- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,556
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Why shouldn't they?
Because he says so.
Why shouldn't they?
Legally, providing that framework to make civil unions the same as marriage would be exceedingly difficult. Well over 1k federal benefits alone to marriage. Further, the question has to arise is if civil unions are exactly the same as marriage, then why the distinction?
The arguments also go somewhat beyond what you are saying. You are, as you admit, biased, and I think that is why you are missing these. SSM(which I do prefer to GM, thanks MrV) is, to my way of thinking(with it's admitted bias), good for society as a whole. The institution of marriage provides for social stability. Marriages are more stable relationships. This is especially important when considering, as I documented earlier, the vast number of gay people with children, or who want children. Marriage provides the best possible arrangement for raising children, all other things being equal. I think this is an important argument, and simply cannot be discounted.
The distinction, is what SOCIETY wishes to accept, not what you or I are willing to do, SOCIETY. You ignored that part to push why YOU think SSM (To be honest, I saw peeps were using that, and I'm all for saving keystrokes) is good. That's fine. Society isn't ready yet to elevate the SSC to "Marriage". YOU think SSM is good for children, more seem to disagree. Please, don't post studies or whatever, read em, seen em, that's not the point.
That's really what it's about though Redress. Steve and Joe, Man and Man? What the hell do you call a couple like that? I've never bothered to learn... ah well, anyhoots, Steve and Joe might be the worlds best parenting couple, but if Society isn't ready to accept them as a married couple... why force the issue? That's my stance.
Civil Unions providing all the same legal benefits and coverage, lets society get used to the idea, and revisit it later on.
And what if the SCOTUS backs the People's right to say no to SSM?I just call Steve and Joe people. I don't do a whole lot of labeling.
I think you misunderstand what I was saying, for whatever reason, my poor explanation, or your not following, or a combination of both. The reason society should accept SSM, and should legalize it, is for those reasons. The court may(I suspect will) take the decision out of the hands of people though. If the twin cases making their way through end up the way they very will might, SSM will be legal in the US sooner rather than later. Then the only option is amending the constitution, which neither side can muster the votes for.
And what if the SCOTUS backs the People's right to say no to SSM?
The REAL issue is, do we as a society, wish to accept two men, or two women in a relationship as being the same as a traditional Male/Female bonding?
Society through the ballot box, has repeatedly said "No, no we are not". This is not in dispute.
No, I think it's finding common ground, and letting society come to grips with the issue.
The debate would be interesting if both sides were honest about the issue, but NEITHER are. I'm not, You Star isn't, CC isn't Redress... we all have vested EMOTIONAL reasons for our stances. This makes all of us, imperfect messengers of our positions. It gets quite fired up, look how many posts and pages a Gay anything thread gets.
Society through the ballot box, has repeatedly said "No, no we are not". This is not in dispute. California, one of the most GAY FRIENDLY places in the USA, if not THE most Gay State, rejected raising homosexual relationships to the same importance and acceptance as heterosexual relationships.
That should stop and give ALL of us pause here to consider, strip away the emotional baggage, and look at the results! That DOES matter.
Yes...it is a very good sign for those of us on the side of love against hate. The ninth circuit is expediting the appeal process which, if you read the article, is a good indication that they are likely to side with those opposing prop 8.
The ONLY argument for "Gay Marriage" is that societal norms have changed. What was once considered aberrant behavior society did not approve of, has become acceptable behavior that many believe deserves to be placed along side Heterosexual Relationships.
Except, of course, that black people are black.. They are innately black, immutable even. Gay's not so, eh? My argument would not work against a black person, nor do I claim it would, so it's not "exactly" the same is it?
Tim-
Seriously, Vicchio, your view on Gay Rights and your understanding of the legal issues involved is way too limited for you to comment in your on thread.
Basically, homophobes and those with bigoted views shouldn't be starting threads on civil rights issues--their fear-based prejudices prevent them from having any rational opinion or thoughts.
"The only argument" ... when you start of saying something that ignorant, it's as if you haven't been following the case at all and you understand nothing about the 14th amendment issues.
Perhaps you should read up on the legal issues, the real "arguments" made by both sides.
Good luck. And keep in mind, you can't catch homosexuality, you have to be born with it.
Listen to yourself. You couldn't debate my point, instead you loaded a post attacking me, calling me a bigot, a homophobe based on what sir? Based on what?
Your OWN ignorance, and bigotry, your OWN arrogance and EGO. Redress, hardly one to pass up a chance to attack my ideas, presented a well structured discussion, you? That was far beyond your limited capabilities.
Tell me Hazlnut, where was my statement WRONG.
Society historically has rejected Gay Relationships, Gay = an Aberrant Behavior that Society did not approve of. Now we are faced with not only changing that belief, but elevating such relationships as being equal with straight relationships.
No where in that analysis can you find hate or bigotry, but there is plenty to be found in the waste of thought you presented.
Mr. V, I am amazed at your bias in complaining about the "Godwining" of the issue by those on the side of allowing SSM based on pointing it to race while you continually ignore people on your side "Godwining" it by pointing to Polygamy, pedophilia, and Beastaility.
Funny how, until this judge created that argument, that the 14th Amendment was rarely if ever brought up in these debates. I reject this claim as nothing more then an activist judge creating a reason to make a ruling he wanted. If the SCOTUS upholds his argument, THEN you have a case, until then... it's theory.In one case, people are arguing that the 14th amendment makes discriminating against SSM unconstitutional. They reference race because race is the issue of precedence with regards to the 14th amendment applying to marriage. Its DIRECTLY connected.
Again, slippery slope argument, different animal, you know better then this Z.In the other case, polygamy is not recognized by any scientific authority as an orientation, nor is there any discrimination based on race with regards to it, so there's little to no connection to it in relation to using it to counter the argument made by many in favor of SSM. Its comparable in regards to the societal acceptance of it, but honestly the only people I ever see arguing about SSM from that stand point is people AGAINST it creating a strawman that somehow that is the reason people are saying it should be legalized.
In regards to Beastiality and Pedophlia, in both they're not related in any way to SSM arguments because in both cases its situations where those on the other side of the "relationship" are incapable of legally entering into such a contract as marriage based on the mental and cognitive requirements for such.
Slippery slope Vs. one Judges theoretical justification for overturning the will of the people.At least race DIRECTLY applies to the arguments people are making with regards to the 14th amendment and SSM. Polygamy, Pedophilia, and Beastiality have nothing to do with countering said arguments.
Careful, you talking to a credentialed attorney.
No, those are examples of slippery slope, at least in regards to the first two. Bestiality sadly has made it own inroads elsewhere.
There is a difference Z, between making the case that if Marriage is no longer One man, One woman, why cant it be between three loving men? Or two men and a woman?
Slippery Slope
Funny how, until this judge created that argument, that the 14th Amendment was rarely if ever brought up in these debates. I reject this claim as nothing more then an activist judge creating a reason to make a ruling he wanted. If the SCOTUS upholds his argument, THEN you have a case, until then... it's theory.
Again, slippery slope argument, different animal, you know better then this Z.
On the face of it, I agree with you completely. However, aren't pedophiles compelled to behave the way they do? Do they not say they cannot help themselves? Don't "animal Lovers" say the same? It's "Genetic"! (just showing as you are trying to with the 14th, how they relate)
Slippery slope Vs. one Judges theoretical justification for overturning the will of the people.
Gender is a "thing"! Notwithstanding physiology, someone's gender, and their identifying roles, are tied to many intangibles, of which sexuality, and spirituality are just a couple of the variables. In family court, the whole due process for denying (Mostly) men the right to equity with their own children in divorce, is based on the "best interests of the children" doctrine. Children do best, and it is the most ideal, when both the mother, and the father are in a healthy, and commited relationship. children recieve their identity "training" from both examples. I don't see how, even remotely, how a SSM would offer the same intrinsic value to society?
Tim-
Gender is a "thing"! Notwithstanding physiology, someone's gender, and their identifying roles, are tied to many intangibles, of which sexuality, and spirituality are just a couple of the variables. In family court, the whole due process for denying (Mostly) men the right to equity with their own children in divorce, is based on the "best interests of the children" doctrine. Children do best, and it is the most ideal, when both the mother, and the father are in a healthy, and commited relationship. children recieve their identity "training" from both examples. I don't see how, even remotely, how a SSM would offer the same intrinsic value to society?
Tim-
Moderator's Warning: |
The personal attacks need to end. The flat out calling of individual posters bigots, homophobes, etc needs to end. The baiting behavior of attempting to interject individuals real life jobs and negative comments concerning it is also unneeded. |
There have been a number of studies on gays as parents. Might read up and check the available information and post an argument based on that. I warn you, most of it shows gays at least as good as straits at raising children, with the most recent study of children raised by lesbian couples doing better than average.
Without research and sourcing, your objection is just "I think", and not much good.