people of the same sex can love each other and want to have a relationship for the rest of their lives

 

[Nosmo King]

No one has yet to explain what 'damage' what real, tangible damage would occur to marriage once same sex marriage laws are enacted all over this land of Liberty.

No one has yet to explain why it is the right thing, the American thing to do where excluding a group of sober, mature American taxpayers from accessing the same legal protections and benefits afforded other mature, sober tax paying Americans.

All I've heard is "nature", "God" and "procreation" as arguments. Would 'nature' provide the existence of homosexuality in every culture on the planet if homosexuality wasn't a 'natural' state of being from humans? Would God permit exclusion of one of His children if that child of God had committed no crime against mankind? And not every marriage includes a child. What justification to permit childless marriages and exclude same sex marriage can be made without the bigotry shown by those who oppose it?

So America should be ruled, laws should be made and enforced to support bigotry? What kind of nation do you want? A free nation, or one that hides behind the ignorance and fear of the simple minded bigot?

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

Nobody willing to venture a guess as to what they were talking about in the italicized portion?

It sounds like they are talking about sex and what I find interesting is that the judge seems to be using the type of sex act involved to make a ruling. Personally, I would think the judge’s role would be to only focus on whether marriage is a right or not. And, as I stated earlier, I believe it is not.

They were referring to interracial marriage. Easy to think it's about gay marriage...hence the parallels between interracial marriage bans and gay marriage bans.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you as to whether or not it is a right. They've declared it a fundamental right on numerous occasions.

What reasonable person standard will you use to justify denying me a fundamental right? You must provide a societal harm in allowing same sex marriage. We'll wait.

I think I agree with you. When it comes to marriage, the judge should not be ruling on sex or race or any other such thing. As I stated, the judge should only be ruling only on whether marriage is a right or not.

And, as I stated in an earlier post, if marriage is a “right”, we ALL should have that right, regardless. But that is not what you are campaigning for. You are only campaigning for the right of gays to marry. So I tend to doubt that even you think marriage is a universal right.

Also, concerning your point about the judge’s ruling on inter-racial marriages, as I stated in an earlier post, one of the outcomes of the civil rights movement was almost universal acceptance of inter-racial marriage but the so-called “right” to marry remained exclusive between a man and a woman.

 

[bodecea]

Gay males have been known to have promiscuous sex (well, men in general, but that is neither here nor there). So, what better way to work towards curbing that behavior than.............................KEEPING THEM FROM ESTABLISHING LIFELONG MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS THRU LEGAL BONDING!




Idiots.

I’m replying to this because I have never thought about this from the promiscuous sex side and how men just naturally seem to be a lot more promiscuous then women. The reason I find this interesting is because it naturally seems to follow that, two men in a relationship, would double the problem. And I am not sure what that means, it just seemed interesting.

Also, I don’t believe anyone is stopping anyone else from entering into the type of monogamous relationship you describe because there are other ways to accomplish legal bonding besides marriage.

Sure.

Group A only has to get legal paper #1 to get all sorts of legal protections thruout the U.S.

Group B has to get legal papers #2,3,4,5,6 & 7 to get SOME legal protections and they may or may not be recognized thruout the U.S.

Equal protection......right.

 

[Seawytch]

It sounds like they are talking about sex and what I find interesting is that the judge seems to be using the type of sex act involved to make a ruling. Personally, I would think the judge’s role would be to only focus on whether marriage is a right or not. And, as I stated earlier, I believe it is not.

They were referring to interracial marriage. Easy to think it's about gay marriage...hence the parallels between interracial marriage bans and gay marriage bans.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you as to whether or not it is a right. They've declared it a fundamental right on numerous occasions.

What reasonable person standard will you use to justify denying me a fundamental right? You must provide a societal harm in allowing same sex marriage. We'll wait.

I think I agree with you. When it comes to marriage, the judge should not be ruling on sex or race or any other such thing. As I stated, the judge should only be ruling only on whether marriage is a right or not.

And they have...on no less than three occasions.

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

And, as I stated in an earlier post, if marriage is a “right”, we ALL should have that right, regardless. But that is not what you are campaigning for. You are only campaigning for the right of gays to marry. So I tend to doubt that even you think marriage is a universal right.

In order to keep a group from equal access to this fundamental right you must be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing it. That goes for ALL unions "universally". It applies to polygamist relationships or incestuous ones.

Of course, right now, both those types of relationships are illegal. If you want to try to get these relationships legal and then petition for equal access to the fundamental right of marriage, best of luck. I might even support your fight. I see no reason that platonic siblings shouldn't be able to get the tax breaks and financial protections of joint property that come with legal, civil marriage. Do you?

Also, concerning your point about the judge’s ruling on inter-racial marriages, as I stated in an earlier post, one of the outcomes of the civil rights movement was almost universal acceptance of inter-racial marriage but the so-called “right” to marry remained exclusive between a man and a woman.

It has been "exclusively" between one man and many women. It has been exclusively between only blacks or only whites, etc. It used to be that women in the marriage were property. It used to be...

It isn't anymore. Besides, we aren't talking about religious marriage. Churches can still dictate who they will allow to marry in their church and who they won't. That isn't going to change. We are talking about a LEGAL, CIVIL contract. What reasonable person standard can you provide to prevent me equal access to it?

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

Also, I don’t believe anyone is stopping anyone else from entering into the type of monogamous relationship you describe because there are other ways to accomplish legal bonding besides marriage.

So I should have to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to get a fraction of the protections you can get with a $50 marriage license? The fact that I have to pay more in taxes isn't enough for you?

I am not lawyer so I am not sure what protections you are talking about but I assume we are all free to delegate things to whomever we so please regardless of marital status. And I rather doubt it would cost as much as you claim because all the unmarried people in the country would be faced with the same expense and I simply don’t hear them complaining.

As far as the taxes go, I am all for a complete overhaul of the tax system.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

when people are targeted for who they are born to be you have a simular situation.

They are both fighting for their rights to be who they were born to be.

How anyone involved in such a struggle can throw shit bombs at others fighting a simular fight is just silly.

Rights for all of us are tied together.

Drop the hate and look for ways to come together.

I think you are assuming marriage is a right under the federal constitution and I don’t believe that has been decided yet. And, since you need a license to get married (similar to driving); I see no problem with keeping exclusions in the pact.

Also, the left seems to want to claim the moral high ground by using the “rights” argument in this issue but, let’s face it, nobody is campaigning for "Rights for all of us" or everyone’s right to marry anyone they choose. Nope, as far as I can tell, all we have is one very well-funded special interest group seeking inclusion in something that has always been exclusive.

And I see plenty of hate from both sides on this issue.

You have to have a legal reason to exclude. For driving they exclude blind folk.
What legal reason is there to exclude gay folk?
None, as the Constitution does not address it.
You can not just make it up as you go.

The legal reason would be that, legally, marriage is an exclusive contract between a man and a woman.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

No, actually they believe that people who love each other should be allowed to marry

This is the kind of broad language I have a problem with.

My daughter and I love each other but we are also being denied the so-called “right” to marry.

So which is it, a fight for everyone’s right to marry whomever they choose or a fight to include a well-funded special interest group into a historically exclusive contract?

The LAW says you can not marry your daughter.
You need a better legal argument there Rocky.
Or A legal argument.

But doesn’t the LAW also say that only men and women can marry?

You seem to be making my points for me.

 

[bodecea]

Also, I don’t believe anyone is stopping anyone else from entering into the type of monogamous relationship you describe because there are other ways to accomplish legal bonding besides marriage.

So I should have to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to get a fraction of the protections you can get with a $50 marriage license? The fact that I have to pay more in taxes isn't enough for you?

I am not lawyer so I am not sure what protections you are talking about but I assume we are all free to delegate things to whomever we so please regardless of marital status. And I rather doubt it would cost as much as you claim because all the unmarried people in the country would be faced with the same expense and I simply don’t hear them complaining.

As far as the taxes go, I am all for a complete overhaul of the tax system.

Marriage protections:


Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Seawytch]

Also, I don’t believe anyone is stopping anyone else from entering into the type of monogamous relationship you describe because there are other ways to accomplish legal bonding besides marriage.

So I should have to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to get a fraction of the protections you can get with a $50 marriage license? The fact that I have to pay more in taxes isn't enough for you?

I am not lawyer so I am not sure what protections you are talking about but I assume we are all free to delegate things to whomever we so please regardless of marital status. And I rather doubt it would cost as much as you claim because all the unmarried people in the country would be faced with the same expense and I simply don’t hear them complaining.

As far as the taxes go, I am all for a complete overhaul of the tax system.

There are hundreds of rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal civil marriage, only a fraction of which can be conferred without a marriage license. Why must I pay more for less? What LEGAL reason do you have to keep me from LEGAL marriage?

 

[Jarhead]

I think you are assuming marriage is a right under the federal constitution and I don’t believe that has been decided yet. And, since you need a license to get married (similar to driving); I see no problem with keeping exclusions in the pact.

Also, the left seems to want to claim the moral high ground by using the “rights” argument in this issue but, let’s face it, nobody is campaigning for "Rights for all of us" or everyone’s right to marry anyone they choose. Nope, as far as I can tell, all we have is one very well-funded special interest group seeking inclusion in something that has always been exclusive.

And I see plenty of hate from both sides on this issue.

You have to have a legal reason to exclude. For driving they exclude blind folk.
What legal reason is there to exclude gay folk?
None, as the Constitution does not address it.
You can not just make it up as you go.

The legal reason would be that, legally, marriage is an exclusive contract between a man and a woman.

Why is that? Can you state a valid, non emotional, non ideological reason to justify it?

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

No, actually they believe that people who love each other should be allowed to marry

This is the kind of broad language I have a problem with.

My daughter and I love each other but we are also being denied the so-called “right” to marry.

So which is it, a fight for everyone’s right to marry whomever they choose or a fight to include a well-funded special interest group into a historically exclusive contract?

You are intentionally being a Rockhead

As in most threads on this topic we have to remind the Rockheads that we are not talking about incest, pedophilia, bestiality or marriage to a plastic doll. We are talking about marriage between two consenting adults who happen to love each other

Why do I keep bringing up the "love" aspect? Because to Rockheads, they only look at gay sex when they talk gay marriage. In their twisted world, homosexual relationships are about sordid relationships in restrooms and they cannot acknowledge the fact that two people of the same sex can love each other and want to have a relationship for the rest of their lives

I agree. And that is my whole point. This is not a struggle for “rights”. It is nothing more than a very well-funded campaign by one special interest group who wants to be included in something that has always been exclusive.

Oh, and by the way, my daughter is an adult and we also love each other and I would like nothing more than to be able to cash-in on all the benefits her and I are apparently missing because we are not married. And, if you think there is something wrong with this, it is you who feel this is an issue about sex. Not me.

Also, I am trying very hard to be fair and open-minded in this discussion. I have no beef with anyone. Live and let live is my policy. So when I mention sordid things in my post, by all means point it out to me. So please show me where I have done that and I will correct it.

That said, when I see a scam, I call it a scam. This is not fight for equal or universal rights because it does not include anyone else except gay people.

Sorry, but that’s just the way I see it.

 

[rightwinger]

Gay males have been known to have promiscuous sex (well, men in general, but that is neither here nor there). So, what better way to work towards curbing that behavior than.............................KEEPING THEM FROM ESTABLISHING LIFELONG MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS THRU LEGAL BONDING!




Idiots.

I’m replying to this because I have never thought about this from the promiscuous sex side and how men just naturally seem to be a lot more promiscuous then women. The reason I find this interesting is because it naturally seems to follow that, two men in a relationship, would double the problem. And I am not sure what that means, it just seemed interesting.

Also, I don’t believe anyone is stopping anyone else from entering into the type of monogamous relationship you describe because there are other ways to accomplish legal bonding besides marriage.

Sure.

Group A only has to get legal paper #1 to get all sorts of legal protections thruout the U.S.

Group B has to get legal papers #2,3,4,5,6 & 7 to get SOME legal protections and they may or may not be recognized thruout the U.S.

Equal protection......right.

I think you are ignoring the real issue.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the real reason gays want to be married has nothing to do with saving money on taxes, reducing legal paperwork or getting health insurance

I think gays want to be able to go out in public and say "This is my husband, This is my wife" If their loved one dies they want it acknowledged that they lost their wife or husband not that they lost their legal partner

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

You are intentionally being a Rockhead

As in most threads on this topic we have to remind the Rockheads that we are not talking about incest, pedophilia, bestiality or marriage to a plastic doll. We are talking about marriage between two consenting adults who happen to love each other

Why do I keep bringing up the "love" aspect? Because to Rockheads, they only look at gay sex when they talk gay marriage. In their twisted world, homosexual relationships are about sordid relationships in restrooms and they cannot acknowledge the fact that two people of the same sex can love each other and want to have a relationship for the rest of their lives

I agree. And that is my whole point. This is not a struggle for “rights”. It is nothing more than a very well-funded campaign by one special interest group who wants to be included in something that has always been exclusive.

Oh, and by the way, my daughter is an adult and we also love each other and I would like nothing more than to be able to cash-in on all the benefits her and I are apparently missing because we are not married. And, if you think there is something wrong with this, it is you who feel this is an issue about sex. Not me.

Also, I am trying very hard to be fair and open-minded in this discussion. I have no beef with anyone. Live and let live is my policy. So when I mention sordid things in my post, by all means point it out to me. So please show me where I have done that and I will correct it.

That said, when I see a scam, I call it a scam. This is not fight for equal or universal rights because it does not include anyone else except gay people.

Sorry, but that’s just the way I see it.

It's wrong to exclude them, and I think that somewhere in the depths of your Wisdom, you understand that it's wrong.

You're arguing from the basis of: but it's the law.

The whole argument is to change the Law. "But its the law" is not an argument for keeping the Law, but simply an obtuse statement of fact.

We're asking for your blatant opinion why Gays should be excluded from being married - not your opinion of "but but then slippery slope," or anything else. There's valid arguments to be made for and against Incest marriage, but that's not the topic of discussion.

If you want to change the law, change the law.

Personally, I could care less who gets to marry who.

My main objection is with the use of all the flowery language about the struggle for a so-called universal right when, in reality, the whole issue revolves around only one special interest group wanting to be included in something that almost everyone else is excluded from in one way or another.

I guess it has to be packaged this way if you want people to buy it. But don't kid yourself about this being some kind of fight for universal rights for everyone because it's not.

 

[bodecea]

I’m replying to this because I have never thought about this from the promiscuous sex side and how men just naturally seem to be a lot more promiscuous then women. The reason I find this interesting is because it naturally seems to follow that, two men in a relationship, would double the problem. And I am not sure what that means, it just seemed interesting.

Also, I don’t believe anyone is stopping anyone else from entering into the type of monogamous relationship you describe because there are other ways to accomplish legal bonding besides marriage.

Sure.

Group A only has to get legal paper #1 to get all sorts of legal protections thruout the U.S.

Group B has to get legal papers #2,3,4,5,6 & 7 to get SOME legal protections and they may or may not be recognized thruout the U.S.

Equal protection......right.

I think you are ignoring the real issue.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the real reason gays want to be married has nothing to do with saving money on taxes, reducing legal paperwork or getting health insurance

I think gays want to be able to go out in public and say "This is my husband, This is my wife" If their loved one dies they want it acknowledged that they lost their wife or husband not that they lost their legal partner

That is true, but this is a legal issue...and in order to tackle it in a legal manner, you must show the legal inequality of the laws on marriage as they now stand.