Gay Marriage

[WayOutWest]

Randy this is not about you.  I don’t want your acceptance.  I don’t want to be discriminated against because I’m different, I don’t want to be persecuted because of who I love…but I don’t want your acceptance.  There are people in this world who will never accept others based on their skin color or religion. Considering, it would be quite foolish of me to be concerned with whether or not someone will accept me because of who I love. I don’t care if you condone my “lifestyle”.  I don’t care if you view my relationship as legitimate. I don’t care what you think of me.  However, I don’t want to have to worry that critical moments of my life my well being and the well being of my partner will be left to the discretion of others.  And as a tax paying, law abiding citizen, I feel that I shouldn't have to.

As for morality you are correct to state the link between morality and government.  However it is arrogant to presume the only moral statures are those that exist in Semitic religions.  According to the Buddha moral acts are those which upon generosity, love and understanding.  It’s about treating others the way you want to be treated, not harming yourself or others and always moving towards enlightenment, this is my morality.

Spursfan101, I’m also disgusted by anyone dresses like a freak, is sexually irresponsible and blames the world for their failure, regardless of their sexually.

I don't understand the "morality" argument either.

It's about civil matters but the opposision always throws up the "morality" smoke screen.  I also believe that homosexuality is wrong but I'm against their civil unions.

[SPURSX3]

screw the gay marriage crap - didnt you hear.  THEY FOUND MS MARTHA GUILTY!!!!!  YYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!



oh and no i dont want my dollars going toward higher insurance rates for covering homosexual couples or any other crap they would use to add more cost out of my pay check.  dont like thelo?  fair enough.  like you, i dont need your acceptance, or approval, my opinion is to go against same sex marriages. that being said. I respect your opinion on why we should have new laws - i just dont agree with it.  

[WayOutWest]

screw the gay marriage crap - didnt you hear.  THEY FOUND MS MARTHA GUILTY!!!!!  YYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!



oh and no i dont want my dollars going toward higher insurance rates for covering homosexual couples or any other crap they would use to add more cost out of my pay check.  dont like thelo?  fair enough.  like you, i dont need your acceptance, or approval, my opinion is to go against same sex marriages. that being said. I respect your opinion on why we should have new laws - i just dont agree with it.

I guess you we should ban marriages between smokers then as well.

I can't stand the fact that religous organizations get to skirt their fair share of taxes putting the BIGGEST tax burden on people like my self.

Your arguments, like you're sissy bladder, doesn't hold water!

[SPURSX3]

screw the gay marriage crap - didnt you hear.  THEY FOUND MS MARTHA GUILTY!!!!!  YYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!



oh and no i dont want my dollars going toward higher insurance rates for covering homosexual couples or any other crap they would use to add more cost out of my pay check.  dont like thelo?  fair enough.  like you, i dont need your acceptance, or approval, my opinion is to go against same sex marriages. that being said. I respect your opinion on why we should have new laws - i just dont agree with it.

I guess you we should ban marriages between smokers then as well.

I can't stand the fact that religous organizations get to skirt their fair share of taxes putting the BIGGEST tax burden on people like my self.

Your arguments, like you're sissy bladder, doesn't hold water!

face it Wow, you like my "sissy" bladder....want to play "R Kelly" Again?

[spursfan101]

lo, your absolutely right, my gay is cousin has been an idiot all of his life, and it had nothing to do with his gay tendancies.  He was born an idiot.  He was born gay too, but on this board, nobody actually believes that.  They say he CHOSE to be homosexual, that if he really wanted to, he could fight the urge and just date women.  Nope. I grew up with this guy, and he had femine qualities as far back as 5 years old.  I wanted to play football. He wanted to play dolls with my big sister!  

[ziggy]

Civil rights issues refer to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Not education or training.

.

This issue is being framed as both an equal protection and an economic issue.  They all do not hold water.  There is NO PERSON who is not afforded the right to marry.  All people who are married are affored the same legal rights.  All people are able to marry, but there are legal restrictions with what form that marriage my look like.  
If the arguement is simply one of of equal protection then marriage benefits in any form cannot be extended, unless they are also offered to all non-married people.  That is where the equal protection arguement begins, but NO ONE is restricted from being married.  That means there is equal protection.
There is a much better case that non-married people are receiving unequal protection, than that gays are recieving unequal protection.  The class of people who are not getting the benefits are UNMARRIED PEOPLE, not gays specifcally.
If that is the case then all benefits afforded married people should be immediately extended to ALL unmarried people.  If that happens, then same sex marriage becomes moot, and of course marriage of any kind becomes unneccessary.  How can you have a legal structure like marriage that offers legal benefits to those who participate, and not to those that choose not to participate, UNLESS society has the authority to restrict that behavior.
From an economic perspective though the vast majority of benefits afforded married people are economic in nature.  Those are always the main points of contention.  The single largest non-economic benefit that marriage affords is the right not to be compelled to testify against your spouse.  That though is not meant as an individual civil right as much as a protection of the institution of marriage and to support the essential nature of marriage covenant.  If though you are going to make the arguement that the civil rights of gays are being infringed upon because they do not have that same protection, then when does that stop.  What about hetrosexuals who choose to cohabitate, but not marry.  Does it not follow that their civil rights are being trampled because they do not have that same protection afforded married individuals.  The only difference is that they have chosen not engage in a ceremony.  This comes back to the same point I made before.  We have given government the authority to set limits on many things.  The limits here is not that a group of people cannot marry, because ALL PEOPLE ARE FREE TO MARRY, it is that the limits placed are upon the definition on what a "Marriage" is.  As such their is no civil rights violation.  All people are treated equally, and all people must follow the exact same rules and limitations on marriage.

"Presently it is not legal for relatives closer than second cousins to marry."

These only speaks to individuals.. Jack can't marry Jill because they are cousins. However Jack can marry any other women he falls in love with or he can marry just for sport. However if Jack is gay he can never marry anyone he falls in love with.

You can't have it both ways.  On the one hand you say society has the right to restrict one form of marriage (between cousins, or siblings, or parent and child), but it does not have the authority to restrict another form of marriage (same sex).  Either it does or it doesn't.  You may not like how it restricts marriage, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have the authority to do so.

"It is not legal for people to engage in multiple marriages at the same time."

All Jack needs to do is absolve one marriage to enter into another. And if they want a happy little circle they can alternate months.

Once again you miss the point entirely.  If society does not have the authority to limit same sex marraige, then does not have the authority to limit poligamy, or any other form of marriage relationship.

"It is not legal for an adult and a child to marry."

This is just not true. Although the "legal" age is 18 in most states and it speaks to abiltiy to consent, in most states a 14year old (13 in NH) can marry a 80 year old as long as they have parental consent some state require a judge's order. So while there are some requirements on min. age there are no requirements on the max. age of the spouse (regardless of the age of their intended).

Once again, if we say society does not have the authority to restrict same sex marriage, then how can an arguement be made that would restrict marriage between a 12 year and a 25 year old, or an 8 year and a 40 year old.  If it is a civil rights violation to say that marriage between members of the same sex is not allowed, then it MUST then be a civil rights violation to restrict pedophiles ability to marry children.  If society has the right to restrict pedophiles marriage then it follows that it can restrict same sex marriage.  Society CAN IF IT CHOOSES allow same sex marriage, or it can choose not to allow it.

"I also find ridiculous the latest arguements against a constitutional amendment identifying marriage as between a man and a women. The standard argument is that we should be careful about changing the constitution willy nilly."

The amendment is wrong because it intentionally discriminates against a whole group of tax paying citizens.

I am in full agreement that we should not pass a constitutional amendment that discriminates against one group of citizens.  The proposed contitutional amedment doesn't do that.  The constitutional amendment defines the nature of marriage, that is all that it does.  There is no where in the amendment that states that any specific group of people cannot marry.  All people are free to marry, within the limits and structures laid out within the specific statute of that jurisdiction.

QUOTE  
This is a bogus arguement. Throughout the history of this country we as a society have chosen to limit, restrict, outlaw, or discourage, behavior, activities, or social and business arrangements.



Exactly. Like the Jim Crow Laws. Separeate But Equal. Slavery. Prohibition. Women's Right to Vote, etc....

SF101 I am not going to defend these laws.  First society can screw up, and can allow bad laws to be in place.  Just as Oregon allows assisted suicide, which I find appaling, other staes have allowed thse types of laws.  What happened with each of these problems you raised, is that society recognized and took action to fix them.  As with many of these though legal precedents made by activist judges allowed these to be accepted.  The Supreme Court in Dred Scott took a tack the allowed Jim Crow, Separate but Equal, Slavery to exist.  The 14th amendment of "equal protection" was designed to recitfy that.  With all of these except "Prohibition", they specifically restricted and limited the rights of one group of people.  Women were not afforded the right to vote, and men were.  All people can marry, and all people follow the same rules and restrictions regarding marriage.  There is a difference.

Perhaps same sex marriage should be allowed and perhaps it shouldn't, but that is a debate that should happen within society.  It should not be decided by 4 judges in Mass, or 4 county commishioners in Portland Oregon, or by the Mayor of San Fransisco.  Allowing the people of each society to make those decisions is the nature of democracy.
 

[WayOutWest]

ziggy,

Work on your posting skills then get back to the debate.  I not sure who's saying what.

[TheloMonk]

"The single largest non-economic benefit that marriage affords is the right not to be compelled to testify against your spouse"

Try telling that to the person who can't visit their partner ,of 17 years, who's dying of cancer because they are not "next of kin".

"You can't have it both ways. On the one hand you say society has the right to restrict one form of marriage (between cousins, or siblings, or parent and child), but it does not have the authority to restrict another form of marriage (same sex). Either it does or it doesn't. You may not like how it restricts marriage, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have the authority to do so."

I never said society has the right to restrict certain marriages.  I only tried to illustrate that you can't compare the two.  By the way I did a little research and discovered that in AK, AL, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, NC, RI, SC, TN, TX, VT, VA and Washington DC first cousins are able to marry legally.

"Once again, if we say society does not have the authority to restrict same sex marriage, then how can an argument be made that would restrict marriage between a 12 year and a 25 year old, or an 8 year and a 40 year old."

The same arguments that restrict 12 and 8 year olds from driving.  Sure society also has the authority to restrict others from driving, those that are intoxicated, those with impaired vision and those with evidence of previous reckless driving.  However, these situations the person behind the wheel is viewed as a danger to others and there is sufficient evidence to prove that individuals driving under these conditions have caused significant harm to others as well as themselves.


"It should not be decided by 4 judges in Mass, or 4 county commishioners in Portland Oregon, or by the Mayor of San Fransisco. Allowing the people of each society to make those decisions is the nature of democracy."

Admittedly I'm wasn't a history major but I am unaware of any instance in this country where the citizens were charged with deciding whether or not rights would be extended to other citizens.