Page 31 of 69 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 690

Thread: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

  1. #301
    Advisor Macintosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    11-18-08 @ 06:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    325

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    More mock legal scholars claiming that marriage and civil unions are the same.

    Here, educated yourselves:

    Civil unions create “second-class status” and are not equal to marriage a study out of New Jersey says. A commission was established to study civil unions and it has concluded that even though the intention of civil unions is to give gay and lesbian couples the same rights of marriage, in fact they do not.

    The biggest area of inequality was in regards to employment benefits for spouses. Many employers refused to offer same-sex couples the same health insurance benefits as married couples.

    Massachusetts is the only state in the United States to allow gay marriage and a study there found that gay couples did not have the same kinds of problems with employers and health insurance.


    The New Jersey commission found that people in civil unions were not treated the same way as married couples by government agencies, employers and others. One of the big issues is that people do not understand what civil unions are and how they differ from marriage.

    (source Associated Press)

    Civil Unions are Not Equal to Marriage - A Study Finds Civil Unions and Marriage are not Equal

    Consider, too, that if a homosexual falls in love with another homosexual from another country, having a civil union with that individual is not going to be the necessary sponsorship that individual needs to become a citizen. There's a whole host of reasons why civil unions and marriages are NOT the same, regardless of what the "legal scholars" on here have to say. I advise actually taking a few law classes and/or studying a few law books before yammering on about legal philosophy which has no place in this argument. We deal with facts, not philosophy.
    "Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." - Voltaire

  2. #302
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-11-08 @ 10:09 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    71

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by conquer View Post
    You are incorrect. You can love your dog if you want to, and in your house you can even have sex with him, but you can't make the rest to recognize you both -you and your dog*- officially married.

    The same applies to homosexuals and lesbians trying to marry members of their same sex. They can "love" between themselves any way they want, but to try to be accepted legally by the rest...that is different.

    (*Amanzingly the god of the bible calls "dogs" to homosexuals in the first covenant of the bible, and the same title also appears in the last chapter of the book of Revelation, Outside are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the muderers, and the idolaters, and everyone that loves and makes a lie. Rev.22:15)
    So how am I "incorrect"?
    Last edited by StoneCrow; 11-07-08 at 12:16 AM.
    Self-Proclaimed Slacker

  3. #303
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by conquer View Post
    but to try to be accepted legally by the rest...that is different.
    But see...that is where your entire premise is wrong. Those of us in favor of gay marriage couldn't care less whether the "rest" accepts it or not. People are free to have their own opinions and beliefs. I do not believe anyone should be forced to "accept" gay marriage if they are not comfortable with it. However, the state should not discriminate.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  4. #304
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by MC.no.spin View Post
    This is Anthony Kennedy's record as regards homosexuality - anybody want to weigh in on how he might rule on this? I've bolded what I think may give a clue:



    Anthony Kennedy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I think he would rule that DOMA is unconstitutional...as would most of the justices. The liberal bloc would probably be joined by Roberts and Scalia on this. Clarence Thomas would probably be the only vote that the homophobes can count on...I'm not sure about Alito.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #305
    Educator Dogger807's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    979

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    It's sad that we still have people arguing that it's acceptable to discriminate for any reason. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Someday this will apply for gays as well. Less than a generation in fact.

    Look at the exit polls. Once again , proof that the children are just a little better than their parents. Morality is not immune to evolution. This battle is lost , but slowly and steadily the war is being won, and dogma is losing.
    Ignorance is the refuge of faith
    It's become very apparent that there is nothing respectable about faith
    "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"

  6. #306
    Dream Walker
    Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    07-17-15 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,265
    Blog Entries
    10

    Untangled

    "Untangled"
    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Circular reasoning. You can put whatever label you want on them. People can say the same thing about black rights in the civil rights movement. The rights lacked existence.....hence.....positive rights....apples and oranges.
    You do not understand positive and negative rights (ln).

    Civil rights violations were prohibitive actions of the government, contrary to its negative obligations, against fundamental rights of free association - liberty.

    The right to marry exists as a negative right to form a civil contract -- a civil union, the government does not prohibit those actions, and the range of diversity in marriages is as broad as the entities engaging in the civil union contracts (corporations, monogomous, polygamous, heterosexual, homosexual, polyandry, commune, etc.)

    The right to register a particular marriage, a particular civil union, which is a petition for benefit entitlement, a positive obligation of government, is not equally endowed.
    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    I'm sure the racists of the past didn't consider themselves bigots either. Afterall...they were in the right. Blacks were an inferior race and not entitled to the same rights that the rest of society was. They thought...and many probably still do....that they are in the right mindset.
    Discrimination is justifiable because those people are different than us. Apples and oranges.
    Affirmative action is a positive right that is not equally endowed and its discriminant is based on race and gender.

    And those actions are government policies and not that of private entities.

    Private entities have differing responsibility rule sets than the government.
    Last edited by Monk-Eye; 11-07-08 at 06:19 AM.

  7. #307
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    07-18-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,041

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    The law is applied equally. They state that NO ONE can marry someone of the same sex. Since this law applies to EVERYONE it is applied EQUALLY.
    Yep.

    The entire Right argument has never been based on anything but its usefulness as rhetoric.



    I'm glad this passed.
    Its some good news out of the worst election in US history.

  8. #308
    Dream Walker
    Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    07-17-15 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,265
    Blog Entries
    10

    Specificity Matters

    "Specificity Matters"
    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    More mock legal scholars claiming that marriage and civil unions are the same.
    Here, educated yourselves:
    [indent]Civil unions create “second-class status” and are not equal to marriage a study out of New Jersey says. A commission was established to study civil unions and it has concluded that even though the intention of civil unions is to give gay and lesbian couples the same rights of marriage, in fact they do not.
    The biggest area of inequality was in regards to employment benefits for spouses. Many employers refused to offer same-sex couples the same health insurance benefits as married couples.
    Employers need not offer health insurance at all.
    Private insurance policies are negotiated between private entities and their insurance providers.
    Employers are private entities that act separately from government under differing rules (unless petitioning for government contracts).
    If an insurance company does not offer health insurance for same sex marriages, the employer may select another health insurance provider which does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    Civil Unions are Not Equal to Marriage - A Study Finds Civil Unions and Marriage are not Equal
    Consider, too, that if a homosexual falls in love with another homosexual from another country, having a civil union with that individual is not going to be the necessary sponsorship that individual needs to become a citizen. There's a whole host of reasons why civil unions and marriages are NOT the same, regardless of what the "legal scholars" on here have to say. I advise actually taking a few law classes and/or studying a few law books before yammering on about legal philosophy which has no place in this argument. We deal with facts, not philosophy.
    The petition to make distinctions between rights has been rendered several times, without response.
    Rather than debating whether a civil union contract is a marriage (the two are synonymous with differing discriminants), credit is due for providing examples of disparity between homosexual civil unions (marriages) and heterosexual civil unions (marriages).
    That is, credit is due for stating particular positive or negative rights sought, rather than alleging that civil union contracts (marriages) between homosexuals, heterosexuals, corporations, communes, polygamists, polyandrists, etc. are equal.

    The last example of seeks to establish citizenship for a foreign national based on a civil union contract.
    First, would it be a positive right or a negative right?
    Last edited by Monk-Eye; 11-07-08 at 07:05 AM.

  9. #309
    Advisor Macintosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    11-18-08 @ 06:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    325

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Disney, pay no attention to Monk. He has a penchant for parroting legal philosophy without actually understanding how any given philosophy is applied in American society. He attempts to woo the crowd by putting very simple propositions in a complex manner, failing to realize that some of us, i.e. me, have a legal background and understand how full of **** he really is. Ask him to provide you a link reaffirming the undeniable "truth" he speaks and he won't. He'll simply provide you a link to the philosophy itself, or he'll provide you a link which he thinks reaffirms what he says, but really all it does is show another commonality of his: blatantly misinterpreting his own sources.

    Freedom from discrimination is a negative right, which the government, via the Fourteenth Amendment, has an obligation to prevent. Being similarly situated and being denied something under the law while another group of similarly situated individuals is being granted the same thing under the law, is, of course, discrimination based on something. In the case of same-sex marriage, it is obvious.

    Pay no attention to Monk. Debating anything with him is a waste of time. Ask him if an illegal immigrant can legally be murdered - then weep at his answer.
    Last edited by Macintosh; 11-07-08 at 07:29 AM.
    "Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." - Voltaire

  10. #310
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-24-09 @ 08:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    964

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneCrow View Post
    So how am I "incorrect"?
    Because I didn't call homosexuals as dogs but I used an analogy between a person loving his dog beyond of a pet. You said that I am calling dogs to homosexuals while I have pointed that such nomination as dogs is found in the bible.

Page 31 of 69 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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