Gay marriage soapbox

this thread will need redhead hotlinks soon

I dated a witch... Oh wait, off-topic in the off-topic- sorry.

I find it curious that you're are advocating gay marriage by attacking those with religious views.

I think your real issue is with religious views and has nothing to do with gay marriage.

So, my question is, "Do religions have the RIGHT to oppose gay marriage?"

Here's the way I see it...

Religious groups (almost completely regardless of their particular views) have Constitutional rights and protections. Basically, they are recognized as groups and have the protected right to believe what they choose even if it is not in keeping with mainstream opinions. Therefore, requiring the Catholic Church to provide health benefits for contraception, or to give equal hiring consideration to gay employee candidates could very well collide with the Constitution.

Gay groups DO NOT have similar recognition at the Federal level. There is not a Gay Freedom Amendment, in fact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations DO NOT cover complaints involving sexual orientation. The EEOC regulations protect against harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, genetic information, or age; There is NOT a federal recognition of homosexuality (or ANY sexuality) as protected group or class of people.

I know this is unpopular, but I don't write the rules.

So, it looks to me like we are advocating the "rights" for a particular group of people to marry, BEFORE we have recognized the existence of that group, or protected that group from ANY form of discrimination.

Yes, I have gay friends. My college room mate was gay. My brother is gay. I've had gay friends die of AIDS. Heck, I was a Theatre Major, so gay was actually quite cool.

But forget the religious side. The truth is, our legal system is NOT set up to offer protections at this time.

I think we confuse our "like" of gay friends, or our "dislike" of religious institutions with the Constitutional rights we are bound as citizens to protect.

I have no problem with petitioning the government for protection for this particular group of people, but I think we should not get the cart before the horse. We should recognize the group's right to be recognized, then it's right to be protected, then it's right to have particular rights.

There is a lot of junk science on this one. It does not equate to Civil Rights. I know people who "stopped" being gay, or who "started" being gay. I've never met a man who stopped being black, old, or blind.

SVreX wrote: There is a lot of junk science on this one. It does not equate to Civil Rights. I know people who "stopped" being gay, or who "started" being gay. I've never met a man who stopped being black, old, or blind.

I noticed the quotes, so I'm going to assume that you already know this: They didn't stop being gay, either they stopped pretending to be gay, or went (back?) into the closet; similarly, they didn't start being gay; they stopped pretending to be straight and came out of the closet.

IF we assume it is a condition of birth.

Datsun1500 wrote:

alex wrote: If I start that fight *because* he's black (and that's very obvious to witnesses and the charge can stick in court), *that's* a hate crime.

And you can tell he is black by looking at him. You can not tell someone is gay by looking at them. Comparing race/gender discrimination to LGBT discrimination is not a good argument. You are born a certain race or gender. The only way to know if someone is homosexual is if they decide to let you know. Not the same at all

For the record, I'm not making the analog between gay and black civil rights. (You won't convince me that anybody doesn't deserve equal treatment, so let's leave it at that.) I'm addressing the need for hate crime laws, which is admittedly off topic.

I'd like to marry a canoe.

Datsun1500 wrote: Demanding a "civil right" because of who you sleep with is crazy.

Not because of; in spite of.

Remember, the Constitution doesn't grant us rights - they're ours inherently. "God given," if you like.

Nobody's demanding a right. It's already theirs and it's being impeded.

In reply to alex:

I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with you on the needs for hate crimes legislation too.

WHY a crime happens is actually not important, and it crosses into intent and the "thought police".

Laws can only be written regarding WHAT happens, not WHY it happened.

Why are the tragic deaths of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. worse than those of Mary Stachowicz or Jesse Dirkhising?

If you don't know who they are, you've been duped by people with an agenda.

I always thought marriage was solely a religious dealie, thought getting hitched at courthouses and the like were just civil unions. Not entirely sure that's the case, but whatever.

The Government has no business denying civil unions to any willing, cognizant adults with all the same privileges married couples have. If religious organizations refuse to marry anyone on religious grounds, that's their right to do so.
Granted, the gov't has no business being involved in marriage beyond certifying folks to marry the non-religious, there shouldn't be a popular vote on who can or cannot do something like this.

You don't like those answers, tough E36 M3, because they're the only right ones.

SVreX wrote: IF we assume it is a condition of birth.

By the alternate assumption (that it is not a condition of birth) I could decide to be attracted to men. But I can't. I'm assuming that you cannot either.

Put it this way: Why are you attracted to women? Is it because it is right, or because you want to be attracted to women? OR is it because you simply are attracted to women? As a young kid at the pool, I was amazed by women in bikinis. I had to try hard not to stare. Still do. That is not by choice; I just like women.

SVreX wrote: I've never met a man who stopped being black, old, or blind.

Michael Jackson stopped being black, and he isn't aging anymore either.

They say Jesus used to stop blindness but I don't believe it either

Marriage and civil unions aren't equal. Here's how I know: I'm not going to ask my girlfriend to enter a civil union with me. We're not religious and have no plans to have kids. If/when we tie the knot, we might go to a courthouse and get a marriage certificate, not a civil union certificate. Can you imagine a heterosexual couple getting a civil union certificate or telling their friends they got civil unioned? No. If they said that people would ask them, "why didn't you get married?" Because they're not the same.

As to redefining marriage, I think I see where people are coming from. Thing is though, gay aren't trying to redefine it, hetero people already have. On the whole, it is no longer about reproduction like it once was. It is about legal protection, rights, and shared benefits. Our society has decided that marriage is two people who have gotten together and said, "We are vowing to share our lives together, we want people to recognize this and treat us as a single unit." Hetero people are doing this. Lots of hetero couples deciding not to have kids. Gay people just see that us heteros have changed that marriage isn't primarily about raising kids anymore, and don't see why it can't apply to them.

We've decided you don't need to have kids if you're married or be married to have kids. That's a good thing. My grandfather was a bastard and suffered from all kinds of stigma for that. Now the worst most people think about someone having a kid out of wedlock is, "You do know that condoms are cheap and babies are expensive, right?"

SVreX wrote: In reply to alex: I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with you on the needs for hate crimes legislation too. WHY a crime happens is actually not important, and it crosses into intent and the "thought police". Laws can only be written regarding WHAT happens, not WHY it happened. Why are the tragic deaths of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. worse than those of Mary Stachowicz or Jesse Dirkhising? If you don't know who they are, you've been duped by people with an agenda.

I didnt know about the Dirkhising boy. But it sounds like two berkeleyed up psychopaths killed him, because they were berkeleyed up psychopaths, and this kid was handy. As I understand it, Matthew Shepard was killed because he was gay, he was gone after. Both situations are terrible, but very different.

Joey

mtn wrote: Put it this way: Why are you attracted to women? Is it because it is right, or because you want to be attracted to women? OR is it because you simply are attracted to women? As a young kid at the pool, I was amazed by women in bikinis. I had to try hard not to stare. Still do. That is not by choice; I just like women.

Let me see...

Yep. I like that.

sachilles wrote: I'm right there with Josh. Call it whatever term you want, marriage/civil union/joint misery, just call it the same for all. I do think the term marriage has a religious connotation to it, and across multiple religions. Interesting side note. I live in Vermont. We voted in the first civil union legislation. As a result, my then girlfriend(now wife), was able to get health benefits through my workplace and a few other benefits, because a marriage certificate no longer had the same legal value. A comedian once said that he supported gay marriage, because he thought gay people had every right to be as miserable as he was. I agree. I just don't see any compelling reason why two consenting adults can't get hitched in some form or another. I don't even think you need to have intimate relations(like the movie chuck and larry). If two folks want to commit to each other in a legally binding manner, so be it. I think it's sad that it is even a debated by .the federal gov't, I think there are faaaaaar more pressing matters to concern our lawmakers. I'm not discounting religious beliefs. If your religion, is against gay marriage, I'm not suggesting a gov't over rule a religious belief. However, I see the religious definition of marriage being different than the legal definition. If religions are going to get all offended that the government uses the term marriage, they should have trademarked the name to prevent it's use by others.

The problem is that just about EVERY religion wants to trademark the name God and deny other religions the right to use it by force of law. Thus the need for separation of church and state.

mtn wrote:

SVreX wrote: IF we assume it is a condition of birth.

By the alternate assumption (that it is not a condition of birth) I could decide to be attracted to men. But I can't. I'm assuming that you cannot either. Put it this way: Why are you attracted to women? Is it because it is right, or because you want to be attracted to women? OR is it because you simply are attracted to women? As a young kid at the pool, I was amazed by women in bikinis. I had to try hard not to stare. Still do. That is not by choice; I just like women.

So, someone who has a low libido and is essentially attracted to NO ONE has NO rights, right?

Maybe it's not about inherent or genetically guided attraction. What if it's just what you CHOOSE to do, and have enjoyed?

What if I'm "attracted" to my cat?

I know a lot of people who have had homosexual experiences just because they were experimenting.

The problem with the argument (from a legal and Constitutional perspective) is there is NO WAY to determine one's "sexual orientation". You and I could agree to be "married" with no sex or interest in each other at all for absolutely no reason other than to scam the system out of tax benefits, or insurance coverages.

In reply to joey48442:

Read a little more on Matthew Shepard.

There is a lot of evidence that it was simply a robbery that was motivated by drugs.

joey48442 wrote: I didnt know about the Dirkhising boy. But it sounds like two berkeleyed up psychopaths killed him, because they were berkeleyed up psychopaths, and this kid was handy. As I understand it, Matthew Shepard was killed because he was gay, he was gone after. Both situations are terrible, but very different. Joey

You didn't know about the Dirkhising boy because the media outlets you've been watching chose to not tell you. According to LexisNexis, in the month immediately following Shepherd's death 3,007 stories appeared about the crime. In the month after Dirkhising's death, LexisNexis recorded 46 stories about the crime.

Mrs. Stachowicz sadly got less then 20 stories, several of which were obituaries.

berkeleyed up psychopaths were involved in ALL of the killings.

The problem with the argument (from a legal and Constitutional perspective) is there is NO WAY to determine one's "sexual orientation". You and I could agree to be "married" with no sex or interest in each other at all for absolutely no reason other than to scam the system out of tax benefits, or insurance coverages.

...which is why I want to marry my dog. The vet bills are killing me.

In reply to joey48442:

No it isn't. The only thing that matters is that they murdered someone. Why shouldn't come into it unless you were defending yourself, which none of them were.

Same with other stuff. Beating someone because they owe you money isn't any different than beating someone for being black. You still beat them and both should be punished the same. Tacking E36 M3 on to a sentence because the victim is from some protected group is berkeleying stupid and doesn't fix a goddamn thing.

In reply to SVreX:

Why does bestiality always come up in these arguments? Not calling you out on it btw, just something I've noticed. Animals cannot speak(In any form, teaching an ape to sign yes doesn't quite cut it) and therefore cannot consent to a marriage or a berkeleying, so it isn't ever happening

SVreX wrote: The problem with the argument (from a legal and Constitutional perspective) is there is NO WAY to determine one's "sexual orientation". You and I could agree to be "married" with no sex or interest in each other at all for absolutely no reason other than to scam the system out of tax benefits, or insurance coverages.

Right. So what? Why does sex have to enter the equation? Two consenting adults want to enter a contract. That's as far as the state should be concerned.

The point here isn't Gay Marriage that only they can get. The point is marriage, for people, some of which happen to be gay (and by the way, what business is it of ours?).

Getting married to "scam the system out of tax benefits, or insurance coverages" could happen weather the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. Doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

My wife moved in with me before we got married. She had to move out to San Francisco, so had no job or benefits. I called the folks at my insurance and asked if she would be covered if we ran down to City Hall on my lunch hour and got married. They said yes, she'd be covered right away. So that's what we did. We were already planning our "real" wedding and had it as scheduled. So really we just got married (the first time) to "scam the system out of insurance coverages".

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

The scary thing about scamming the system is that it would then open the door for mail-order Russian husbands looking for green cards.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Getting married to "scam the system out of tax benefits, or insurance coverages" could happen weather the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. Doesn't really add anything to the discussion. My wife moved in with me before we got married. She had to move out to San Francisco, so had no job or benefits. I called the folks at my insurance and asked if she would be covered if we ran down to City Hall on my lunch hour and got married. They said yes, she'd be covered right away. So that's what we did. We were already planning our "real" wedding and had it as scheduled. So really we just got married (the first time) to "scam the system out of insurance coverages".

This is pretty much standard op these days for military couples.

Osterkraut wrote: I'm opposed to government recognition of gay marriage. I'm opposed to government recognition of all marriage, actually. Because it's an inherently religious institution, the government shouldn't be using it as a metric at all. Everyone should have to legally have a civil union. If you want to call it marriage that's fine, but when you do your taxes it's "Civil Union, filing jointly." I also don't have a problem with churches being unwilling to marry gays. It's their field, they can control who gets the ball. Churches should pay taxes, though.

/thread.

If you are arguing that you have a problem with the verbiage; i.e. "Do whatever you want, just don't call it marriage," you are either a liar, or have not taken 20 minutes to think about this logically.

No one who gets this upset about homosexuals wanting to get married (and yes, getting MARRIED is a big deal to a lot of people, even the evil gays, whose blood is made of acid and aids,) is truly upset because the "M-word" is being used, otherwise you'd be on a big campaign to stop adultery, which I'm guessing breaks up a lot more marriages than someone "turning gay."

You want to hate gay people, just say "I hate gay people." ...or don't know any gay people, or homosexuality disgusts you, whatever, but don't try to convince me the root of it is some religious issue, or that it somehow "cheapens" the relationship you have with your wife.

If it does, you are a pathetic excuse for a husband.