Page 101 of 120 FirstFirst ... 519199100101102103111 ... LastLast
Results 1,001 to 1,010 of 1200

Thread: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

  1. #1001
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    Well it has more impact than you might think.
    Like...what?

  2. #1002
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    It matters to the homosexual, for that is - again - the basis on which they are contesting various laws they deem as "unfair."
    Ahh there is your confusion, I base my opinions on my own thoughts, not those of someone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    Please provide an example where the government has singled out, targeted homosexuals for unequal treatment, let alone proceeded to treat them so. I suspect the only "examples" you'll generate will be those that prohibit homosexuals from marrying and/or enjoying the same benefits society confers on normal married couples. In that case, the government isn't "singling out" homosexuals, nor is it "targeting" homosexuals so as to treat them unequally. At the very worst, they are nothing more than laws clarifying the intent and purpose of laws already on the books - laws which would never be necessary were it not for those individuals presuming to be discriminated against by virtue of their sexual behaviors.
    Prior to the recent repeal of DATA, known homosexual were barred from military service. Prior to 2003, if a woman performed oral sex on a man she wasn't arrested. If, in many states, a man performed oral sex on another man they were arrested and criminally prosecuted. That was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas.


    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    The homosexual lobby is fighting hard to legitimize their behavior in society's eyes, to remove the stigma of its deviancy and perversity, to enable them to engage in their behavior without any stigma, without any shame. This is but the latest battleground in that fight. Nothing more. It is a "rights" issue only because they want it to be. Period.

    8qzvzyfxj0a1vpjj8_yyzw.jpg


    And they are doing a pretty good job of dispelling past stigma's and moving forward. Social views have pretty much reversed since around 2000.



    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    Ahem - marriage benefits received by man and woman, husband and wife are by definition "special rights." They are special by virtue of them being different than rights and privileges we give to many others in society - e.g. singles.
    Agreed, however a single person is not barred from entering into a Civil Marriage.


    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    So to say homosexuals who want these same rights aren't seeking "special rights" but "equal rights" is absolutely absurd.
    Same-sex couples ARE NOT seeking to receive the special privileges affored to Civilly Married different sex couples while remaining single, they are seeking to have equal access to the status of Civil Marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    So to say homosexuals who want these same rights aren't seeking "special rights" but "equal rights" is absolutely absurd.
    The floor is yours, please provide a list of legal benefits that will be available under the law to same-sex Civilly Married couples that will not be available to different-sex Civilly Married couples. If there are, then those would be "special rights", if there are none - then it is "equal rights".


    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    A distinction without meaning. Marriage benefit laws are, by definition discriminatory - and always have been! By your own definition, the evaluate categorically rather than individually - SINGLES being the perfect example for those laws have always discriminated between singles and marrieds.
    Of course Civil Marriage laws are discriminatory. There is no other logical conclusion. Discriminatory is not a "bad" word, it describes a condition. Government discriminates all the time. The military discriminates against fat people - there is a compelling government interest regarding the performance of military duties. States discriminate against blind people in regards to Drivers Licenses - there is a compelling government interest regarding safety on public roads. Etc.

    I've always found this line of reasoning less then productive because - get this - single people are not barred from entering into Civil Marriage. As a condition of Civil Marriage then "Singles" can enter into "Marriage" and become eligible.


    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    To you it may be a dodge, but the simple fact of the matter is that putting forth two lengthy lists of identical adjectives describing two "couples" where the lists differ by but one adjective does not a valid argument make. Moreover --- when that one adjective is the sole differentiator of the two "couples" and deals strictly with homosexual behavior, you're not only not advancing your argument but you're hurting it. And you're CERTAINLY not doing it any favors from a legal perspective either.
    Yes the "differentiators" define the "like couples" for "similar situations" and show that the scope of the question. The compelling government interest must be relative to the characteristic between like situated couples that is different. The only difference is the gender composition of the couples.

    It prevents fallacious arguements like "well gays can't have children", but then infertile heterosexuals can have children either but yet are allowed to Civilly Marry. As matter of fact there are some cases where heterosexual couples have to prove they CAN'T have children before being allowed to Civilly Marry.


    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior. It has NOTHING to do with "societal norms" as if society could capriciously decree what is normal and what isn't. And to compare deviant sexual behavior with interracial marriage is to take us back to my argument at the very beginning of this thread. It's absurd on its face. So you have your answer - and I daresay you've received it many times in the past ten years you've been asking it - but I daresay you'll never acknowledge the cogency of any argument that deviates from your own - which isn't a little ironic if you think about it.
    No it's not "absurd" on it's face. The structure of the arguments used to deny interracial marriage are very similar to the structure of the arguments used to deny same-sex marriage. As an example:

    "Here are four of the arguments they used:

    1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

    2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

    3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

    4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural." "


    History News Network
    As the Supreme Court Weighs Gay Marriage, a Look at Its Last Major Marriage Ruling - Press Past (usnews.com)
    Arguments Against Interracial Marriage Identical to Arguments Today Dispatches from the Culture Wars
    How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - Elspeth Reeve - The Atlantic Wire


    >>>>

  3. #1003
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,817

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by SBu View Post
    I'm shocked that gay marriage gets this kind of attention on a thread. 100 pages of responses and counterpoints? Why do people care this much?

    fear, bigotry, hate, and or ignorance
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #1004
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    also its not 37 states, many people inside those states are fine with equal rights, just like most of the country and when some of those states have pushed those cases to the SSC they lost based on equality, law, rights and discrimination. the best part is it was the BANS those states did that helped them lose.

    SO try your eyes because equal rights for gays is coming and discrimination is losing.

    except its factually true that he did win the debate. he has facts and you do not

    and the best part about this country which you are obviously to uneducated on this topic to know about is, in REALITY, it wont effect you, your marriage, what you think of it or risk it in any way what so ever. SO your failed fear tactic and straw man nobody cares about. YOU will still be allowed to conduct your marriage however you see fit. EVen though your views are too selfish, bigoted and anti-american to let others have theirs. You should thank god you live in a country like the US. Or you could always move out. Good luck!
    Its 37 states, talk about not dealing with reality, what a joke position. Did you agree with the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court...or Plessy v Ferguson? The Supremes are human and they make mistakes, often grave mistakes...so get a grip on the real Reality. The Supreme Court has no business telling states what their marriage laws are, there is no jurisdiction there. As has been proven many times before, and I am not about to bang my head against the wall arguing with any lunkheads who want to argue it further...if one didn't understand it before with so much explanation, I am going to suppose one does not have the candle power to cogitate it out. All rights are currently equal...all men have the same rights, all women have the same rights, whether gay or straight. There is no discrimination. Sorry.

    And your obvious and misplaced bias is showing my man, but thanks, as you would say, for playing, game over. Bub-bye...and wahhhh wahhhh wahhhh as regards your other positions... bigots should look themselves in the mirror, maybe even mirrored glasses will do... like you said, those who do not like the way we do things here in the good old US of A are always welcome to move elsewhere...I hear they like your type gay views in Canada, eh?

    Take your failed "fail" calls to someone who might care and perhaps who is not really into debate and just wants to bicker with you... I think you will be a lot more equally matched then, speaking of equality.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  5. #1005
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    fear, bigotry, hate, and or ignorance
    Yeah, that's another way of stating what we've been asserting re the homosexual lobby. Kudos for stating it so succinctly.
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

  6. #1006

    On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    #1 - Whether homosexuality is an innate genetic characteristic or not is irrelevant to the issue.
    Actually, it appears that it's very relevant. Heterosexuality is very different than homosexuality. Heterosexuality fulfills a biological need for a species to continue. Homosexuality is outside this realm as a completely different entity.

    It's apples and oranges. While they both are fruit an apple shouldn't be classified as citrus just because it wants the same benefit that being uniquely citrus affords.

    ALL citizens a due equal protection of the laws and no group is to be denied such treatment unless there is a compelling government reason for such unequal treatment.
    . What are homosexuals not protected against? This is a noble sounding statement but I don't see how this is an argument for homosexual unions being termed marriage.


    When discriminatory laws are formulated in a capricious and invidious manner such laws can be challenged and the government then has the burden to demonstrate a valid compelling interest has to why such discrimination should continue.
    The word discrimination needs to be defined.

    discrimination
    noun

    1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
    2. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment.
    3.Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

    What you are describing with your use of the word discrimination is actually irrational discrimination. While I will agree with you that laws are meant to discriminate (rationally), I would like to understand how you feel the laws are irrational on this subject.


    (And neither "tradition" or "My religion doesn't agree with it" are valid secular reasons.)
    if this is directed toward me then this is a straw man argument as I have made no such claims.

    When such a basis is challenged the comparison then is make on like situated groups to explain why one group is excluded (illegal) and the other group is included (legal).
    This is why I pointed out how these groups are not similar. Can you logically describe how they share a common feature that universally links them to the civil liberties movement?

    So here is your chance to answer a question I've been asking for well over a decade. To date no one has been able to supply a cogent answer as to why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a different gender relationship are allowed to Civilly Marry (in all states), yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a same gender relationship are allowed to Civilly Marry (in most states)?
    your argument assumes that an individuals success at the goal of producing offspring is the discerning factor in defining the term marriage. It is not. Heterosexuality is the describing factor.


    **************************************************


    #2 - Please cite any Civil Law banning Civil Marriage based on sexual behavior. Last time I checked each and every one of them banned Same-sex Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the parties involved and gender is based on genetics and therefore is an "innate" characteristic.
    there is no need to create laws that ban marriage. Only laws that define it.

    And no, it is not a quality of the "individual" that is the measurement. In other words because a lesbian is allowed to marry a man, then she is treated consistently under the law. If the basis was the "individual only", then the Loving case would have been decided in Virginia's favor since both Mr. Loving and Ms. Jeter (to later become Mr. & Mrs. Loving) could both Civilly Marry, just not each other. The measurement was how they were treated as a couple.
    The qualification or disqualification for marriage is based on behavior. Not on the color of ones skin. Virginia V. Loving's ruling was based on Eugenetics and racism. If the case was about Mr. Loving and Mr. Jeter, they would not have been married. Trying to equate homosexual behavior with physical traits is sophistry.

  7. #1007
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,817

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    1.)Its 37 states, talk about not dealing with reality, what a joke position.
    2.) Did you agree with the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court...or Plessy v Ferguson? The Supremes are human and they make mistakes, often grave mistakes...so get a grip on the real Reality.
    3.)The Supreme Court has no business telling states what their marriage laws are, there is no jurisdiction there. As has been proven many times before, and I am not about to bang my head against the wall arguing with any lunkheads who want to argue it further...if one didn't understand it before with so much explanation, I am going to suppose one does not have the candle power to cogitate it out.
    4.) All rights are currently equal...all men have the same rights, all women have the same rights, whether gay or straight. There is no discrimination. Sorry.

    5.) And your obvious and misplaced bias is showing my man, but thanks, as you would say, for playing, game over. Bub-bye...and wahhhh wahhhh wahhhh as regards your other positions...
    6.) bigots should look themselves in the mirror, maybe even mirrored glasses will do...
    7.) like you said, those who do not like the way we do things here in the good old US of A are always welcome to move elsewhere...
    8.) I hear they like your type gay views in Canada, eh?
    9.) Take your failed "fail"l calls to someone might care and perhaps who is not really into debate and just wants to bicker with you... I think you will be a lot more equally matched then, speaking of equality.
    1.) actually its not because of the people in it, thats reality, you know how presidents care about NY, FLORIDA, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS cause of population? yeah same basic concept lol that's REALITY
    2.) yes all human make mistakes
    3.) you are free to have that opinion but history and facts prove you wrong. good move not arguing against those facts not injuring your head arguing against them.
    4.) also not the case has proven by recent SSC cases
    5.) no bias at all i stand for equal rights and not discrimination. nice try but its a fail. your welcome, game is over and you are losing. dont cry about it
    6.) let me know when you do this
    7.) im happy we the US is fighting for equality, dont see me crying about it you see me supporting it, i like that my country protects my fellow Americans rights
    8.) yes Canada is another place they like equality and you wont be happy in, so now you have identified two place that wont make you happy, your first steps are already done
    9.) your angry and emotion is showing lol see which one of us is happy? its me. and i accept your concession. Let us know how russia is,
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #1008
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,817

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    Yeah, that's another way of stating what we've been asserting re the homosexual lobby. Kudos for stating it so succinctly.
    you're welcome, i like spreading truth
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #1009

    On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    What I'm saying they are irrelevant has a function of law and it doesn't matter if homosexuality is a "choice" or "genetic".
    Agreed.

  10. #1010
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Please explain to this 'clueless' leftie, precisely HOW does same sex marriage "risk" the ceremony and legal standing of marriage for opposite sex folks.
    Well, let me count the ways...marriage, which the left has made myriad attempts to discredit by pushing easier divorce rules, have pushed hard to make it politically incorrect to shame those who would give birth outside of marriage which was and should be the proper way to have children, the folks that have advocated so hard and passed legislation for Great Society programs that in effect push the father out of the equation and now you want to make it a laughing stock by going against thousands of years of Western tradition, that goes against the tenets of any of the major religions. The fact that this will unlock other doors, other Pandora boxes in which the demons will destroy, make a mockery, as does SSM, of the idea of marriage. Once you erase the traditional lines, once you go with the silliness of letting anybody that "truly loves" each other be the only real criteria for allowance of marriage, you are going to get brothers marrying sisters, brothers or any combination of such, marrying each other, fathers with daughters, sons with mothers, sons and daughters marrying either parent they want [ as long as they are of age and are "in love" ] or even both...once tradition goes and that line breached, who is to say a three year old, since all sense will be long since be gone, cannot marry? As long as they love each other its okay, right?

    An analogy might be when we had social promotions, then you could not really tell who had earned a diploma and so the diploma started becoming a sham...meant little. If anyone can be awarded a diploma, if anybody can be married, then it means little if not nothing.

    The unintended consequences of what it is your side proposes, for the selfish sake of such a few, is absolutely astounding. There, now that you have some clues one cannot any longer claim to be ignorant, clueless.
    Last edited by Gaugingcatenate; 09-16-13 at 06:30 PM.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •