First  Prev  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  Next  Last
Post Reply Gay Marriage
22034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/20/13
Might I suggest the following Biblical verses: 1 Samuel 18:1, 1 Samuel 18:2, 1 Samuel 18:3-4, 1 Samuel 20:41, 2 Samuel 1:26
17024 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Middle of Nowhere...
Offline
Posted 8/21/13
Legalize gay weed

12626 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
[not] China
Offline
Posted 8/21/13 , edited 8/21/13
Here is where dougeprofile and bensonc120's fierce debate on politics left off,
which btw none of them are planning to come to an agreement on

continue ladies
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bensonc120 wrote:


dougeprofile wrote:
The reason government is involved in marriage at all is because of children - and a mother and father are the best environment for raising them. If homosexuals want to have a ceremony, no one should bother them (they can even call it what they want) but neither should government endorse it.


This is where you are 100% wrong. Not everyone get married to have children- some individuals are barren, infertile, or past the age where they can reproduce. Many people marry because it gives them legal rights for example joint tax filing, property/income tax deduction, spousal veteran's disability, benefits of being spouses to citizens or legal aliens, medicaid, visitation rights, transfer or property on death tax free, and the list goes on and no. None of which pertains to having children. The government should and does endorse gay marriage in part to afford these people the same rights that you and I have.


dougeprofile wrote:
A homosexual man and a heterosexual man both have the same rights to marry or not marry a (single) woman.


This is so stupid. Why would a homosexual man want to marry a woman? Why can't he have the right to marry someone he loves and cares about? What is so fundamentally harmful about that that you would deny his right? How does his marriage affect you?


dougeprofile wrote:
"Archaic" and "Hypocritical" are both spurious charges; laws against murder go far back - should we get rid of those because they are "archaic"? That is a ridiculous charge. A hypocrite is someone who pretends to be what he is not - I am not pretending.


Laws against murder are not archaic. Traditions denying rights to people are archaic. That's the difference.


dougeprofile wrote:
Rush racist? That is a flat out LIE, prove it. One would think Snerdly (a black guy with) would say something if it were true.


He is a racist because he hates black people and Mexicans and would deny those people the same rights you and I have. Not any simpler than that.
4829 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
USA
Offline
Posted 8/21/13 , edited 8/21/13
I have nothing against gay marriage. I accept that there are different people who aren't the same as me, and I'm not gonna try to say that they're wrong just because they're not like me. I'm also not going to shove my beliefs down their throats like religious people do to openly irreligious people. It's not fair for anyone to judge others, and that's part of the reason why I believe there's nothing wrong with gay marriage. Like the person who created this topic said, many of the anti-gay arguments are easy to prove wrong. I don't know how long it will take for bigots to realize that they can't keep judging people and doing things they do just because they don't agree.
46073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 8/21/13 , edited 8/21/13
Get government out of marriage entirely then we wouldnt have this problem

Also, to the people who say opposite sex marriage is violating gays rights, no it isnt.

Gay/Straight men and Gay/Straight women both are treated equally under the law. The marriage between one man and one woman says NOTHING about sexuality. If you are gay, you have the same treatment as straights do under the law. Just because you choose not to marry somebody of the opposite sex doesn't mean you were discriminated against.

This is like saying 2 people are eligible for welfare. One is a lazy good for nothing, so he gets on it, but the other one has some principle and chooses not to get on it, and then you go out and say the 2nd person is being discriminated against, because his lifestyle/preference/choice makes him less likely to do so.

Just because 1 side is more or less likely to choose to get a benefit, that does not mean the other side was discriminated against.
6174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38
Offline
Posted 8/21/13

superluccix wrote:

Get government out of marriage entirely then we wouldnt have this problem

Also, to the people who say opposite sex marriage is violating gays rights, no it isnt.

Gay/Straight men and Gay/Straight women both are treated equally under the law. The marriage between one man and one woman says NOTHING about sexuality.


While technically true, restricting it in such a way does still qualify as gender discrimination.
And the net effect is special rights for straight people.


superluccix wrote:
If you are gay, you have the same treatment as straights do under the law. Just because you choose not to marry somebody of the opposite sex doesn't mean you were discriminated against.

This is like saying 2 people are eligible for welfare. One is a lazy good for nothing,


And this analogy has already gone to hell.

46073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 8/21/13


No its not.Its not restricting anybody unfairly compared to anybody else. The only way this could be gender discrimination is if there was a third gender involved. Only 2 genders exist, the law applies equally to both

If the law said that all men can marry other men, and all women can marry other women, this would also NOT be a violation of rights, nor a violation of equal protection.

The analogy made perfect sense, but its ok if you didnt get it

6174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38
Offline
Posted 8/21/13

superluccix wrote:



No its not.Its not restricting anybody unfairly compared to anybody else. The only way this could be gender discrimination is if there was a third gender involved. Only 2 genders exist, the law applies equally to both


Men cannot marry men, but women can.

That's the same kind of "equality" as Jim Crow. Which is to say, it's a cheap paint job trying to pass off a discriminatory policy as something else.


superluccix wrote:
The analogy made perfect sense, but its ok if you didnt get it


It's not that I 'didn't get it.' I just refuse to play along with the secondary implications. Why invoke the image of the "lazy good for nothing" welfare-bum, instead of the more common (but less talked about) idea of the man who "swallows his pride to feed his children"?
46073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 8/21/13


To say that Opposite gender marriage is like Jim Crow is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of.

Its not discriminatory. It says that all men and all women can marry their opposites. This applies equally to both straights and gays. There is no discrimination. Just because you can't comprehend this, doesnt make it any less true.

But even if I were to accept your claim, which is false, then using your logic, outlawing plural marriages would also be discriminatory, along with fathers/mothers marrying their brothers/sisters/sons/daughters or anything of that sort.

You have to support that if you wish to remain consistent.

"It's not that I 'didn't get it.' I just refuse to play along with the secondary implications. Why invoke the image of the "lazy good for nothing" welfare-bum, instead of the more common (but less talked about) idea of the man who "swallows his pride to feed his children"? "

No you clearly didnt get it. Since you are focused on something completely irrelevant. Seriously, the logic just went right over your head.

The analogy for the logic was to show that 2 people were still allowed under the law to apply for something, however due to ones lifestyle/choice/preference/principal, he is less likely to do what was required to gain the benefit, but that does not then logically follow that he was discriminated against.

23563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Northern California
Offline
Posted 8/22/13 , edited 8/22/13

superluccix wrote:

To say that Opposite gender marriage is like Jim Crow is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of.

Its not discriminatory. It says that all men and all women can marry their opposites. This applies equally to both straights and gays. There is no discrimination. Just because you can't comprehend this, doesnt make it any less true.


If you'd made that statement when DOMA passed back in 1996, you would have been technically correct. No states had marriage equality on the books at the time, so there was no state law precedent to challenge a federal law refusing to recognize the rights of any same sex marriages. There were no same sex marriages from any US state that were being impinged upon. However, there are now 13 states, and Washington D.C., that have legalized marriage equality, so that conclusion you drew is no longer valid. SCOTUS proved it this year.

Perhaps you missed out on the DOMA ruling, and why it was considered unconstitutional. Here's a hint: It was discriminatory, and violated the right to liberty and to equal protection for gay couples. It granted federal rights to legally married straight couples that were not being granted to legally married same sex couples. There are over a thousand federal-level benefits that marriage provides, and until DOMA was struck down, they were not being provided to the over 100 thousand legally married same sex couples. That's a lot of people to marginalize, but how many people must it take before you would consider it to be discriminatory? A rhetorical question, since you already stated that you don't even find it discriminatory.

Just because you don't believe a law to be discriminatory, does not automatically prevent it from being discriminatory. That's using the letter of the law to beat down the spirit of the law. Saying, "Well, they have the right to marry, just as long as it's not someone of their gender" is also implying with the same breath, "You can marry someone that you don't love, but you can't marry someone that you love." One doesn't have to be gay in order to see the discrimination inherent in the mindset of that law, nor find it to be unjust.

You also said "get the government out of marriage", but marriage is a social contract with many legal issues and entanglements involved: inheritances, estate taxes, child custody, and much more. If you're suggesting that no married couple should have any of those benefits, I'm sure you will find there are many already married people who would oppose that view. If you're saying that "marriages" should only be a ceremonial event, as performed in the religious or cultural traditions of the couple's choosing...then I would agree with that sentiment. HOWEVER, everyone who wants the benefit of legally wedded status should then be required have a civil union, as recognized by the government, for all the legal intents and purposes as outlined above, and same sex couples would not be restricted from these rights.

Is that "redefining marriage"? No, it would be equal treatment under the law, regardless of gender or sexual identity, and anything less would be a "Separate but Equal" situation...which has historically proven to become tacitly unequal time and time again. if one's religious views are opposed to marriage equality, then take it up with the Establishment Clause. One's religious views are not law, and we do not live in a theocracy. You can abide by your religious views all you like, but you may not compel anyone else (through force of law) to do the same...despite the protestations of some religious groups. It would be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause to force churches to perform same sex marriages they don't wish to perform, but it is also a violation of religious freedom to impinge upon the rights of churches that would perform these ceremonies. The law cuts both ways, and one would be hypocritical to overlook that. No proponent of marriage equality is forcing anyone else to get married, but we will keep working toward equality.

Your slippery slope arguments fail the test of logic, as well. The topic here is same sex marriage. Not legalizing marriage between blood related siblings, legalizing polygamy, or legalizing bestiality (which is a oft-trotted out dead horse to beat on, for those against marriage equality.) Claiming that, "If we legalize gay marriage, we must legalize those things too" is both dishonest and insulting. (Need I mention the fear mongering regarding pedophilia, which also fits on the list above? Never mind the statistics that show the vast majority of pedophiles are straight males...) While you can find people who want those types of marriages legalized, legalizing same sex marriages will not lead to any of those issues gaining any ground for legalization. Hell, the topic isn't even about marriage between first cousins, but that's already legal in exactly twice the number of states that have legalized same sex marriages! I don't see many people seeking to ban those. But it's just as irrelevant as the slippery slope arguments are to this topic.

The slippery slope arguments are an obfuscation, and a fear mongering tactic. That tactic has also been debunked time and time again in the courts, but it's part of the religious right's propaganda machine. As such, it will not be accepted as an argument in this debate.

This last bit's going into a spoiler tag. It's a quote from Disqus user phantomreader42, as posted to one of the regular blogs I read. It's the top comment in this thread: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/08/05/we-get-it-you-dont-hate-gay-people-you-just-dont-want-them-to-be-happy/#disqus_thread

To some of the religious opponents of marriage equality, this is how you sound:

17024 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Middle of Nowhere...
Offline
Posted 8/22/13
Legalize it
46073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 8/22/13


"If you'd made that statement when DOMA passed back in 1996, you would have been technically correct. No states had marriage equality on the books at the time, so there was no state law precedent to challenge a federal law refusing to recognize the rights of any same sex marriages. There were no same sex marriages from any US state that were being impinged upon. However, there are now 13 states, and Washington D.C., that have legalized marriage equality, so that conclusion you drew is no longer valid. SCOTUS proved it this year."

What the hell does this have to do with my post? How does 13 states legalizing gay marriage say anything about whether opposite gender marriage is a violation of the 14th amendment? This literally had NOTHING to do with what I said.

"Perhaps you missed out on the DOMA ruling, and why it was considered unconstitutional. Here's a hint: It was discriminatory, and violated the right to liberty and to equal protection for gay couples. It granted federal rights to legally married straight couples that were not being granted to legally married same sex couples. There are over a thousand federal-level benefits that marriage provides, and until DOMA was struck down, they were not being provided to the over 100 thousand legally married same sex couples. That's a lot of people to marginalize, but how many people must it take before you would consider it to be discriminatory? A rhetorical question, since you already stated that you don't even find it discriminatory."

What the hell makes you think I support DOMA? Do you like just busting out a bunch of strawman arguments which I never made? THe federal government doesnt have the constitutional powers to determine what marriage is, so obviously it was unconstitutional.

You have literally busted out another paragraph of words which have absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Marriage benefits are not rights, they are privileges, and those privileges were applied to every human being in the United States equally. Every man and woman, regardless of whether they were straight or gay, had the same opportunity to get those benefits, all they had to do was meet the requirement of marrying the opposite gender.

"Just because you don't believe a law to be discriminatory, does not automatically prevent it from being discriminatory. That's using the letter of the law to beat down the spirit of the law. Saying, "Well, they have the right to marry, just as long as it's not someone of their gender" is also implying with the same breath, "You can marry someone that you don't love, but you can't marry someone that you love." One doesn't have to be gay in order to see the discrimination inherent in the mindset of that law, nor find it to be unjust."

The whole point of what I was talking about was whether it was a violation of the 14th amendment or not. It isnt. The law also is not discriminating against 1 group AS OPPOSED to another group. Both groups have the same equal opportunity to apply for those benefits. They choose not to. Thats not a violation of the law

"You also said "get the government out of marriage", but marriage is a social contract with many legal issues and entanglements involved: inheritances, estate taxes, child custody, and much more. If you're suggesting that no married couple should have any of those benefits, I'm sure you will find there are many already married people who would oppose that view. If you're saying that "marriages" should only be a ceremonial event, as performed in the religious or cultural traditions of the couple's choosing...then I would agree with that sentiment. HOWEVER, everyone who wants the benefit of legally wedded status should then be required have a civil union, as recognized by the government, for all the legal intents and purposes as outlined above, and same sex couples would not be restricted from these rights."

So the fuck what? It has entanglements therefore you cant get rid of them? NOBODY including straight couples should have those benefits to begin with.

So the fuck what if many would oppose that view? What the hell does that have to do with whether government should be in marriage or not? You are shifting your argument everywhere. There shouldnt be any federal/state benefits of any kind to any group of people.

"Is that "redefining marriage"? No, it would be equal treatment under the law, regardless of gender or sexual identity, and anything less would be a "Separate but Equal" situation...which has historically proven to become tacitly unequal time and time again. if one's religious views are opposed to marriage equality, then take it up with the Establishment Clause. One's religious views are not law, and we do not live in a theocracy. You can abide by your religious views all you like, but you may not compel anyone else (through force of law) to do the same...despite the protestations of some religious groups. It would be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause to force churches to perform same sex marriages they don't wish to perform, but it is also a violation of religious freedom to impinge upon the rights of churches that would perform these ceremonies. The law cuts both ways, and one would be hypocritical to overlook that. No proponent of marriage equality is forcing anyone else to get married, but we will keep working toward equality."

Holy shit dude. I literally am not making any argument about *redefining marriage* nor am I talking about using religion as a reason to not support Same sex marriage.

You literally cant help yourself busting out a bunch of unrelated information.

"Your slippery slope arguments fail the test of logic, as well. The topic here is same sex marriage. Not legalizing marriage between blood related siblings, legalizing polygamy, or legalizing bestiality (which is a oft-trotted out dead horse to beat on, for those against marriage equality.) Claiming that, "If we legalize gay marriage, we must legalize those things too" is both dishonest and insulting. (Need I mention the fear mongering regarding pedophilia, which also fits on the list above? Never mind the statistics that show the vast majority of pedophiles are straight males...) While you can find people who want those types of marriages legalized, legalizing same sex marriages will not lead to any of those issues gaining any ground for legalization. Hell, the topic isn't even about marriage between first cousins, but that's already legal in exactly twice the number of states that have legalized same sex marriages! I don't see many people seeking to ban those. But it's just as irrelevant as the slippery slope arguments are to this topic."

This has nothing to do with a slippery slope argument. This has everything to do with taking your logic to its logical conclusion. If you are going to use a logical reasoning to support gay marriage, then that logic must be taken to its logical conclusion to support everything else that falls under that logic.

You are literally missing the fucking point here. It doesnt matter how likely would it be if those laws are passed or not. What matters is that if you are going to be logically consistent, you MUST support polygamy/incest marriages, because they fall under the logic of "Adults should be free to marry other adults who they love"

So in conclusion, you literally just wasted my time by attacking a bunch of strawman arguments that I never made, and you also failed to comprehend that the point of mentioning those other types of marriages was to show that they fall under the same logic.

I am not going to respond to you after this post, since it would clearly waste my time further
66001 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 8/22/13
Heterosexual relationships are more consequential than Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships without children; marriage is important to government because only a man and woman can produce children - 0% of homosexual relationships are capable of producing children. The ideal situation for children is to have both a mother and a father, which is well born out by every statistic.

The charge of discrimination in marriage is simply not true - any homosexual can marry ...any woman he wants – or not if he chooses; any heterosexual cannot marry any woman he wants. Marriage can only happen between a single man and single woman. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals both have the same rights, no one is being denied. Homosexuals should be allowed to have a private ceremony if they wish to and call their relationship whatever they want; the government should not prohibit their ceremony, but neither should government endorse it. The traditional definition of marriage should be preserved. The traditional definition of marriage does not loose its meaning because some fail to live up to it; Hollywood certainly does not count and an example worth emulating (in most cases).

Any comparison to the discrimination faced by black Americans is both ludicrous and insulting. They have suffered tremendously in our history, homosexual Americans as a group are more prosperous the heterosexuals – no children being a major factor. There is no substantive difference between men of any race – there is a profound difference between men and women. Marriage unites these two opposites in a way that is not possible with same sex couples – meaning they are less consequential to society.

Discrimination is legally permitted in some cases: a Korean restaurant is allowed to hire Korean servers, a pastor does not have to hire a homosexual assistant. Discrimination is important in everyday life as well – I discriminate against warm drinks on a hot day for example. Obviously discrimination is not always wrong. Hate is a term thrown around in an attempt to demonize and silence the opposition – liberals and homosexual activists are most often guilty of this. Matthew Shepherd was assaulted on motives of drugs and robbery (not anti-gay hate) – his “gay panic” defense” was a last ditch effort to save himself.

The Catholic church can no longer give needy children homes in Illinois because the side of "love and tolerance" could not accept a group who only placed children with heterosexual couples. To force them to choose between their faith and adoption ministry is wrong and a violation of their religious freedom. The government discriminated wrongly against them and forced them to close; I think it was more than the cutoff in funding as they would have been dictating what Catholics could believe. Accusations of “shifting the blame” make no sense. No one said homosexuals should not be able to adopt; however between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple, the better place for the child is with the heterosexual couple. The intolerant ones here are not the Catholics. The church accepts people, not what it regards as sinful behavior.

Catholic churches did handle things poorly concerning abused children – but what has happened to children in public schools has been far worse. The coverage and emphasis is simply a matter of media bias. Pedophiles prey on children wherever they can and all organizations should do better at protecting them.

A Christian florist was sued because she did not want to arrange flowers for a homosexual wedding as it would violate her religious faith - they should leave her alone and find someone else instead of imposing their beliefs on her; she SHOULD be allowed to discriminate and they should be allowed to do business elsewhere . A woman was sued because she would not allow a lesbian couple to stay in her home (a 3 or 4 room hostel); its her home she should be allowed to be discriminating on who she chooses to allow in her home/hostel.

A lot of people in favor of homosexual marriage have brought up the Bible so I want to briefly address it. When Jesus was asked about divorce he pointed to the beginning stating that God made male and female and that the two would become “one flesh” and that man should not separate what God has joined. That was God’s design but people have always tried to do their own thing. God allowed divorce because people were so hard hearted. So any sex other than between a married man and women is regarded as sinful. If you are not a Christian, the above probably will not mean anything to you.

Tradition should neither be kept or discarded simply because it is tradition – it should be evaluated based on its own merits; but neither should “modern” or “new” be a reason to dispense with tradition. The “flat earth” accusation is baseless demagoguery – no one in the western world has EVER believed the earth was flat – that was just a slur invented by a guy who didn’t like the church.

I had stated that homosexual marriage would cause fewer heterosexuals to marry (at least directly) and that appears to be incorrect so I retract it. The words “Speculative nonsense” ‘Irrational” and “fear-mongering” are inaccurate and do not apply.

I am happy to have the log cabin Republicans in my party and and glad we can fight for the conservative cause we share.

[Someone else had brought Thomas Jefferson up] Jefferson opposed the efforts in his state to have an official state supported church in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (I agree with his sentiments) – he was not opposed to all clergy; today there is a move to change the definition of marriage and have the state endorse homosexual unions – this I strongly oppose. Sadly the issue lost in my state. If it does, become the law of the land, it will result in a loss of religious freedom for all those who do not conform – even if they stay within the four walls of the Church. True, marriage is not defined in the constitution – Because it is a STATE issue.

NOTE: Many of my points I gleaned from discussions on the Michael Medved radio show; Michael is a conservative Jewish talk show host who prides himself on favoring disagreeing callers; he usually interviews people on the opposite side of issues he cares about (in a civil manner) and has good relationships with influential people on the political left - including individuals in favor of homosexual marriage. I wish I possessed 1/5 of his encyclopedic brain - few know and understand statistics like him. He favors homosexual adoption but not the redefinition of marriage.

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4426843/k.9AFE/Heterosexual_and_Homosexual_Marriages.htm

http://www.brightlightsearch.blogspot.com/2013/06/preserving-traditional-marriage-is.html

http://www.michaelmedved.com/column/unique-power-in-traditional-marriage/
23563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Northern California
Offline
Posted 8/22/13 , edited 8/22/13

A Christian florist was sued because she did not want to arrange flowers for a homosexual wedding as it would violate her religious faith - they should leave her alone and find someone else instead of imposing their beliefs on her; she SHOULD be allowed to discriminate and they should be allowed to do business elsewhere.


Just wanted to mention here, she was sued because the state law prohibits that sort of discrimination, when providing a public service, which she most certainly was. If she were providing a private service, as in the context of a private club, with memberships, rules, etc., then she would not have been held to that standard. Provided no laws were being broken, and no civil disturbance was involved, she did NOT have the legal right to refuse paying customers.


“Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation,” Ferguson said in a statement on April 9.
12378 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / M / In
Offline
Posted 8/22/13
I fully support gay marriage they have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us
First  Prev  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.