Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Hawaii begins debate over whether to legalize gay marriage

  1. #11
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,279
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Hawaii begins debate over whether to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    The default and historic definition of marriage in this nation has been 1 man 1 woman
    And at one point you could finish that sentence with "of the same race".

  2. #12
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Hawaii begins debate over whether to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    You need to stop confusing SSM with equal rights. The equal rights extend to all being able to vote and voice their opinion on the issue, not imposing SSM upon a populace that rejects it (not saying this is what happened in HI though, they are a blue state after all).
    No confusion. That's exactly what it is, equal rights!

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #13
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,956

    Re: Hawaii begins debate over whether to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    And at one point you could finish that sentence with "of the same race".
    That strawman gets tossed around all too frequently.

    Race =/= sexuality (and it's also a far stretch to try and link upholding traditional marriage to gender discrimination too). It's just like the anti-SSM people wanting to link SSM to polygamy and bestiality or all other kinds of strawmans.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  4. #14
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,279
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Hawaii begins debate over whether to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    That strawman gets tossed around all too frequently.

    Race =/= sexuality (and it's also a far stretch to try and link upholding traditional marriage to gender discrimination too). It's just like the anti-SSM people wanting to link SSM to polygamy and bestiality or all other kinds of strawmans.
    The basis is discrimination based on an innate trait of the individual.

    One does not choose to be black.

    One does not choose to be gay.

    At its core.

    SSM ban is state sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation.

  5. #15
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,360

    Re: Hawaii begins debate over whether to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    You need to stop confusing SSM with equal rights. The equal rights extend to all being able to vote and voice their opinion on the issue, not imposing SSM upon a populace that rejects it (not saying this is what happened in HI though, they are a blue state after all).
    Marriage equality is an equal rights issue. It is, and that is just the facts of the matter, whether you accept what is right in front of you is your decision though.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  6. #16
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,787

    Re: Hawaii begins debate over whether to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    1.)Yet there are still a majority of states that uphold traditional marriage that have had such definitions for years without them being overturned. Many of them are state constitutional amendments with the people of that state adopting that definition exercising their equal rights to vote and do so.


    2.)The default and historic definition of marriage in this nation has been 1 man 1 woman also known as traditional marriage. Including SSM into that definition is a change to policy, not a right to be owed. They do not, and should not, have the right to say that legal definitions that are not as friendly to their sexuality as they want it to be constitutes wrongful discrimination. The default and rule of law is marriage is between 1 man 1 woman unless changed, not that all of a sudden given social changes and changes in thought in some states that it magically becomes a right without such changes in law reflecting that. The state sanctions discrimination would be against voters who have every equal right to uphold traditional marriage and not support changes in popular opinion in some areas of the nation that are legalizing SSM.
    1.) yes the same way states had state constitutional amendments with the people of that state adopting that definition exercising their equal rights to vote and do so to deny women, minorities equal rights and to ban interracial marriage.

    this changes nothing and just further proves why those amendments are wrong and are going to fail and that this is factually an equal rights issue.

    2.) all meaningless and nothing but false opinions.

    again all the same illogical arguments that were used to deny rights for minorities, slavery, women and interracial marriage. You are not helping yourself only exposing your failed argument.

    the default rule of law was the definition of a man was WHITE man, the default definition of who can vote was NOT A WOMAN etc etc etc

    it was all about discrimination, ignorance, denying of equal/human. civil rights and or bigotry then and that remains true today.

    Like i said you are free to write all those law makers and judges and tell them they are wrong and that you want discrimination against gays legal. Maybe they will listen.

    WHats great about this country though is that you are free to have that opinion and voice that opinion, again no matter how many facts prove you wrong.
    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

  7. #17
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,787

    Re: Hawaii begins debate over whether to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    And at one point you could finish that sentence with "of the same race".
    or WHITE when it came to definition of a man
    or only MEN and not WOMEN when it came to voters

    some how this is magically different though.
    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. #18
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,787

    Re: Hawaii begins debate over whether to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    That strawman gets tossed around all too frequently.

    Race =/= sexuality (and it's also a far stretch to try and link upholding traditional marriage to gender discrimination too). It's just like the anti-SSM people wanting to link SSM to polygamy and bestiality or all other kinds of strawmans.
    its not a straw man and every time you say it is your argument gets destroyed. Since facts, rights, law, legislation, ordinances, court cases and precedence as already established that it is a equal/human and civil rights issue thats that.

    also equating gays wanting equal rights to bestiality severely uneducated about the topic and highly offensive but hey, then again so is telling people they cant have equal rights.
    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. #19
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,293
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Hawaii begins debate over whether to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    You need to stop confusing SSM with equal rights. The equal rights extend to all being able to vote and voice their opinion on the issue, not imposing SSM upon a populace that rejects it (not saying this is what happened in HI though, they are a blue state after all).
    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    That strawman gets tossed around all too frequently.

    Race =/= sexuality (and it's also a far stretch to try and link upholding traditional marriage to gender discrimination too). It's just like the anti-SSM people wanting to link SSM to polygamy and bestiality or all other kinds of strawmans.
    OK, there are a few things wrong with this. I am going to try and not go all Zyphlin on this, but it might end up that way, but please bear with me.

    1: SSM can very easily be stated in terms of equal rights. Most simply, woman have a right you do not, which is to marry men. Likewise you have a right women do not, which is to marry women. You are both unequal in that respect, and the court in Loving v Virginia threw out the argument that since you can both denied a group to marry it is equal. Kinda a two wrongs do not make it right kinda thing. Further, you as a straight man have a right gays do not, to marry some one of the gender you are primarily attracted to. Since marriage is recognized as a fundamental right in this country, the state needs to have a justification to do this. How good a justification is up for debate yet since no court to my knowledge has specifically ruled on that aspect. However, no court has to my knowledge found such a justification yet for any level of judicial review.

    2: Equal rights extends to far more than just those things you mention. For example equal rights extends to such areas as employment, military service, rights to a trial, and so on and so forth.

    3: SSM legality does not impose it on others, any more than allowing interracial marriages imposed those on others. You will not have to marry a dude, or some one of another race. But you could!

    4: Traditional marriage in this country has been all over the place, and since common law is the basis for our judicial system, it gets even more all over the place. Further, tradition is not a legitimate reason legally to deny rights. It is a failed argument legally, and a logical fallacy.

    5: You are correct that race =/= orientation. However, there are enough similarities that we can look at Loving v Virgina as a guide to see how SSM fits in legally. We have to be careful of taking the comparison too far(this is where the bestiality/polyamory people go wrong) and SSM has to stand on it's own merits, but you also cannot say that they are in no way alike. Both race and orientation are innate aspects of a person. Both are seemingly unchangeable. Neither are innately harmful. And so on. The issue in terms of SSM is whether the differences are enough to make Loving v Virginia no longer be a guide in terms of legality. This is made further complex by this last point:

    6: SSM is not exclusively about orientation. There is currently no check to prevent a gay person from marrying some one of the opposite sex in any state in the union. And SSM won't check orientation either. If a straight person chooses to marry some one of the same sex or a gay person chooses to marry some one of the opposite sex, there is nothing to stop them. Orientation is not the determining factor in whether some one can get married in any state. Gender is. Stated with ban SSM ban marriages based on gender, not orientation. In no way can you discount this in any argument about SSM. While you cannot divorce the orientation aspect from SSM, orientation is not what the law limits in terms of marriage, gender is.

    So anyway...meh, I think this only rates about a .5 on the Zyphlin scale(he will get the other reference in that comparison tho~). The point in this is that simple dismissal of complex issues rarely work. SSM bans are different from miscegination laws. That does not make mean that the comparison is entirely inaccurate. However, SSM does have to stand or fall on it's own merits, just as polyamory will have to and any other form of marriage people decide they want. Where you and others, including many in favor of SSM, go wrong is that you don't seem to understand where the legal arguments lie. To deny a right, the state has to have legitimate reason to deny it. That is where the beginning and ending of any argument involving SSM should lie: in whether there is a legitimate benefit to the state for not allowing SSM. Without that, SSM is a shoe in from a legal standpoint.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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