Ruling: Gay couples should have the same rights as hetrosexul couples

farfromglorified

Abuskedti wrote:

No.. A large number of Americans agreed as a group to pay taxes for a large number of reasons...

Ok. The majority of America believes gay marriage is wrong. So we can toss out these rulings then.

and still we allow you to choose not to..

No. You force me to leave. That is not a choice.

it is your choice to join in our games - otherwise you'd not have to pay.

First, "your game" is theft. That's it. Stop pretending that you're offering me something I want.

If you didn't use our money.. you wouldn't have to pay any taxes.

"Your money"? Tell me, what did you do to earn that money?

If you don't want to be part of our partnership - there is plenty of wilderness for you to camp and perhaps build a competing group.

I have no interest in "competing" with you. You have as much of a right to live in your chosen fashion as I do.

I also have no interest in accepting your "put out or get out" proposition.

This is a gay marriage thread. If you'd like to continue with this, please PM me or start another thread.

mammasan

Well Bush hasn't wasted anytime using this issue to help Kean Jr in NJ Senate race.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/26/061026182430.oc7lilva.html

darkcrow

mammasan wrote:

Well Bush hasn't wasted anytime using this issue to help Kean Jr in NJ Senate race.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/26/061026182430.oc7lilva.html

I never realised just how dangerous homosexuals could be! christ i think my parents might just get a divorce becuase our govt has allowed civil partnerships... this guy really needs to get in the real world.

mammasan

darkcrow wrote:

I never realised just how dangerous homosexuals could be! christ i think my parents might just get a divorce becuase our govt has allowed civil partnerships... this guy really needs to get in the real world.

Tell me about it. I live in New Jersey so my marriage all of a sudden is in jeapody because gay couples may soon have the opportunity to be married. I'm suprised the divorce rate in Nj didn't quadruple overnight because of this.

decides2dream

know1 wrote:

By why does it have to be just two? If I'm a polygamist, aren't I being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry the people that I want to?

so go fight for it if you want. right now, marriage has been based on COUPLES. not my decision. so yea, if we're dealing with couples..i personally see no right of the government to withold the legal rights afforded in marriage to a couple of consenting adults who want to get married...be they male/female...male/male....female/female. if you want to fight for polygamy, go for it. personally, i couldn't care less what you do.

know1

decides2dream wrote:

so go fight for it if you want. right now, marriage has been based on COUPLES. not my decision. so yea, if we're dealing with couples..i personally see no right of the government to withold the legal rights afforded in marriage to a couple of consenting adults who want to get married...be they male/female...male/male....female/female. if you want to fight for polygamy, go for it. personally, i couldn't care less what you do.

And your attitude/position there is a reason why I'm not fighting for gay marriage. I personally don't care if they are married or not, but I'm not going to support it because I don't care to fight for it. But...that automatically means that I'm prejudiced or a homophobe, etc. when it couldn't be farther from the truth.

Nickrand

know1 wrote:

And your attitude/position there is a reason why I'm not fighting for gay marriage. I personally don't care if they are married or not, but I'm not going to support it because I don't care to fight for it. But...that automatically means that I'm prejudiced or a homophobe, etc. when it couldn't be farther from the truth.

A lot of people in the majority had the same careless approach to racism last century. That made them part of the problem too.

This mindset is frustrating for people who really are working hard on this issue.

Let me say I don't believe that most heterosexual people hate homosexuals. In fact, I bet most are tolerant of them. But tolerance isn't good enough now, nor in retrospect was it good enough when racism ran rampant 50 years ago.

It seems like most people in the majority incubate themselves from social issues that don't directly affect them. Then, when society looks back a generation or two later and sees them as injustices, they change face and pretend to have supported the issue all along.

farfromglorified

Nickrand wrote:

A lot of people in the majority had the same careless approach to racism last century. That made them part of the problem too.

Are trees then "part of the problem"? What about dogs or cats or toaster ovens?

This mindset is frustrating for people who really are working hard on this issue.

Let me say I don't believe that most heterosexual people hate homosexuals. In fact, I bet most are tolerant of them. But tolerance isn't good enough now, nor in retrospect was it good enough when racism ran rampant 50 years ago.

Tolerance isn't good enough? What, then, is good enough?

It's almost like most people in the majority incubate themselves from social issues while they are happening.

My kitchen floor needs cleaning. Stop incubating yourself from that problem and do it for me.

cincybearcat

hippiemom wrote:

But they could not marry the person they were in love with, like everyone else.

NOt everyone else gets to do that either...Angelina hasn't returned even 1 of my calls.

Nickrand

farfromglorified, trees, dogs, and cats don't have the ability to be involved in the issue. Let me check on the toaster ovens, since you've certainly made similarly compelling points earlier in this thread.

There's a huge difference between tolerance and understanding. Being tolerant often is a way for people in the majority to preserve their social consciences. Understanding requires an entirely different level of involvement and effort.

farfromglorified

Nickrand wrote:

farfromglorified, trees, dogs, and cats don't have the ability to be involved in the issue. Let me check on the toaster ovens, since you've certainly made similarly compelling points earlier in this thread.

Ok -- so anyone who has the capacity to be involved in this issue is "part of the problem". I understand the logic now. That, then, begs the question:

There are many social issues I find to be important. Are homosexuals or anyone else who is not actively fighting for those issues "part of my problems"?

There's a huge difference between tolerance and understanding. Being tolerant often is a way for people in the majority to preserve their social consciences. Understanding requires an entirely different level of involvement and effort.

Ok -- what are the specific differences between the involvement and effort of a tolerant person and an understanding person?

Nickrand

First, this isn't just a social issue, it's a civil rights issue.

If there was an issue that involved homosexuals being in a position of power in relation to another group, and homosexuals did nothing to try to understand the issues faced by the minority, then they would be part of the problem too.

Finally, a person can be tolerant without doing anything. It's an attitude. An understanding person is one who tries to empathize. Would a definition of empathy help?

know1

Nickrand wrote:

A lot of people in the majority had the same careless approach to racism last century. That made them part of the problem too.

This mindset is frustrating for people who really are working hard on this issue.

Let me say I don't believe that most heterosexual people hate homosexuals. In fact, I bet most are tolerant of them. But tolerance isn't good enough now, nor in retrospect was it good enough when racism ran rampant 50 years ago.

It seems like most people in the majority incubate themselves from social issues that don't directly affect them. Then, when society looks back a generation or two later and sees them as injustices, they change face and pretend to have supported the issue all along.

This is a lot different than racism in my mind. Furthermore, I was illustrating a point using Polygamy, so if you apply what you're saying to this, then we all should work to support, and more importantly SUBSIDIZE everyone's choices no matter what they are.

I'm against personally against more heterosexual marriages than homosexual ones. Marriage is a sham these days. Why fight for it?

know1

Nickrand wrote:

First, this isn't just a social issue, it's a civil rights issue.

If there was an issue that involved homosexuals being in a position of power in relation to another group, and homosexuals did nothing to try to understand the issues faced by the minority, then they would be part of the problem too.

Finally, a person can be tolerant without doing anything. It's an attitude. An understanding person is one who tries to empathize. Would a definition of empathy help?

Nope. Homosexuals already have the same rights as others. They can marry someone of the opposite sex if they choose.

farfromglorified

Nickrand wrote:

First, this isn't just a social issue, it's a civil rights issue.

That's redundant. You can't have a civil rights issue without a society.

EDIT: I read your above statement incorrectly. I agree -- it is both a civil rights issue and a social issue.

If there was an issue that involved homosexuals being in a position of power in relation to another group, and homosexuals did nothing to try to understand the issues faced by the minority, then they would be part of the problem too.

What "position of power" do I have over homosexuals? I will gladly relinquish it.

Finally, a person can be tolerant without doing anything. It's an attitude. An understanding person is one who tries to empathize. Would a definition of empathy help?

I have no inherent obligation to attempt to understand another simply because that other wants me to. Tolerance, as you've correctly indicated, does not carry the requirement of empathy. But tolerance does carry the requirement for recognizing in another whatever rights I wish to have for myself. Therefore, I support gay marriage.

The implication, however, of the original poster is that such tolerance is not "enough" which in turn implies that there is something I need to do over and above simple tolerance. You seem to indicate that that amounts to "empathy". Fine -- I am empathetic to homosexuals who wish to marry. However, I am also empathetic to those who don't want homosexuals to marry. So where does that get you?

farfromglorified

know1 wrote:

Nope. Homosexuals already have the same rights as others. They can marry someone of the opposite sex if they choose.

Know1, marriage is a contractual relationship and, like all contracts, carries a requirement of individual will of all parties. Straight people are allowed to enter into marraige contracts with the willing partner of their choice. Gay people are not. That is what the unequal right stems from.

If marriage were absent the concept of choice based on attraction, meaning that marriage was either forced upon you without any consideration of your will, then you'd be entirely correct. However, you cannot escape the basic fact that a straight person is allowed to marry their chosen willing partner but a gay person is not.

Nickrand

Would your opinion of homosexuals change if there was proof that homosexuality had a clear genetic link? Most homosexuals have felt homosexual their whole adult lives (and frequently before that, although without the sexual link). I don't know any polygamists, but I'd venture to say that they haven't felt polygamic their whole lives. Rather, they prefer to live a certain way. It's not a civil rights issue for them.

It's more than just marriage, even though that's the focus of this thread. There are a ton of financial and legal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. I don't know of another solution to make those rights available to homosexual couples without using marriage as the impetus.

farfromglorified

Nickrand wrote:

Would your opinion of homosexuals change if there was proof that homosexuality had a clear genetic link? Most homosexuals have felt homosexual their whole adult lives (and frequently before that, although without the sexual link). I don't know any polygamists, but I'd venture to say that they haven't felt polygamic their whole lives. Rather, they prefer to live a certain way. It's not a civil rights issue for them.

It's more than just marriage, even though that's the focus of this thread. There are a ton of financial and legal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. I don't know of another solution to make those rights available to homosexual couples without using marriage as the impetus.

First, I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't have any negative opinion of homosexuals. The only people I have a negative opinion of are those who tell me that I fundamental obligations that do not exist.

Secondly, I believe all people should have a right to enter into any marriage contract they wish to, be it straight, gay, polygynous, etc.

Thirdly, whether or not homosexuality is a choice, a gene, or both, makes no difference on any political opinion I have regarding homosexuality.

Fourth, I am not sympathetic to any the ancillary issues involved in gay marriage such as "financial and legal benefits". All of those can and should be addressed by existing contractual arrangements available to both straight and gay people.

Finally, all of these problems would be easily solved if the government would just get out of the business of marriage all together.

know1

farfromglorified wrote:

Know1, marriage is a contractual relationship and, like all contracts, carries a requirement of individual will of all parties. Straight people are allowed to enter into marraige contracts with the willing partner of their choice. Gay people are not. That is what the unequal right stems from.

I disagree. I maintain that homosexuals have the same opportunity as others.

(and again, I'm not against gay marriage, I just don't think the arguments make any sense)

know1

Nickrand wrote:

Would your opinion of homosexuals change if there was proof that homosexuality had a clear genetic link? Most homosexuals have felt homosexual their whole adult lives (and frequently before that, although without the sexual link). I don't know any polygamists, but I'd venture to say that they haven't felt polygamic their whole lives. Rather, they prefer to live a certain way. It's not a civil rights issue for them.

It's more than just marriage, even though that's the focus of this thread. There are a ton of financial and legal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. I don't know of another solution to make those rights available to homosexual couples without using marriage as the impetus.

I do believe that there is a percentage of homosexuals for whom their homosexuality stems from a genetic source. I also firmly believe that for others it probably does not. Peoples' motivations for anything in life run the spectrum. In addition, people have the free will to act on what motivates them or not. It happens all the time in our everyday lives that we might have a feeling to do something, but we repress it.

That being said, you have no idea about what motivates polygamists and it may be genetic for some of them as well. Why deny them the so-called "right" to be with the ones they love?

Most of those ALLEGED financial and legal benefits are already available if someone takes the time to pursue them.