Gay Rights

[editec]

Marriage is a contract.

What we call it is irrelevant, except to people who need to get a grip.

Nothing against gays, but honestly girls and boys, give it rest.

This nation has bigger fish to fry.

 

[glockmail]

All the gay marriage "rights" can be accomplished with existing laws and power-of-attorney agreements. The gays are committed to tearing down societal morality so they want to shove gay marriage down our throats.

And a black person can get a drink of water at a "blacks only" water fountain.

So?

Your analogy makes no sense.

 

[glockmail]

You've changed your argument. Gays have long had the ability to enjoy all the same rights by filing the proper legal papers without offending a large majority of Americans by changing the definition of marriage.

I'm not changing my argument, Glock, I'm saying that homosexuals want equality. Not contrived, sort of, but a different kind of equality. Heterosexuals get married and that's it. They get all the rights, benefits, and official status that one gets when one enters into the institution of marriage. Homosexuals get married and the Federal Government and State Governments don't recognize it. In order to have the same rights and benefits they have to get power of attorney. And that doesn't give them the same so-called tax benefits that married couples enjoy, which whether or not they enjoy it doesn't matter. Homosexual married couples want to be taxed the same has heterosexual married couples, even if it sucks. Homosexual married couples want the same divorce protections that heterosexual married couples have.

Society might not accept homosexuals, their lifestyles, their marriages, or their status - but the government should treat all people the same. It does not do that now. Even though homosexual couples can get some of the same benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy through power of attorney, it is not equal.

There is no such thing as separate but equal. We already learned that in this country.

No reason to treat people the same who aren't the same. A man can't walk into a woman's rest room, a blind man can't drive a car, and a gay can't get married. Simple. *shrug*

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your opinion is interesting... however, your third point, at least, sets forth an incorrect basic premise. Marriage is not a relationship in "support of child rearing". Marriage is a relationship established by the state to create and define property rights and various other rights and obligations, none of which necessarily have anything to do with childrearing. Disposition of child support and custody issues generally does not occur until the TERMINATION of the marital relationship.

As far as tolerance of gays, you might be right. I'd suspect that depends on where one lives and that someone like Matthew Shepard would have disagreed strongly.

Finally, giving someone equal rights no more elevates them than ending "separate but equal" education "elevated" blacks.

Nice deliberate misunderstanding. He's talking about societal sanction of marriage, and you're talking about personal relationships. Sorry, but he's right. Whatever your personal relationship is about - and trust me, no one cares - society's sanction of marriage (the "formalization" he mentioned) IS primarily about child-rearing.

Marriage is NOT a "relationship established by the state". What a stupid notion. Did the state send you a letter ordering you to marry a certain person? No?

And your little "point" about custody occurring after the relationship dissolves is disingenuous. Many of the laws and restrictions concerning marriage have to do with dissolution, not just custody. Nor is custody after dissolution the only thing the state does regarding marriage in the interest of child-rearing. Ask yourself: why does the state tax married couples, not to mention married couples with children, differently than single people? It certainly isn't because they want to be nice for the sakes of the married people.

And I love how you respond as though everyone accepts that we're talking about "equal rights" rather than new rights no one has ever had, despite the fact that you're responding to a post that challenges that very premise. It's never worked for you before, so why do you think it will now?

 

[Cecilie1200]

All the gay marriage "rights" can be accomplished with existing laws and power-of-attorney agreements. The gays are committed to tearing down societal morality so they want to shove gay marriage down our throats.

Why do homosexuals want to tear down societal morality? Because Satan is their master?

How do they shove gay marriage down your throat? By making you have a gay wedding?

C'mon, Glock. You just sound like a homophobic Christian fundamentalist. Clint ain't afraid of those candy-asses.

There you go again. "I'm going to ask a question, and then supply my own answer, making sure that it's something completely stupid and ludicrous, so as to prevent the possibility of my ever actually hearing a thoughtful position opposite my own, let alone having to think about it." I thought you got over this childish leftist crap.

Ohmigod. An opinion you don't agree with. Be sure to demonize it as "homophobic Christian fundamentalist", because OBVIOUSLY no one could ever actually disagree with you because they THOUGHT about the issue. Only brainwashed idiots could ever disagree with YOU and your received wisdom, right?

Way to set up a barrage of offensive insults to cut off any debate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, I wouldn't agree on that motive, since they can do that through simple legal channels available to them for some time now. Most gay couples do exactly that, and its only the ones who want to attract attention to themselves that insist on changing the very bedrock of civilized society for their own selfish desires. Their true motives must be different, and I simply offered you a plausible theory on what it actually is.

Its not just the legal rights and benefits that is the issue. Its also equality. Heterosexual couples can marry the consenting adult that they desire and it is officially recognized. Homosexuals can marry the consenting adult that they desire but it isn't officially recognized. This effectively lowers homosexuals' status to that of second class citizens.

Sorry, Sparky, but you're arguing cold, hard law from warm, fuzzy emotion. From the standpoint of the law, whether or not you love or desire someone is utterly irrelevant. There is no law written anywhere codifying a "right to marry the person you love". Motivations are no one's business. You have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex, be it for love, finances, sex, or because she has a beach house with a view. Homosexuals have that same right, so they aren't "second-class citizens" simply because they don't want to exercise that particular right, and want a different one that NO ONE HAS.

Let me give you an analogy. It's legal to own a handgun in this country, but not a fully-automatic weapon. Anyone can own a handgun, and no one can own an automatic weapon. But I say that I don't WANT a handgun; I really love automatic weapons, and so I'm being relegated to the status of second-class citizen because Glock has the right to own the weapon HE really loves, and I can't have the one I really love. But the law doesn't give you the right to buy the gun you really love. It gives you the right to buy a handgun, whatever your motivation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Its not just the legal rights and benefits that is the issue. Its also equality. Heterosexual couples can marry the consenting adult that they desire and it is officially recognized. Homosexuals can marry the consenting adult that they desire but it isn't officially recognized. This effectively lowers homosexuals' status to that of second class citizens.

For the 5th time, you can't legislate "status".

Not social status, but official status. Governmental recognized status can be legislated. You don't have to agree to personally accept homosexuals or their marriages, but the government should so that homosexuals, in the eyes of the ruling bodies, have the same level of citizenship as heterosexual married couples.

Homosexuals have the same citizenship status as heterosexuals, and the government certainly should NOT be recognizing anyone's sexuality one way or the other.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Both examples, women's rights and others have become professional grievance industries. There is nothing conspiratorial to it.

What do you mean? NAACP? Non-profits? ACLU? As far as I know, these people don't make much money. They work in this field because they believe in what they are doing. Not much of an industry. What percentage of the GDP do these industries make? How much are their profits? Oh, $0. Their non-profits.

LOL Dear GOD, are you naive.

 

[KittenKoder]

Just finished commenting in another forum on this topic. Many participants were highly exercised and wildly misinformed in some instances.

Here is my view which I believe is shared by many people in flyover country.

• Marriage in our society and across the globe is the formalization of a relationship in support of child rearing. If it makes gays feel better about themselves to be “married”, fine. But neither side of that arguement has any right to impose their viewpoint on any one, any group, or upon society as a whole.

Then let's pass a law, married couples MUST have children within the first year of marriage or it's an breach of contract and both should be jailed.

 

[KittenKoder]

NAACP and ACLU are both full of shit, they do more harm than good.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Single people do not have the same tax benefits as married people either. People with no children do not have the same tax benefits as people with children, and I could go on. Therefore, homosexuals have no corner on the market there.

Logic is definitely subjective for you, Newby.

Homosexual single people have the same tax benefits as heterosexual single people.
A = B

Homosexual people with children have the same tax benefits as heterosexual people with children.
C = D

Homosexual married couples do not have the same "official" status, and so therefore do not have the same tax benefits, as heterosexual married couples have.
E < F

Can I make it any more logical for you than that?

Wrong. Homosexuals married to someone of the opposite sex have the same official status and tax benefits as heterosexuals married to someone of the opposite sex (and yes, there are homosexuals married to people of the opposite sex). And a heterosexual cohabiting with someone of the same sex has the same tax status as a homosexual doing so.

Once again, the law does not care about your motivations or warm fuzzies on this subject.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ah, no you can't. Why can't the single person complain about the same thing? Why can't the couples w/o children? They are a 'group' just as much as homosexuals are a group, why should they have to pay different tax rates and be discriminated against in the tax code?

There is no such thing as a homosexual married couple, so your argument is moot.

Oh, boy. Newby, newby, newby. There is just no point in communicating with you. You are so blind and so dogmatic in your own opinions, and you don't even know it.

If you want to be constructive and open to having a discussion, then we can communicate. But, this continued criticism of my posts and close-mindedness is just going to make an communication between us pointless.

I see you define constructive and open to discussion" as "accepting my premise as the truth and then arguing from that basis". And you call other people close-minded.

 

[KittenKoder]

I still stand by the "why the hell do people really care if gay people can get married?" Why fight it just because you disagree with it? No logic to that.

Though I still don't think marriage is good anyway ... but meh, besides the point.

 

[xotoxi]

...

• American society has been tolerant of gays for a very long time and still is; few rational people are carrying any guilt around with them on this. In contrast it is the policy of many governments, past and present, in the world to confine and even execute gays.

...

In essence, we should tell gays "Just be happy with the way things are. You are lucky that we aren't executing you."

 

[xotoxi]

Logic is definitely subjective for you, Newby.

Homosexual single people have the same tax benefits as heterosexual single people.
A = B

Homosexual people with children have the same tax benefits as heterosexual people with children.
C = D

Homosexual married couples do not have the same "official" status, and so therefore do not have the same tax benefits, as heterosexual married couples have.
E < F

Can I make it any more logical for you than that?

Wrong. Homosexuals married to someone of the opposite sex have the same official status and tax benefits as heterosexuals married to someone of the opposite sex (and yes, there are homosexuals married to people of the opposite sex). And a heterosexual cohabiting with someone of the same sex has the same tax status as a homosexual doing so.

Once again, the law does not care about your motivations or warm fuzzies on this subject.

That is so fucking ridiculous that it doesn't even justify a response.

 

[BrokenAngel]

What I don't understand is that if the people of California voted against Prop 8 why can't people see that there might be a real reason? California is just about the most liberal state in the country.

Again not saying gay couples shouldn't be joined legally but the realization that the issue really lies more in the word marriage and not the union itself would help the gay cause. Yes the unions will be opposed by those with more conservative beliefs but if the country could get that word exchanged out of the legal deffinitions I, for one, would no longer have any problem supporting gay unions at all.

Fight the word.. it will be a shorter and more to the point battle.

 

[KittenKoder]

Seriously ... the word marriage is more than just some contract ... nuts marry bolts for example. It's a mechanic not a contract, the joining of two things, nothing more.

 

[BrokenAngel]

Seriously ... the word marriage is more than just some contract ... nuts marry bolts for example. It's a mechanic not a contract, the joining of two things, nothing more.

It has taken on that meaning in society because, as I said in my previous post, we are a country founded on religion. It is a sacred word to someone of just about ANY religion and there in lies the problem.

You aren't fighting just Christians but also every other faith out there. Since marriage is a sacred term to the faithful and homosexuality offends most faiths just change the legal term for ALL unions and the big issue there is solved. Leave the title of marriage as the religious ceremony performed by a priest or what have you and use a seperate term for the legal binding of two people's property. You will not offend people that are younger and religious that way and have more of a backing towards the cause.

There are a lot of straight people out there that just have an issue with the term.. change the word you gain support.

 

[KittenKoder]

Seriously ... founded on religion ... how odd then that they made specific laws to keep religion from making laws ...

 

[BrokenAngel]

Seriously ... founded on religion ... how odd then that they made specific laws to keep religion from making laws ...

That would be because of the Inquisition people started coming to the America's to avoid. Besides the Catholic church had as strong of a choke hold on the people as any king for a long time. The founders of the nation were far from simple minded when they decided to make the nation a Republic. It couldn't have a single ruler as they had all just fought to be free of. God is still present in every one of our legal traditions, our money, our courts, our laws though and so are religious terms such as marriage. They were a deeply religious people and though the nation no longer is based in religion all the religious are asking for is to be allowed to keep their faith and not have it ruled upon by the governing bodies just as the church doesn't write our laws as you so kindly pointed out.