Gay marriage soapbox

alex wrote:

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?).

Exactly. And this is the way it always goes.

Argument one: "It says in the bible..,." Yeah, the bible says not to do a LOT of E36 M3 that you see people doing every day, but don't get upset about.

Argument two: "Well yeah, but MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman. If we let two dudes get married, why not a dude and a horse???" Yup. Why the berkeley not???

Argument three: "Aha! See, but that would make my marriage less marriage-y!" Why? Would you suddenly love your wife less? Would the promises you made to her be null & void?

Argument four: "Yeah, but what about the TAX issue!?" Tax issues are tax issues, which are TAX issues, and have nothing to do with MARRIAGE. Wouldn't you rather fix the tax issue? My room mates in college half-joked about getting married for some student loan/tax benifit. In the end, they didn't go through with it because they didn't want the stigma of being divorced.

Anyway, you have the RIGHT to say "I don't like gay people." Stop trying to make it about something else because you don't have the balls to be straightforward.

poopshovel wrote:

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.

Sometimes, poopy, there is a lot of wisdom in your posts...

Joey

poopshovel wrote: Argument two: "Well yeah, but MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman. If we let two dudes get married, why not a dude and a horse???" Yup. Why the berkeley not???

I think this is really what the argument breaks down to when you remove the religious / I hate gays part. There seems to be a worry that someone could enter into a legal marriage contract with a pet. Well, what is the issue with that?

Marriage does not imply sex (or at least is shouldn't legally), and there are usually pretty clear laws against that anyway. Realistically there may not be any aspect of a marriage contract could even be applied to a pet anyway (e.g. they could not provide consent for medical procedures), making it a bit of a mute point anyway.

You want to make marriage a religious institution then fine. People will get married in their church, then they will have to enter into a domestic partner agreement (or whatever you want to call it) if they want any of the benefits normal associated with marriage.

It really does not seem like that big of an issue to solve to me (once you remove the bigotry of course)

I don't get why it is such a big argument. Homosexuals getting married isn't hurting anyone so why the berkeley does anyone care?

Datsun1500 wrote:

Duke wrote: Well, here is where **I** get confused: how does wanting *the same treatment as everybody else gets* constitute "wanting special treatment" in ANY way?

If I get into a fight with a guy because he is an shiny happy person, it's assault. If that same guy happens to be having sex with another guy, it's a hate crime. Why? You can have the same rights as heterosexual couples (hospital visitations, taxes, etc.) without forcing it to be called marriage. Forcing it to be called marriage just brings the religious people into it for no reason....

Right there is the point I was trying to make, Curtis.

Datsun1500 wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Anyway, you have the RIGHT to say "I don't like gay people." Stop trying to make it about something else because you don't have the balls to be straightforward.

Everyone that is not in favor of gay marriage is not saying "I don't like gay people" I know many gay people that are not in favor of it, I guess they hate themselves?

Please have your many gay friends post why they support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Waiting....

You know poop, there were women who thought giving women the right to vote was a horrible idea.

It stands to reason that there are gays against gay marriage, and teh google agrees

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=gays+against+gay+marriage&gbv=2&oq=gays+against+gay+marriage&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=12&gs_upl=5087l5087l0l5924l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll1l0

poopshovel wrote: Anyway, you have the RIGHT to say "I don't like gay people." Stop trying to make it about something else because you don't have the balls to be straightforward.

Umm, but that's not the case. Do I have the right to say "I like gay people?"

I just don't like taking a basic dislike of religious people (and their Constitutional rights) and masking it as a Civil Right. It's a complete disservice to minorities who have fought for generations for what they have.

I have no problem with people saying "I hate religious people". Maybe they should leave it at that.

Is it wrong that the ad at the top of the page is making me laugh?

Here I am, sorta arguing for gay marriage and an ad is asking me to help preserve marriage in Maryland.

Huh. My ad is for Borla exhaust.

Gay marriage, Borla exhaust... same thing.

SVreX wrote: 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.

Not true. Very not true.

The Constitution does grant individual rights to all people, regardless. Just like it grants religious freedom. There are a few things that make sure people are treated equally- I'm sure you have already heard of them....

Gay groups = all other groups = religious groups in terms of allowances. You didn't write the rules, true, but you don't get to dictate who does and does not get "all men are created equal" rights. Everyone gets those rights.

If the governments around this country are going to recognize a contract between two people so that they get specific visitiation right, rights of succession, health care coverage, etc etc etc. then "all men are created equal" applies. And since the goverments around the country are using the religious terms Marriage, then so be it.

In reply to alfadriver:

Since neither one of us is a Constitutional lawyer, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'd still love to see the "Gay Amendment".

Speaking of the Constitution, where is the part about marriage?

Datsun1500 wrote: The general feeling was it is no ones business who they are in love with and they expect no special treatment because of that fact.

Where does getting the same rights and privileges as everybody else turn into 'special treatment?'

4 out of 5 gay couples own a Miata.

4 out of 5 grmers own a miata.

Coincidence? I think not.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Speaking of the Constitution, where is the part about marriage?

Good point.

Technically, the Federal Government doesn't approve ANY marriage, they just recognize marriages approved by individual states.

The exception to this is gay marriage, which the Fed DOES NOT recognize (because of the Defense of Marriage Act) regardless of what states say.

The reason for this is that the Feds realized that recognition of ANY state approved gay marriage (in any state) would over ride other state's rights to choose to not approve gay marriage, because gays would just jump on a plane, get married in another state, and return to their home state forcing recognition of their marriage even though it is not approved in their state. This would put the Federal government de facto in the marriage business. So their only choice was to choose to NOT recognize gay marriage.

It's sort of a 10th Amendment thing (State's Rights).

This will change when enough states approve gay marriage.

SVreX wrote: I just don't like taking a basic dislike of religious people (and their Constitutional rights) and masking it as a Civil Right. It's a complete disservice to minorities who have fought for generations for what they have.

But it's perfectly OK to take a dislike of gay people (and their Constitutional rights) and mask it as a denial of Civil Rights? Is there really a need for a Constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex couples from getting married to "protect the family"? ...or is it a convenient excuse to legislate against people that some religious people think are hellbound sinners and abominations?

I mean, really, it's not like "the family" is doing all that well on its own - very little of which has anything to do with gay people. Shouldn't those who want to promote "the family" seek to support, nurture, and welcome ANYBODY who is willing to take a vow of commitment to each other?

And you don't think gay people have fought for generations for what they have?

Seriously, SVreX, I have the utmost respect for you, but you are just as quick to play the "you hate religious people" card as you say others are to play the "religious people hate whoever" card.

Aeromoto wrote: 4 out of 5 gay couples own a Miata.

9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape.

In reply to Duke:

Except I didn't say any of that. I am not a fan of DOMA, nor did I say ANYTHING about "protecting the family". You just played the "card".

I am in support of gay marriage, but nobody asked.

I just happen to also see that we have a pickle of a situation.

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

SHHHH! THEY DONT KNOW ABOUT US!

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?"

Sure they do. Within their own walls.

Grizz wrote: You know poop, there were women who thought giving women the right to vote was a horrible idea. It stands to reason that there are gays against gay marriage, and teh google agrees http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=gays+against+gay+marriage&gbv=2&oq=gays+against+gay+marriage&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=12&gs_upl=5087l5087l0l5924l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll1l0

They did if they knew what was good for em (shakes fist.) HOLEE berkeley! What the hell is a google search??? Are you some kind of invisible wizard in the sky who grants wishes? Did you actually look at any of the results? I'm sure this is totally serious:

http://www.queerty.com/10-reasons-against-gay-marriage-from-a-gay-guy-20090415/

In reply to poopshovel:

I'm laughing so hard my wife cant understand me reading it.

Curmudgeon wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote:

Duke wrote: Well, here is where **I** get confused: how does wanting *the same treatment as everybody else gets* constitute "wanting special treatment" in ANY way?

If I get into a fight with a guy because he is an shiny happy person, it's assault. If that same guy happens to be having sex with another guy, it's a hate crime. Why? You can have the same rights as heterosexual couples (hospital visitations, taxes, etc.) without forcing it to be called marriage. Forcing it to be called marriage just brings the religious people into it for no reason....

Right there is the point I was trying to make, Curtis.

Well, first we have to assume that marriage is a religious construct... which it was, but it has moved from religion to government/religion. Two people of opposite sex can get married in Vegas or in front of the JP without ever involving religion. It has become judicially acceptable for two different-sex people to get hitched without the religion. I know because I've officiated at weddings before and I'm not a religious leader, simply someone who has been licensed by the state to perform wedding ceremonies.

So, in order for government to recognize or ban gay marriage we have to do one of three things; 1) ban gay marriage and accept that government is now a Christian-based organization, 2) accept gay marriage and uphold the constitution, or 3) make an amendment to the constitution to define it one way or the other.

Making a change to the constitution to specifically ban same-sex marriage implies that it already accepts it... which it doesn't. We're debating something for which there are no constitutional bases. This is the threshold. We've never been here before. We're not debating about the right to own a gun... that part is already outlined for us in the 2nd amendment. If they want to take my guns, they need to amend the constitution, not simply make a state law.

Many opposing factions to gay marriage are successfully lobbying and having laws passed in their home state to ban the practice - the most prominent being Prop8 in CA, but the supreme court overturned it saying it was unconstitutional.

I wish we would face facts... for decades, states, cities, municipalities, counties, and other communities have decided on how they wanted to enforce laws - constitutional or not. In 1955, I promise you that the things which were considered "illegal" in Alabama were far different than what was considered "illegal" in California. Its just that we now live in an "interwebs" world. Suddenly the beating of a black man in Los Angeles triggers someone in Minnesota to make a big deal of it. Prior to camcorders and cell phone video, we never would have heard about Rodney King.