Culturegaymarriage

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:05 PM

Against gay marriage?

I would like to hear logical reasons, not religious.

If you feel gay marriage will have/does have an impact on your life; how so?

If you feel gay marriage threatens your own relationships; in what way?

Very curious.

edit for spelling

91 replies, 1258 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 91 replies Author Time Post
Reply Against gay marriage? (Original post)
HerasHeaddress Jun 2014 OP
nawlins52 Jun 2014 #1
TotallyNotNuclearDem Jun 2014 #4
nawlins52 Jun 2014 #9
TotallyNotNuclearDem Jun 2014 #11
nawlins52 Jun 2014 #16
TotallyNotNuclearDem Jun 2014 #19
nawlins52 Jun 2014 #23
sadie Jun 2014 #48
Naveed Jun 2014 #12
cilantro Jun 2014 #38
Wino Jun 2014 #21
nawlins52 Jun 2014 #25
Wino Jun 2014 #26
Benevolus Jun 2014 #35
Daves Not Here Man Jun 2014 #80
Tin Ear Jun 2014 #2
indiej Jun 2014 #3
TotallyNotNuclearDem Jun 2014 #5
HeartlessBastard Jun 2014 #6
TotallyNotNuclearDem Jun 2014 #17
HerasHeaddress Jun 2014 #37
cilantro Jun 2014 #39
Tin Ear Jun 2014 #7
TotallyNotNuclearDem Jun 2014 #13
Tin Ear Jun 2014 #22
TotallyNotNuclearDem Jun 2014 #28
nawlins52 Jun 2014 #8
Naveed Jun 2014 #10
TotallyNotNuclearDem Jun 2014 #14
nawlins52 Jun 2014 #20
TotallyNotNuclearDem Jun 2014 #15
City Kitty Jun 2014 #18
Tin Ear Jun 2014 #24
City Kitty Jun 2014 #27
Tin Ear Jun 2014 #30
TotallyNotNuclearDem Jun 2014 #31
indiej Jun 2014 #32
Tin Ear Jun 2014 #33
indiej Jun 2014 #34
TotallyNotNuclearDem Jun 2014 #29
r_w Jun 2014 #41
Feldspar Green Jun 2014 #73
Twilight Sporkle Jun 2014 #87
feafeafea Jun 2014 #90
Twilight Sporkle Jun 2014 #91
Valishin Jun 2014 #40
i verglas Jun 2014 #47
Valishin Jun 2014 #49
i verglas Jun 2014 #52
Valishin Jun 2014 #53
i verglas Jun 2014 #56
Valishin Jun 2014 #58
Feldspar Green Jun 2014 #74
Valishin Jun 2014 #75
Feldspar Green Jun 2014 #76
HerasHeaddress Jun 2014 #36
i verglas Jun 2014 #43
Sibelian the White Jun 2014 #55
HerasHeaddress Jun 2014 #61
i verglas Jun 2014 #65
saspamco Jun 2014 #70
MoshMasterD Jun 2014 #42
indiej Jun 2014 #44
MoshMasterD Jun 2014 #45
indiej Jun 2014 #46
i verglas Jun 2014 #50
TotallyNotNuclearDem Jun 2014 #51
MoshMasterD Jun 2014 #54
TotallyNotNuclearDem Jun 2014 #57
MoshMasterD Jun 2014 #71
i verglas Jun 2014 #60
MoshMasterD Jun 2014 #72
i verglas Jun 2014 #77
HerasHeaddress Jun 2014 #59
i verglas Jun 2014 #63
i verglas Jun 2014 #64
HerasHeaddress Jun 2014 #66
GiovanniJones Jun 2014 #62
HerasHeaddress Jun 2014 #67
GiovanniJones Jun 2014 #68
HerasHeaddress Jun 2014 #69
feafeafea Jun 2014 #78
GiovanniJones Jun 2014 #79
feafeafea Jun 2014 #82
GiovanniJones Jun 2014 #83
feafeafea Jun 2014 #84
GiovanniJones Jun 2014 #85
feafeafea Jun 2014 #86
GiovanniJones Jun 2014 #88
feafeafea Jun 2014 #89
Daves Not Here Man Jun 2014 #81

Response to HerasHeaddress (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:08 PM

1. Homosexuals

Have continuously allied themselves with groups, and voted for policies, which attack heterosexual white males and seek to steal what rightfully belongs to them.

As a heterosexual white male myself, why would I reward them for this behavior by allowing them to marry?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nawlins52 (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:13 PM

4. I'm absolutely not surprised you believe so.

But just to humor you, what exactly are these things that "rightfully" belong to heterosexual white males?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TotallyNotNuclearDem (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:25 PM

9. This country

And everything in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nawlins52 (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:28 PM

11. And what exactly is the LGBT community doing to take it away from you?

As far as I can see, you're still completely free to marry who you want and voice your anti-LGBT nonsense, so maybe I'm not seeing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TotallyNotNuclearDem (Reply #11)


Response to nawlins52 (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:36 PM

19. This post is very...revealing.

And not in a flattering way.

It's odd, since it looks like it should include the words "race traitor", and yet it doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TotallyNotNuclearDem (Reply #19)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:39 PM

23. Is "race traitor" worse than "Uncle Tom"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TotallyNotNuclearDem (Reply #19)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:24 PM

48. That is a very sick post.

Not yours, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nawlins52 (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:29 PM

12. Your reply is both extremely telling...

...and completely uninformative.

Would you mind elaborating for those of us who might not know what you are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nawlins52 (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:59 PM

38. Wow. This thread is really bringing out the loonies. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nawlins52 (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:38 PM

21. Fascinating. Let me see if I understand.

A group traditionally votes or "aligns" themselves against your beliefs so you punish them by denying them equal rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wino (Reply #21)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:42 PM

25. I wouldn't call it "equal rights", but yes, why not?

It's only the same thing they're trying to do to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nawlins52 (Reply #25)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:44 PM

26. Not sure I understand.

Can you explain how trying to get equal rights is the same as denying you equal rights. Examples?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nawlins52 (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:36 PM

35. I am trying to think of what hetero white males have

that homosexuals want? I am drawing a blank.. although there may be a couple of good jokes in there somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nawlins52 (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 01:45 PM

80. Well, you're clearly not a rational person. IMO, of course. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerasHeaddress (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:10 PM

2. You don't get to set the parameters of why some may oppose it

I simply believe in the traditional marriage of man and woman and if its because of my religious faith or upbringing then its my business, not yours . The people are entitled to determine public policy rather than judges. If you want to go bugger your buddy, thats your business. Don't stick it in my face, stick it in private.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tin Ear (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:12 PM

3. Precisely

 

but you should not be trying to get the government to prevent me from buggering my buddy either

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tin Ear (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:14 PM

5. Actually, the whole concept of a republic means that rights aren't up for a vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TotallyNotNuclearDem (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:20 PM

6. I agree

But perhaps marriage isn't a right. If it were, then you wouldn't need a license from the state to exercise it.

My position: either remove the state from the licensing scheme and allow any couple to declare their union a marriage, or accept the fact that defining marriage is the state's prerogative.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HeartlessBastard (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:34 PM

17. Voting's a right, and you have to register with the state to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HeartlessBastard (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:52 PM

37. Interesting link re: states

and definition of marriage: http://www.clgs.org/marriage/state-definitions

"Currently 37 states have passed laws which define marriage as limited to a union between one man and one woman: 33 state legislatures have passed statutes to that effect, and 4 states (Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada) have, by popular vote, passed Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs) as constitutional amendments; the Ohio state legislature is currently debating a Defense of Marriage Act. Thirteen states, therefore, do not currently have laws on their books which limit marriage to a union between one man and one woman."

Many of the statues refer to marriage as a contract.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HeartlessBastard (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:03 PM

39. "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man". So sayeth the Supremes.

But perhaps marriage isn't a right.


I think the Supremes got this one correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TotallyNotNuclearDem (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:20 PM

7. The people decide public policy. Why shouldn't 16 year olds sue to vote?

Its not their right? Are they citizens? Are they human? You want courts to decide on matters that are supposed to be left to the people.

Do you remember the failure of forced busing? Do you think people choosing where they want to live and send their children to school has violated people's "right" to integration? The state isn't required to give you more rights. It simply can't deny you certain rights without due process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tin Ear (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:31 PM

13. The state isn't giving anyone "more rights."

They're just ending the denial of rights to a group that has been discriminated against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TotallyNotNuclearDem (Reply #13)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:38 PM

22. The state is under no obligation to recognize a "right" to marry

You can go and get married at the Church of the Latter Day Twinks if you want, the state doesn't have to recognize it. Public policy is not to have state recognition of marriage for siblings, more than one individual, different species (thats why Kimye went to France), blah blah etcetera ad nauseum. Same for same sex marriage until its been overturned by judicial decree.

Whatever, I'll live with it, I don't have to do it myself or like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tin Ear (Reply #22)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:48 PM

28. "Church of Latter Day Twinks"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TotallyNotNuclearDem (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:24 PM

8. Who said gay marriage was a "right"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nawlins52 (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:27 PM

10. Is interracial marriage a right? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Naveed (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:31 PM

14. I'm afraid of what the answer might be to this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Naveed (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:37 PM

20. It's not the same thing

Marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nawlins52 (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:33 PM

15. If the state grants the right to marry to two consenting adults

Then they can't discriminate based on the gender of the two adults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nawlins52 (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:34 PM

18. How Is It NOT a Right

to marry the person you choose? The only person who needs to agree to it is the potential spouse, not a bunch of strangers who have nothing to do with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to City Kitty (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:39 PM

24. Sure and its your "right" to marry more than one person, your brother, or your hamster. Go for it nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tin Ear (Reply #24)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:47 PM

27. Nobody Is Forcing ME or Anyone Else to Marry

My brother, or hamster, or several people. The people who are doing so don't seem to be causing a ruckus in my town.

So what's the big deal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to City Kitty (Reply #27)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:51 PM

30. I don't know, maybe the hamster humpers should get in on the action since marriage

doesn't mean anything anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tin Ear (Reply #30)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:00 PM

31. Sure it does. It's a union between two consenting adults.

All that's changed is that it includes people of the same gender now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tin Ear (Reply #30)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:15 PM

32. how does me marrying my boyfriend threaten yours or any body elses marriage?

 

Unless something has changed, youu can marry a man or a woman
and now, so can I.What havok is being unleashed and why are you distrubingly obsessed with hamsters?
Are you afraid that your wife will wake up and say"hey I can marry a woman now" and leave you?
or that she might discover this hampster fetish of yours?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indiej (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:27 PM

33. None, I never looked at is as a threat personally or argued such n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tin Ear (Reply #33)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:32 PM

34. so then, whats the problem?

 

If your religion opposes gay marriage, dont marry a gay man/woman.
Your free to believe what you want, you are not free to insist that the state enforce your religious beliefs
who has forced YOU to change your drfinition of marriage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tin Ear (Reply #24)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:49 PM

29. Slippery slope nonsense.

This is about rights between two consenting adults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TotallyNotNuclearDem (Reply #29)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:23 PM

41. Just out of curiosity,

Why is the right limited to only two adults? Both sides agree that marriage should be regulated, only the degree and types of regulations supported by each side are different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tin Ear (Reply #24)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:45 AM

73. *groan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tin Ear (Reply #24)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 11:38 PM

87. Hamsters are legally able to enter into contracts?

That you are comparing gay people to small rodents kinda gives insight to your worldview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Twilight Sporkle (Reply #87)

Fri Jun 6, 2014, 03:59 PM

90. the problem is finding little pens they can successfully hold to sign the papers

tin ear is something, isn't he?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to feafeafea (Reply #90)

Fri Jun 6, 2014, 08:28 PM

91. Jury is out as to what, exactly, he is...

But now i have the image of hamsters trying to scribble out a contract and that's just adorable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to City Kitty (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:07 PM

40. It is your right to marry

it is not your right to have that union legally recognized.

That's the real problem. It isn't with gay marriage it is legal recognition of marriage of any kind that needs to end. Let whoever wants to marry, do so through whatever means they so desire. So long as they aren't hurting anyone else in the process. So no sacrificing your neighbor's dog or your neighbor for that matter as part of your ceremony. Beyond that have at it, just keep the government out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #40)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:18 PM

47. so as I was saying in #43

That's the real problem. It isn't with gay marriage it is legal recognition of marriage of any kind that needs to end.

That's your public policy position and I won't say I disagree with it. But it isn't the issue at hand, because there is no move afoot to abolish the legal institution of marriage, and there is a situation where some people are not able to marry on the same basis as other people.

It is your right to marry
it is not your right to have that union legally recognized.

That doesn't actually make sense. The entire nature of marriage is that it is legal recognition of a relationship.

Okay, as a public policy position, it makes sense: there should be no right to legal recognition.

But at the moment there is -- only some people are not allowed to exercise the right. Since you're talking about the US (people in Canada and some other countries have been able to exercise this right for quite some time), here is the law of the land:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1
Loving v. Virginia
388 U.S. 1
Argued: April 10, 1967
Decided: June 12, 1967

Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. ... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

As long as one person or one group can exercise that right, denying it to others has to be justified.

As to how denying access to the institution violates rights, what the Ontario Court of Appeal said in 2003 is worth reading - Canada's constitution is dfferent and provides greater guarantees of equal treatment, but on this point I believe the Massachusetts Supreme Court said similar things in its advisory opinion on legislation against same-sex marriage some time later. The issue was whether legislation that extended all the benefits and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples (all the pension rights, support rights and obligations, etc. etc.) satisfied the equal treatment requirement.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/halpernC39172.htm
In this case, same-sex couples are excluded from a fundamental societal institution – marriage. The societal significance of marriage, and the corresponding benefits that are available only to married persons, cannot be overlooked. Indeed, all parties are in agreement that marriage is an important and fundamental institution in Canadian society. It is for that reason that the claimants wish to have access to the institution. Exclusion perpetuates the view that same-sex relationships are less worthy of recognition than opposite-sex relationships. In doing so, it offends the dignity of persons in same-sex relationships.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #47)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:34 PM

49. The nature of marriage is as a commitment.

There is no need for legality to be part and parcel.

As for the rest of your point, that just argues in favor of fixing the problem and getting government out of marriage. No need to go further in the wrong direction.

Of course the down side of this would be the inability to use the legal system as a tool to bring about acceptance. But since that supposedly isn't the intention, then no problem there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #49)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:42 PM

52. no, that is your *opinion* about what marriage *should be*

What marriage actually IS, in any time and place, is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of facts.

It is perfectly legitimate to say that the government should get out of the marriage business. (The fact remains that the intricate web of laws that relate to marriage could not simply be waved away with a wand -- there do need to be laws governing the rights and obligations of people in that relationship, as there are in any other relationship people enter into; people who marry should really not be afforded fewer protections than people who buy vacuum cleaners.)
Of course the down side of this would be the inability to use the legal system as a tool to bring about acceptance. But since that supposedly isn't the intention, then no problem there.

There may be a point there I'm not getting, but I think the intention, as is the case in any equality-seeking initiative by any equality-seeking group, is to obtain equal treatment and thus be permitted to do what others are permitted to do, and thus enjoy whatever benefits accompany the doing of it. I don't think it's that complicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #52)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:48 PM

53. We already have all the rules

needed in place to manage the removal of marriage from a legal context with one exception and its and easy one to resolve. That being social security. The preferred answer would be to get rid of that too, but setting that aside simply end the process of a beneficiary receiving SS benefits based on the deceased.

All the other tools you need already exist and couples around the country take advantage of them every day without being married.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #53)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:08 PM

56. fine; I wasn't clear on your meaning

But actually, social security (that's retirement/old age pensions?) really isn't a fraction of the aspects of the relationship that need to be decided. Oh wait, you're saying that social security still requires actual marriage? (I don't know all the fine points; the equivalent in Canada hasn't required marriage, or been limited to opposite-sex couples, married or unmarried, for quite a long time.) Right, yes, one simply removes all the distinctions in law and policy based on marital status.

But that doesn't address the actual relationship and its effects as between the parties themselves. The familial relationship is significant: who gets to make proxy decisions for an individual (parent, partner, child) and what evidence of the relationship on which the claim to have that authority is based will be accepted (cohabitation for how long, cohabitation contract, public representation)? Inheritance, the same questions. Rights and obligations on dissolution. Requiring that parties organize support and property arrangements for themselves, with the default being no rights or obligations, simply does not reflect reality and leaves more vulnerable individuals open to massive exploitation.

What can be said for marriage is that does neatly resolve some of those issues. People who don't want to organize their relationships along those lines can opt out by not marrying. (It generally isn't quite that simple, as at least where I am, there are rights and obligations without marriage, and telling people they should expressly contract out of those obligations doesn't make much more sense than telling people who wanted those rights should have married, except that on average, imposing the obligations benefits the more vulnerable party.)

It strikes me that arguing to abolish marriage is like a lot of other anarchistic kind of ideals: would be the way to organize things once all other things are equal -- no relative disadvantage, no exploitation -- but achieving that context is the real job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #56)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:20 PM

58. There are legal tools available

to address all the other needs. Living wills and powers of attorney for example.

The only thing legal recognition of marriage buys a couple that wouldn't exist otherwise is as a tool to prevent breakups. Which is not the government's job. Luckly more and more people are starting to realize that marriage is a waste of time and not going that route. Hopefully that trend will continue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #58)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 12:02 PM

74. I see what you're saying. I've actually done all of those things and more re

POAs and such. We also have child together which brought adoption courts and birth certificate changes into play - also making sure that this child was expressly recognized in my partner's family estate as she was not the birth parent.

The point I'd like to make is that these things can become quite costly and one has to even know that these legal options are available in the first place. Legal marriage has indeed tied all of those things up into a tidy package for so long, and most people have very little understanding of The Law anyway that all of these 'end-runs' around marriage are restricted to relatively few people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feldspar Green (Reply #74)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 12:16 PM

75. Which makes the arguement that

marriage including all this in one little package is helping keep people from seeing the piece-mail alternative. All that to gain involvement in something that is none of the government's business, at the cost of much contention over is exclusive use for some groups.

Getting government out of the marriage business is right solution to the root problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #75)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 12:35 PM

76. I can't say I disagree with you :)

Personally, I object to legal marriage period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tin Ear (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:41 PM

36. I'm actually heterosexual

in what you would call a traditional male-female marriage. I'm not setting any parameters. I'm merely trying to hear a logical reason why someone would oppose it. You're absolutely correct about these things being no business of anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerasHeaddress (Reply #36)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:54 PM

43. just a recommendation

It can help, to clarify things: make the issue acceptance of / opposition to the right to marry a person of the same sex, rather than to the practice or concept of marriage between people of the same sex.

I may be opposed to any number of things people do, but not advocate that anyone be prohibited by law from doing them (or not permitted by law to do them).
I may be opposed to marriage, period; but I will not advocate that people be prohibited from marrying.
There are people who are opposed to abortion, but do not advocate that women be prohibited from obtaining abortions (which is why the enemy camp is properly labelled "anti-choice").

Making the discussion about the right rules out anybody advancing their personal ick factor, or religion, or anything else unrelated to rights discourse, as justification for their position.

You have a right to do X (or: you are not prohibited from exercising your right to do X) -- so why does Person A or Group B not have the same right (or: why is Person A or Group B prohibited from exercising that right)?

The onus is on a person advocating differential treatment based on a particular characteristic to demonstrate that the distinction they make is relevant to the situation, and less beneficial treatment is justified by the characteristic.

They can make any effort they like to establish justification -- but scripture or emotion, or "morality" that differs from the values that are common to the society (as generally expressed in a constitution, which will prevail no matter which way the wind is blowing), will not be heard, because that's how it works when the subject is rights.

Which it is. If Person A or Group B has a right to do something, then so does another person or another group unless otherwise justified. There is justification for not allowing 10-yr-olds or repeat traffic offenders to drive; but there is no justification for not allowing Hindus or Libertarians or unmarried people to drive. Once the state starts issuing driver's licences, it must issue them to all comers unless it can justify its refusal.

It can be instructive to hear why people oppose an act itself, be it people of the same sex marrying or women having abortions. I don't mean that those discussions should be precluded. Work can even be done at that level that would result in a change of opinion on the exercise of the right to engage in the act. So "Against gay marriage? Why?" can generate worthwhile discussion, but once the reasons are stated, the "Justification for prohibiting gay marriage? What?" question needs to be put, lest anyone think that "ick!", "my holy book!", "public morals!" gets them off the hook.

People advocating what is a prima facie rights violation -- advocating differential treatment based on some personal characteristic of the people seeking to exercise a right -- have the onus of justifying their position, and should not be allowed to evade that obligation.

I wonder whether anyone here present could do it ... not that you got any particularly reasonable replies to the first question anyhow ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #43)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:59 PM

55. I am hereby bookmarking this thread.


POST OF WIN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #43)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:32 PM

61. Good points.

Aside from the right to marry I'd really like to have answers to those two questions. I cannot grasp how the marriage of two total gay strangers could possibly have an affect on the lives or relationships of anyone. If I knew what harm it was causing perhaps I could understand their concern. As it stands I cannot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerasHeaddress (Reply #61)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:41 PM

65. understood entirely

Answering those questions can focus the mind wonderfully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #43)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 09:39 AM

70. Well-put as always, i verglas.

Greetings from an old friend, by the way......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerasHeaddress (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:53 PM

42. It is not a fact about gay marriage

ALL marriage is not a right. It is why you have to have a license.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoshMasterD (Reply #42)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:00 PM

44. the issue is equal rights and treatment

 

like it or not, government regulates things.
I could care less who approves or disapproves of my marriage, but the Federal Government has no right to say that my same sex fiancee could not get a marriage visa.
and until DOMA was repealed, thats exactly what they did.
So recognition of gay marriage is just as important to gay people as it is to Hetero marriages.
Why should Gay people be denied any rights that a hetero couples get?
Give me a reason why they shouldnt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indiej (Reply #44)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:09 PM

45. Because marriage is a states rights issue.

Feds only recognizes marriages from states where these kinds are legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoshMasterD (Reply #45)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:18 PM

46. the FEDERAL law prevented my fiancee from getting a visa

 

even though my marriage was legal in NY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoshMasterD (Reply #45)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:37 PM

50. please see post #47

The Fourteenth Amendment extends equal protection to the states.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


This was applied to legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage in California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry

The US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the legislation, so the District Court decision governs, if I'm following the trail correctly:
On August 4, 2010, Walker announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning Proposition 8 based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Walker concluded that California had no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses:
An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoshMasterD (Reply #45)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:42 PM

51. The 14th Amendment says otherwise.

The federal law was found to be in violation of the Fifth's equal protection clause. If the federal law violates that clause, then similar state laws violate the Fourteenth's equal protection clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TotallyNotNuclearDem (Reply #51)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:53 PM

54. Once again we are back to this.

By using the equal protection loophole, you are opening a floodgate of unexpected consequences. Bigamy, polygamy, beastial, et al. Equal protection loophole means everybody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoshMasterD (Reply #54)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:17 PM

57. Fail, fail, fail.

Nothing about marriage equality involves polygamy, bigamy, bestiality, or whatever other strawman you come up with.

Marriage is a union between two consenting adults. Marriage equality is opening up the right to that union to any two consenting adults, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Polygamy involves more than two adults. Beastiality involves an animal, which cannot be considered a consenting adult. Bigamy happens anyway, and it's already a violation of that union.

That slippery slope fallacy is one of the most ridiculous, easily-debunked, and frankly, hateful (comparing same sex marriage to beastiality?) talking points on the matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TotallyNotNuclearDem (Reply #57)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:39 AM

71. examples are not hateful

And again, you get a license meaning it is not a right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoshMasterD (Reply #54)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:28 PM

60. you really might want to read up on what your courts actually say

about the Fourteenth Amendment.

Your opinion about floodgates really isn't relevant -- your courts have SAID that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits this unequal treatment. (Yes, your Supreme Court has not pronounced, declining to hear on the standing issue; but the analysis looks pretty foolproof to me, and Loving was decided by the Supreme Court.)

http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PB-CA-0029-0001.pdf (citations omitted below)

... we must consider whether any legitimate state interest constitutes a rational basis for Proposition 8; otherwise, we must infer that it was enacted with only the constitutionally illegitimate basis of “animus toward the class it affects.”

We first consider four possible reasons offered by Proponents or amici to explain why Proposition 8 might have been enacted: (1) furthering California’s interest in childrearing and responsible procreation, (2) proceeding with caution before making significant changes to marriage, (3) protecting religious freedom, and (4) preventing children from being taught about same-sex marriage in schools. To be credited, these rationales “must find some footing in the realities of the subject addressed by the legislation.” ... They are, conversely, not to be credited if they “could not reasonably be conceived to be true by the governmental decisionmaker.” ... Because Proposition 8 did not further any of these interests, we conclude that they cannot have been rational bases for this measure, whether or not they are legitimate state interests.


Polygamy has actually been before the courts in Canada recently (as has prostitution - we are an extremely litigious bunch when it comes to constitutional rights). You might be interested.

http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/4492/Lawyer-on-polygamy-case-changes-his-tune.html
(emphasis in the original)
Craig Jones, who represented the British Columbia Department of Justice in the Polygamy Reference, could not disagree with these arguments <made earlier by the blogger against criminalizing polygamy> more strongly. A longtime civil libertarian, Jones was confident the constitutionality of s. 293 would be upheld, but he initially did not personally take a strong position against the practice.

By the time the matter made it to court, however, he was convinced polygamy is an inherently harmful practice that should not be tolerated in a modern society. He explains his evolution, and the case against polygamy, in his fascinating book A Cruel Arithmetic: Inside the Case Against Polygamy.

In a polygamous society like Bountiful, B.C. — a mysterious, secretive colony populated by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints, the breakaway Mormon sect which practises “plural marriage” — this “cruel arithmetic” inevitably manifests itself in two ways. Every time a man takes an additional wife (polyandry, the taking of multiple husbands by a woman, is almost unknown) another man in the community is left with no one to marry. And as the adult females are married off, younger and younger wives are taken. The results: child trafficking, sexual exploitation of minors, and “lost boys,” who are marginalized and even expelled from their homes:

According to Jones, it is not enough for the state to take action against only “bad” polygamy involving young children or coercion and abuse:

Again and again, the discussion circled back to the fact that academic writers seemed to consider only harm arising in polygamous marriages, not polygamous societies <emphasis added>. The focus was entirely on how to accommodate polygamous unions while minimizing or addressing possible harms to co-wives and children. The commentators concluded that banning polygamy was unconstitutional because the law could be written to apply only to “bad” polygamy, or the state could simply scrutinize polygamous marriages looking for abuse and crimes. But the “cruel arithmetic” effect on the targeting of girls, like the increased criminality of men in the polygynous society, would be felt everywhere, and this was so even if every polygynous marriage was harmless, egalitarian, and restricted to fully consenting adults.

I'm fairly confident that a society could justify a ban on polygamy.

And I don't think bestiality reality comes into it, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #60)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:43 AM

72. Well then, here is a link for you....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoshMasterD (Reply #72)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 01:00 PM

77. that's a pretty link

I'll put it in a frame and set it on the buffet.

I didn't just fling a link at you, you see. I addressed what you said, and offered you a specific passage that specifically addressed what you were saying.

My link was to an article in Canadian Lawyer Magazine, a professional interest publication, quoting a lawyer who had been involved in a case about polygamy.

Your link was to something that calls itself:
The Center for Public Justice is an independent, non-partisan organization dedicated to public policy research, leadership development, and civic education. With a distinctive Christian-democratic perspective, we help citizens, policymakers, and government respond to the call to pursue justice for all.

(and first please let me point out that anybody can call themselves Christian, and that the views espoused there make people in the Christian church where I spent my childhood puke, not that some in that church don't espouse them too, of course, but they're generally the ones my mum's age, and she passed 80 some time ago -- and I hasten to edit, she does not espouse them at all.)

So, I assume this is what you were aiming me at, at your link:
f this happens, we will need to pay close attention to the consequences. Judges and public officials will then be required to recognize as a marriage any sexually Intimate bond between two people who want to call themselves married. Which means that there will no longer be any basis for distinguishing legally between a heterosexual union and a homosexual relationship. Which means henceforth that there will be no legal basis for restrictions against a homosexual couple obtaining children in any way they choose, for such restrictions would constitute discrimination. And it will mean that when a mature mother and son, or father and daughter, or trio or quartet of partners come to the courts or to the marriage-license bureau to ask that their sexually active relationship be recognized as marriage, there will be no legal grounds of a non-arbitrary kind to reject the requests. Because if it is now arbitrary and unjust to recognize heterosexual marriage as something exclusive and different from homosexual relationships, then it will be arbitrary and unjust not to grant the request of other partners to call their sexually intimate and enduring relationships marriage.

So here's the thing, you see.

"Civil discourse" doesn't mean that anyone can say any old thing and not offer something to back it up. The first sentence I highlighted above there carries as much weight in civil discourse as me saying "the cow jumped over the moon". It is a bald assertion that the writer knows much ink has been spilled already to demonstrate to be unsupported.

"Civil discourse" doesn't mean "I say the same thing over and over no matter what you say."

What I offered you already addressed what that writer is saying. Maybe it didn't address every single example of bizarre coupling or otherwise that you could dream up, but it did kinda give the idea.

There ARE justifications for denying marriage in some situations that are NOT available in the case of same-sex monogamous marriage.

If someone claims a right to such forms of marriage, yes, a state that wishes to deny them will have to justify the limits it places on the right.

What is wrong with that???

If the state were denying you access to something that others had access to, would you not think it should have to justify that limit???

And if the state has acceptable grounds for the denial, then it will prevail.

If it doesn't, it won't.

Welcome to life in a constitutional liberal democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoshMasterD (Reply #42)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:25 PM

59. I didn't say anything about a right.

I didn't say anything about a license. What I'm trying to find out is why those who oppose, obviously quite vehemently, do so. I'm going to assume that you do. Can you express why?

edit for spelling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerasHeaddress (Reply #59)


Response to HerasHeaddress (Reply #59)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:40 PM

64. boy did I mis-follow the thread on that one

Twice in a week. If you managed to see my post before I deleted - my apologies for my complete failure to pay attention to who was speaking to whom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #64)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:43 PM

66. Well, I didn't see it,

but it's not a problem anyhoo. Thanks for the explanation, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerasHeaddress (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:37 PM

62. President Lincoln once told a riddle...

"How many legs does a dog have if you count its tail as a leg?"

Five would seem to be the answer but Honest Abe says no, "just because you call the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

Same thing with gay marriage. You can call it a marriage or whatever but it really isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GiovanniJones (Reply #62)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:45 PM

67. Thanks for kicking

the thread. Will you answer the questions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerasHeaddress (Reply #67)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:57 PM

68. It doesn't really impact my life...

other than having to endulge a lie and pretend like they're really married.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GiovanniJones (Reply #68)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 05:09 PM

69. Thanks for that much. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GiovanniJones (Reply #68)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 01:40 PM

78. How does being married end up " endulge a lie and pretend like they're really married"?

What do you mean? How it is pretend and a lie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to feafeafea (Reply #78)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 01:34 PM

79. Because its' not really marriage.

Its' like someone telling me they're married to their cellphone or something. Yeah ok, sure

Like in Lincoln's riddle, just because some people call it a marriage doesn't make a marriage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GiovanniJones (Reply #79)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 05:41 PM

82. "because it is" does not answer the questions how it is pretend and a lie?

Can you answer the questions? How it is not "really" a marriage"? How it is "pretend and a lie"?

How does being married to someone of the same sex make that marriage "not really a marriage, pretend and a lie"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to feafeafea (Reply #82)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 09:17 PM

83. Because you need a husband and a wife...

to make a marriage. Like I said, to me this is no different than somebody saying they are married to their cellphone or their pillow. They can call what they have a "marriage" but it isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GiovanniJones (Reply #83)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 09:31 PM

84. why do you think you need a husband and a wife to make a marriage? you equate a cell phone with a

person? wtf?

try it again, explain more than "because".

i can certainly be married to my spouse, regardless of our gender. what do "a husband and a wife" have or do to make you think theirs is a marriage while mine is not?

do they get the legal protections given by being married? yes.
do they have a commitment to each other by being married? same regardless of gender
does their lawn need mowing, dishes need washing? yes regardless of gender
can they have access to each other if in a hospital? yes

so why would you need a "husband and wife" to make a marriage? is it because they can procreate? in which case a couple who does not do so is not "married" in your eyes?


and equating a human with a cell phone is wtf fucked up

try again, and this time go beyond "because" to explain why

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to feafeafea (Reply #84)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 09:49 PM

85. Name one marriage....

in all of human history that didn't have a husband or a wife.

I only equated people with cellphones in the sense that just like gay "marriage", being married to your iPhone isn't a real marriage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GiovanniJones (Reply #85)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 11:08 PM

86. You still don't answer why "husband and wife". Are you really unaware of the fact that it is often 2

spouses? Do you seriously know no married couple that is 2 spouses, not "husband and wife"?

I notice you can not answer the question of "why" it must be a husband and a wife. I think you are joshing us.

Dark blue here same sex marriage is legal.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to feafeafea (Reply #86)

Fri Jun 6, 2014, 01:42 AM

88. It is like trying to explain...

why ghosts aren't real or something. It just seems obvious to me. Sorry, I can't explain it better than I already have. That being said, I don't doubt that gay couples love each other the same way I love my wife, perhaps even more. I just don't consider them married the same way we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GiovanniJones (Reply #88)

Fri Jun 6, 2014, 12:40 PM

89. gay couples' genitals are similar, you and your wife's are different. other than that

what is different? there is no difference, they are married the same way. they can not breed, but neither can older couples. other than that, no difference.

"because" is not an explanation. you asked me to "name one marriage" and i gave you a picture. i gave you a photo of one. i also gave you a map of where marriage between people of the same sex is "real marriage", the dark blue states.

it is a "real marriage" legally, socially, religously expect in some fundamentalist ones.

it sounds like you view homosexuals as objects, like a cell phone, or pillow and hence not human. it also sounds as if you view marriage as unreal, like ghosts. maybe more thought and exposure to people might help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GiovanniJones (Reply #68)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 01:53 PM

81. So it's no biggie, except you hate having to pretend. Maybe just don't worry about others. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Culturegaymarriage