• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

Re: Disparity

Monk-Eye said:
"Disparity"
Yes, the government should have a negative obligation (abstain) from prohibiting victimless crimes (pot smoking).

Similarly, the government has a negative obligation (abstain) from prohibiting civil unions -- marriages, civil contracts, between individuals based on informed consent; and, it does provide those negative rights.

The public government is not obligated to provided positive rights to smokers or certain civil contracts -- civil unions -- marriages.
Click to expand...

Do you know of any regualtion / law that would prevent a same sex couple from going to an attorney and having a partnership drawn up?
 
70s_guy said:
You've made the Christian argument, thankyou! Something I've stated on this board before as your hidden agenda.

Civil unions ARE not marriage. Just as any same sex marriage would NOT be marriage. Whether Gavin Newsom likes it or not. So what must be the interest in gay advocates needing to declare their unions as marriage? They already have most of the legal benefits in California? What's the hidden agenda?...the beach head for a whole new set of radical gay lawyer legal maneuvers through the courts to eventually force the rest of us to treat your behaviors and lifestyles as equal to heterosexuals...whether we like it or not.

Your side won't be placated regardless of how much we of the vast majority make reasonable concessions for your relative equality as a minority, as we have the last few decades, until some on your side can freely walk down streets and and in public media like tv, acting out your gay behaviors that many of the rest of us find repulsive. Behaviors many especially do not want exposed to their children. If your side continues to act so, I would predict a backlash by Americans is likely to occur.
Click to expand...

How you believe that this disjointed argument makes any sense is beyond me.

You simply have made the argument on why civil unions are not acceptable. "Separate but equal" is still wrong.

And you know what, I could care less whether you find "gay behavior repulsive" or not....that's what's great about America, you have that right.

However, America should stand for fairness and justice and simply because some bigots are offended at the prospect that equality should be extended is not justification for discrimination.
 
Searching Reason

"Searching Reason"
jfuh said:
The bottom line is the people had spoken and they were against minority equality in full support of jim crow laws.
USSC ruled such laws unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional because it forced the government to act prohibitively, contrary to its negative obligations, against fundamental rights of free association - liberty.

Anti-miscegenation laws would not let whites co-habitate with black.

At one time homo-sexual relations were prohibited.

Homosexual marriage (civil union) is not prohibited.
 
StoneCrow said:
Except homosexuals just happen to have a tendency toward their own sex in a way that heterosexuals do not. It's so flagrantly obvious.
Seriously, this is synonymous to: the law won't recognize gay love. Only straight love is recognized by law.
Click to expand...

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)
 
70s_guy said:
If your side continues to act so, I would predict a backlash by Americans is likely to occur.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Americans may be slow to evolve, but eventually they get it right.

America has a history of treating blacks and other racial minorities and women as second class citizens. Eventually we have come around. Today, America treats gays as second class citizens. Its just a matter of time, whether you like it or not.
 
This is all such an overblown problem. It's way out of proportion to the real situation.

If two men or women in CA (or many other states) want to be in a committed relationship, with all the rights of marriage, they CAN. They can even walk around calling themselves married, say they have a husband or wife, etc.

Who cares what it is called in legal terms? They have all the rights of marriage. Call it "Garriage." Call it whatever you like.

But it's just a stupid game of trying to be RIGHT about something inferred as WRONG by a lot of other people.

I feel sorry for all the emotionally distraught liberals and gays out there who are sweating over this POINTLESS issue. It has been a MANUFACTURED upset. People have riled you up for no good reason. LET IT BE.

It's not an issue for the government to get involved with.
Civil unions give them the rights marriage affords.

Get on with your lives.
 
conquer said:
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)
Click to expand...

Dude. We're talking about relationships between humans. In our HUMAN society, not allowing other animals to marry is not discrimination. Plus, you have the whole informed consent thing. So ummm.... no. Comparing homosexuals to dogs just isn't going to work.
 
MC.no.spin said:
This is all such an overblown problem. It's way out of proportion to the real situation.

If two men or women in CA (or many other states) want to be in a committed relationship, with all the rights of marriage, they CAN. They can even walk around calling themselves married, say they have a husband or wife, etc.

Who cares what it is called in legal terms? They have all the rights of marriage. Call it "Garriage." Call it whatever you like.

But it's just a stupid game of trying to be RIGHT about something inferred as WRONG by a lot of other people.

I feel sorry for all the emotionally distraught liberals and gays out there who are sweating over this POINTLESS issue. It has been a MANUFACTURED upset. People have riled you up for no good reason. LET IT BE.

It's not an issue for the government to get involved with.
Civil unions give them the rights marriage affords.

Get on with your lives.
Click to expand...

Thats the same thing they said to Blacks on the back of the bus.....hell....we allow you to ride don't we.......get over it.
 
disneydude said:
Thats the same thing they said to Blacks on the back of the bus.....hell....we allow you to ride don't we.......get over it.
Click to expand...

Not an identical comparison by any stretch of the imagination.
 
MC.no.spin said:
This is all such an overblown problem. It's way out of proportion to the real situation.

If two men or women in CA (or many other states) want to be in a committed relationship, with all the rights of marriage, they CAN. They can even walk around calling themselves married, say they have a husband or wife, etc.

Who cares what it is called in legal terms? They have all the rights of marriage. Call it "Garriage." Call it whatever you like.

But it's just a stupid game of trying to be RIGHT about something inferred as WRONG by a lot of other people.

I feel sorry for all the emotionally distraught liberals and gays out there who are sweating over this POINTLESS issue. It has been a MANUFACTURED upset. People have riled you up for no good reason. LET IT BE.

It's not an issue for the government to get involved with.
Civil unions give them the rights marriage affords.

Get on with your lives.
Click to expand...

Totally. I mean, when we had segregated schools it wasn't like the blacks weren't getting an education or anything. So I really don't see what the big deal was. And I mean, they could RIDE the buses, no one was stopping them. They just had to sit in the back. WTF is the big deal? It was just a MANUFACTURED upset. People got them all riled up for no good reason. It wasn't an issue for the government to get involved with.
 
rivrrat said:
Totally. I mean, when we had segregated schools it wasn't like the blacks weren't getting an education or anything. So I really don't see what the big deal was. And I mean, they could RIDE the buses, no one was stopping them. They just had to sit in the back. WTF is the big deal? It was just a MANUFACTURED upset. People got them all riled up for no good reason. It wasn't an issue for the government to get involved with.
Click to expand...

You and Disney Dude use the same manual to debate this issue.

Apples and Oranges.

Bottom line: Being gay is perceived as not normal, and I tend to agree it isn't.
 
MC.no.spin said:
You and Disney Dude use the same manual to debate this issue.

Apples and Oranges.

Bottom line: Being gay is perceived as not normal, and I tend to agree it isn't.
Click to expand...

People used to have the same belief about Blacks and other minorities (unfortunately, there are some who still do).

Its not apples and oranges......its only that to those who don't want to recognize that treating other people as inferior is simply wrong.

How we can live in a country that espouses the belief that "all men are created equal" and "liberty and justice for all"....and still have people who believe that discrimination is somehow ok....is beyond me.

No......we're talking apples and apples. Just because you want to call one an orange to justify your bigotry doesn't make it so.
 
disneydude said:
People used to have the same belief about Blacks and other minorities (unfortunately, there are some who still do).

Its not apples and oranges......its only that to those who don't want to recognize that treating other people as inferior is simply wrong.

How we can live in a country that espouses the belief that "all men are created equal" and "liberty and justice for all"....and still have people who believe that discrimination is somehow ok....is beyond me.

No......we're talking apples and apples. Just because you want to call one an orange to justify your bigotry doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

What about adult males who enjoy the company of 17 year olds? They both may consent, but it is illegal. Do we then change the laws because we shouldn't consider this as not normal?

The consensus of society is that this isn't normal or optimum. They don't want it in their schools, they don't want it to have the same sanctity as normal marriage. That's democracy. Now if civil rights were being violated, okay. But they are not. It's a positive rights issue that is not something that has to be universal.

California and other states have already done a great deal to give them equal rights. It's really just a never-ending campaign to have homosexuality thrown in our faces at every opportunity as normal, cool, and desirable.
 
rivrrat said:
Dude. We're talking about relationships between humans. In our HUMAN society, not allowing other animals to marry is not discrimination. Plus, you have the whole informed consent thing. So ummm.... no. Comparing homosexuals to dogs just isn't going to work.
Click to expand...

Religion has been part of the whole societies of the world since ancient times. The voice of the gods of the cultures still having influence in the people.

The god of the bible called them "dogs", and such nomination to homosexuals is observed in both covenants (or testaments). It appears that in the Judeo-Christian religion, homosexuals -regardless of how "nice" they are- won't be part of the new era promissed in the bible for humanity and planet earth.

I was just using the same analogy to show what the bible says about homosexuals, and for this Judeo-Christian god, homosexuality is an abomination.

About the consenting thing, can a 60 years old woman get married with her 40 years old son? Look, they are "consenting" to get marry, is the law to allow this union?

Hell don't know.

Well, I think that should be worst to accept the legal union between members of the same sex, unless one of the men gets pregnant and his honor must be vindicated...:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
MC.no.spin said:
What about adult males who enjoy the company of 17 year olds? They both may consent, but it is illegal. Do we then change the laws because we shouldn't consider this as not normal?

The consensus of society is that this isn't normal or optimum. They don't want it in their schools, they don't want it to have the same sanctity as normal marriage. That's democracy. Now if civil rights were being violated, okay. But they are not. It's a positive rights issue that is not something that has to be universal.

California and other states have already done a great deal to give them equal rights. It's really just a never-ending campaign to have homosexuality thrown in our faces at every opportunity as normal, cool, and desirable.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the same arguments have been raised about Blacks. Gay Discrimination is simply the racism of this century....and just like Blacks, Women and other minorities, America will eventually grow up and recognize that this discrimination is wrong as well. Its just a matter of time.
 
disneydude said:
Like I said, the same arguments have been raised about Blacks. Gay Discrimination is simply the racism of this century....and just like Blacks, Women and other minorities, America will eventually grow up and recognize that this discrimination is wrong as well. Its just a matter of time.
Click to expand...

The problem I have with all of this is that it is a manufactured discrimination. Gays are not discriminated against by the state. It's a shame as it makes people feel suppressed when they shouldn't feel that way.
 
MC.no.spin said:
The problem I have with all of this is that it is a manufactured discrimination. Gays are not discriminated against by the state. It's a shame as it makes people feel suppressed when they shouldn't feel that way.
Click to expand...

Funny....people said the same thing about Blacks during the 60's.
"Hell....we provide drinking fountains for them....why do they want to drink out of ours. Its not discrimination as long as we allow them to sit in the balcony. Its a shame as it makes people feel suppressed when they shouldn't feel that way." :roll:
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Funny....people said the same thing about Blacks during the 60's.
"Hell....we provide drinking fountains for them....why do they want to drink out of ours. Its not discrimination as long as we allow them to sit in the balcony. Its a shame as it makes people feel suppressed when they shouldn't feel that way." :roll:
Click to expand...

Those rights being denied to blacks were negative rights.

Positive rights lack existence until they are created by contract.

Apples and oranges.
 
MC.no.spin said:
Those rights being denied to blacks were negative rights.

Positive rights lack existence until they are created by contract.

Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
conquer said:
Religion has been part of the whole societies of the world since ancient times. The voice of the gods of the cultures still having influence in the people.

The god of the bible called them "dogs", and such nomination to homosexuals is observed in both covenants (or testaments). It appears that in the Judeo-Christian religion, homosexuals -regardless of how "nice" they are- won't be part of the new era promissed in the bible for humanity and planet earth.

I was just using the same analogy to show what the bible says about homosexuals, and for this Judeo-Christian god, homosexuality is an abomination.
Click to expand...

What some mythological ancient text says is irrelevant to our secular society.

About the consenting thing, can a 60 years old woman get married with her 40 years old son? Look, they are "consenting" to get marry, is the law to allow this union?
Click to expand...
It should, but currently no it doesn't.
 
I don't know about all this "positive" and "negative" terminology, it really depends on which side you are coming from. Clearly, the pro-gay marriage movement thinks discrimination is happening. The fact that we wouldn't have considered it discrimination in the past isn't really relevant to an emerging issue. In the past, homosexuals lacked the social and political forum to really bring this issue to the limelight.

I personally don't understand the drama, really. And that's what it is, a bunch of moralistic drama. In Canada, gay marriage was legalized at the Federal level within a month of it becoming an emergent issue. Since then nothing has happened and people have moved on with their lives. What two other men, two other women, or a man and a woman do together is truly irrelevant to my existence. And yes, we had the right wing side trying to stop our government from doing it.

If you really deconstruct this issue, it doesn't matter all that much. I've since met married male couples and married female couples. At first you're like... wow, I'm not used to this. Then when you walk away you forget their names, or what their jobs are, or any of the other "important" details. That's all it comes back to, for me anyway... is that it doesn't really matter. Society has not unravelled.

All that aside, gays tend to move to more liberal centers anyway. After they come out, few stay in conservative areas, so I don't know why conservatives are so afraid of suddenly seeing gay married couples everywhere. It's not going to happen.
 
MC.no.spin said:
Civil unions give them the rights marriage affords.

Get on with your lives.
Click to expand...

I think that would mostly be well and good if the State didn't issue the Marriage License. But it does, so it's no longer a religion thing; it's a legal contract thing. And in that circumstance, a the church has no place dictating the terms of that contract.
 
MC.no.spin said:
This is all such an overblown problem. It's way out of proportion to the real situation.

If two men or women in CA (or many other states) want to be in a committed relationship, with all the rights of marriage, they CAN. They can even walk around calling themselves married, say they have a husband or wife, etc.

Who cares what it is called in legal terms? They have all the rights of marriage. Call it "Garriage." Call it whatever you like.

But it's just a stupid game of trying to be RIGHT about something inferred as WRONG by a lot of other people.

I feel sorry for all the emotionally distraught liberals and gays out there who are sweating over this POINTLESS issue. It has been a MANUFACTURED upset. People have riled you up for no good reason. LET IT BE.

It's not an issue for the government to get involved with.
Civil unions give them the rights marriage affords.

Get on with your lives.
Click to expand...
Separate but equal is not equality.
 
Phoenix said:
LOL Really?
Did you bother to read what you posted or just google, copy, paste with the appropriate key words?

you initially used "similarly situated" to indicate both sides. That Same sex couples and opposite sex couples are "similarly situated".
The definition you posted defines the phrase as a group of Plaintiffs (one side of the argument) being "similarly situated" not both sides.

Try Again.
Click to expand...

It really annoys me when someone blatantly misinterprets an amendment, legal definition, or law to fit their own warped conclusions. The Plaintiffs, for our purposes, are homosexuals who are claiming to be "similarly situated;" that is, the same as another group being afforded Equal Protection.

Here:

Version 1 -- the first Really Really Bad Argument -- goes like this: Marriage exists in order to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct." "The long-standing, fundamental purpose of our marriage laws is to privilege and regulate procreative conduct . . . [therefore] persons who wish to enter into a same sex marriage are not similarly situated to persons who wish to enter into a traditional marriage. The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry." Those are the words of Justice Zarella, dissenting in the Connecticut case. Note that he does not say "procreation," he says "procreative conduct."​

Howard Schweber: Same Sex Marriage: the Worst Argument in the World

Similarly situated has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARGUMENT! PLEASE, GO TAKE A ****ING LAW CLASS!

But before you do, read the article I posted - it's a good one that explains how ridiculous the anti-same-sex marriage crowd is.
 
Last edited:
Orius said:
I don't know about all this "positive" and "negative" terminology, it really depends on which side you are coming from. Clearly, the pro-gay marriage movement thinks discrimination is happening. The fact that we wouldn't have considered it discrimination in the past isn't really relevant to an emerging issue. In the past, homosexuals lacked the social and political forum to really bring this issue to the limelight.

I personally don't understand the drama, really. And that's what it is, a bunch of moralistic drama. In Canada, gay marriage was legalized at the Federal level within a month of it becoming an emergent issue. Since then nothing has happened and people have moved on with their lives. What two other men, two other women, or a man and a woman do together is truly irrelevant to my existence. And yes, we had the right wing side trying to stop our government from doing it.

If you really deconstruct this issue, it doesn't matter all that much. I've since met married male couples and married female couples. At first you're like... wow, I'm not used to this. Then when you walk away you forget their names, or what their jobs are, or any of the other "important" details. That's all it comes back to, for me anyway... is that it doesn't really matter. Society has not unravelled.

All that aside, gays tend to move to more liberal centers anyway. After they come out, few stay in conservative areas, so I don't know why conservatives are so afraid of suddenly seeing gay married couples everywhere. It's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

That's exactly it. In one post you have pretty much hit every issue.

Gay Marriage has been legal in California for over 6 months. Its been legal in Mass. for a lot longer?

Has society collapsed as opponents predicted? No

Has Heterosexual marriage deteriorated as opponents predicted? No....at least no more than previous to gay marriage.

Did it have any effect on the daily lives of citizens? No.


The reality is....opponents of gay marriage haul out all kinds of lies and misconceptions to promote their hatred and bigotry. Religions fund the lies and justify is as an "ends justify the means".

Bigotry hates progress and will fight it tooth and nail. Our nation's history of discrimination tells us so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom