Gay Marriage Ban

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

know1 wrote:

I'm not in favor of banning it. I'm in favor of the government not sanctioning marriage whatsoever and simply allowing adults to mutually convey all rights and privileges normally associated with a married couple to one other consenting adult.

lol so you are for it?

ha.
exactly.
for the rights of marriage...just don't label it marriage. :?
let's waste a fortune in funds to do away with marriage, so we can spend more funds creating a new system that afford the exact same rights, just without that label. so much for being anti-government and wasteful spending there know1. how about we simply leave the marriage label since it already does exist and many do seem to like it and all the benefits it affords....allow homosexuals those same rights....and call it a day.

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

You didn't say how school and marriage are completely different... why is it ok to exclude gay people from the privilege of marriage but not from the privilege of school? Why are they so completely different?

The difference is that the white person can't CHOOSE to be black and then go to the black school or vice versa. In the case of marriage, they can still choose to marry (even if it goes against their nature. Heck, sometimes marriage goes against my nature, but I still chose it.)

A gay person can't choose to be straight and then get a straight marriage either. But you're saying in the one case, it is perfectly acceptable to force them to go against their nature and in the other it is not. Have you ever heard of passing? It's an old term referring to blacks that were pale enough to pass as white people. So you're saying that for a black person that can pass, it is perfectly equitable to force them to pretend to be white and deny their racial background, because then they have the same right to attend a white school as others do?

decides2dream

even if someone is willing to accept the flawed logic that currently homosexuals do indeed have the same rights, they can choose to marry someone of the opposite sex.....so what? that's not what it's about. it's about changing the system so that we don't discriminate against a group of people, consenting adults, who want to choose to marry someone of the same gender. from a legal standpoint, what is the POINT of denying these rights? who does it serve? what value does it offer?


if one will agree it was wrong that interracial marriage being illegal was wrong.....was it it difficult to come to the same conclusion for homosexuals? and no, you can't choose your race, but you can't choose your sexuality either. now, some may argue you can....but again...what's the point there? 2 consenting adults want the same rights to marry whom they want. we don't need to do away with marriage, we don't need to overhaul the whole system, we don't need anything so drastic. we simply need, just like interracial marriage before it...to now allow people of the same gender to marry. it's their choice to make, there is no compelling argument why such rights should be denied this group, and that's the bottomline.

Prince Of Dorkness

know1 wrote:

Not trying to antagonize you by any means. I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but rather pointing out that arguments I hear from both sides as to why or why not it should be legal haven't swayed me.

So all those road blocks thrown in my way in my pursuit of happiness doesn't matter to you?

Or that we pay the same taxes without access to the same resources?

Or that the government may force one of us to leave the country?

Or that we have to jump through countless, expensive and elusive hoops to get even a portion of the same rights available to you for $35 in a Vegas Chapel?

none of this strikes you as "unfair" or "Un-American?"

Prince Of Dorkness

One argument that always makes me mad is that "I don't think ANYONE should be married... so I'm against gay marriage."

What it means is "I don't need it so you don't either, although I have the right to change my mind, but I don't think you'll ever need to change yours..."

If you think we should do away with marriage.. then try to do that. But telling me to pipe down because YOU don't want to get married is again.. just being mean.

decides2dream

bottomline, i have NEVEr seen even ONE compelling reason as to WHY homosexuals should be denied the rights of legal marriage. not. one. there seems to be NO legal rationale behind it, and yet, it still stands as is...and that is simply wrong.

norm

decides2dream wrote:

bottomline, i have NEVEr seen even ONE compelling reason as to WHY homosexuals should be denied the rights of legal marriage. not. one. there seems to be NO legal rationale behind it, and yet, it still stands as is...and that is simply wrong.

totally agree...but we all know the reason behind it....give ya a hint...it has to do with a really old book

fugawzi

norm wrote:

totally agree...but we all know the reason behind it....give ya a hint...it has to do with a really old book

That book is the cause of a lot of BS.

decides2dream

norm wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

bottomline, i have NEVEr seen even ONE compelling reason as to WHY homosexuals should be denied the rights of legal marriage. not. one. there seems to be NO legal rationale behind it, and yet, it still stands as is...and that is simply wrong.

totally agree...but we all know the reason behind it....give ya a hint...it has to do with a really old book

and THAt is the problem.
so many seem to 'talk' about america, and what it stands for, and what it's about....and they've got it ass-backwards. our freedoms are based on seperation of church and state. doesn't matter if some of our ideals are based on some semblance of judeo-christianity or not...our LAWS are meant to be BLIND to these things. it seems so SIMPLE to me, really, that i can't understand it. if you hate something, don't you do it too. seems for a country all about *freedom*...the *rights of the individual*....*speration of church and state*....for many, 'talking points is about all that adds up to. sad, sad, sad. i think in previous discussions it's been mentioned it's also a generational thing, and to some extent...i agree. i am hoping that in time, just like all other minority groups...this will fade...and true equality within the law will prevail. got to keep at it, and sure...hope.

know1

soulsinging wrote:

know1 wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

You didn't say how school and marriage are completely different... why is it ok to exclude gay people from the privilege of marriage but not from the privilege of school? Why are they so completely different?

The difference is that the white person can't CHOOSE to be black and then go to the black school or vice versa. In the case of marriage, they can still choose to marry (even if it goes against their nature. Heck, sometimes marriage goes against my nature, but I still chose it.)

A gay person can't choose to be straight and then get a straight marriage either. But you're saying in the one case, it is perfectly acceptable to force them to go against their nature and in the other it is not. Have you ever heard of passing? It's an old term referring to blacks that were pale enough to pass as white people. So you're saying that for a black person that can pass, it is perfectly equitable to force them to pretend to be white and deny their racial background, because then they have the same right to attend a white school as others do?

I'm not saying any of that. I'm not even remotely saying that.

know1

decides2dream wrote:

bottomline, i have NEVEr seen even ONE compelling reason as to WHY homosexuals should be denied the rights of legal marriage. not. one. there seems to be NO legal rationale behind it, and yet, it still stands as is...and that is simply wrong.

Should we make polygamy legal as well?

NOTE: I'M NOT COMPARING HOMOSEXUALITY TO POLYGAMY, BUT RATHER SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T DENY THOSE ADULTS THE RIGHT TO MARRY EITHER, RIGHT?

jlew24asu

know1 wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

bottomline, i have NEVEr seen even ONE compelling reason as to WHY homosexuals should be denied the rights of legal marriage. not. one. there seems to be NO legal rationale behind it, and yet, it still stands as is...and that is simply wrong.

Should we make polygamy legal as well?

NOTE: I'M NOT COMPARING HOMOSEXUALITY TO POLYGAMY, BUT RATHER SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T DENY THOSE ADULTS THE RIGHT TO MARRY EITHER, RIGHT?

I agree, this is one of the most compelling arguments I've heard as well. I certainly would not support legal polygamy marriages simply based on the clusterfuck it would create with taxes, legal claims on property, etc.... easy solution is just to define marriage between two people.

soulsinging

Jasunmark wrote:

One argument that always makes me mad is that "I don't think ANYONE should be married... so I'm against gay marriage."

What it means is "I don't need it so you don't either, although I have the right to change my mind, but I don't think you'll ever need to change yours..."

If you think we should do away with marriage.. then try to do that. But telling me to pipe down because YOU don't want to get married is again.. just being mean.

I think what he means when he says that is that marriage is essentially a religious term that was adopted and incorporated into our secular government, and that he'd just as soon create one secular partnership for everyone and leave marriage to the churches. So theoretically, everyone can get a civil union with a partner of their choice, and if you're religious you can get whatever partnering your particular brand of religion chooses.

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

know1 wrote:

The difference is that the white person can't CHOOSE to be black and then go to the black school or vice versa. In the case of marriage, they can still choose to marry (even if it goes against their nature. Heck, sometimes marriage goes against my nature, but I still chose it.)

A gay person can't choose to be straight and then get a straight marriage either. But you're saying in the one case, it is perfectly acceptable to force them to go against their nature and in the other it is not. Have you ever heard of passing? It's an old term referring to blacks that were pale enough to pass as white people. So you're saying that for a black person that can pass, it is perfectly equitable to force them to pretend to be white and deny their racial background, because then they have the same right to attend a white school as others do?

I'm not saying any of that. I'm not even remotely saying that.

You are saying exactly that. You are saying gays are not being discriminated against or denied equal rights because they can fake being straight and marry a woman, just like one could say blacks are not being discriminated against or denied equal rights because they can try to pass as white and go to any school they like. They both have the equal opportunity for a sham inclusion, provided they renounce who they are to get it.

Abookamongstthemany

soulsinging wrote:

You are saying exactly that. You are saying gays are not being discriminated against or denied equal rights because they can fake being straight and marry a woman, just like one could say blacks are not being discriminated against or denied equal rights because they can try to pass as white and go to any school they like. They both have the equal opportunity for a sham inclusion, provided they renounce who they are to get it.

That's right! Blacks could always have the 'option' of trying out the Michael Jackson 'fade to white' experiment for themselves...Promising results in his case...not quite white, though...hmmm, let's see, perhaps it's better described as a ghoulish grey/beige blend but who's gonna split hairs, really? And oh yeaaaah, to all interested black people...be sure to check that certain innovations have been made in the nose alteration department. The MJ treatment still needs a little tweeking last I saw on that front but the motivation to better fit into privileged white/straight society is definitely there. Discrimination of minorities seems deadset on fueling that market well into the 21st century. :P

I came across this video in a friend's blog just now and it is quite fitting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA

know1

jlew24asu wrote:

know1 wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

bottomline, i have NEVEr seen even ONE compelling reason as to WHY homosexuals should be denied the rights of legal marriage. not. one. there seems to be NO legal rationale behind it, and yet, it still stands as is...and that is simply wrong.

Should we make polygamy legal as well?

NOTE: I'M NOT COMPARING HOMOSEXUALITY TO POLYGAMY, BUT RATHER SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T DENY THOSE ADULTS THE RIGHT TO MARRY EITHER, RIGHT?

I agree, this is one of the most compelling arguments I've heard as well. I certainly would not support legal polygamy marriages simply based on the clusterfuck it would create with taxes, legal claims on property, etc.... easy solution is just to define marriage between two people.

Ahh....but if we define it as between two people then we're denying the same "rights" to people who are polygamists.

(the quotes around rights are because I do not believe that marriage is a right)

decides2dream

know1 wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

bottomline, i have NEVEr seen even ONE compelling reason as to WHY homosexuals should be denied the rights of legal marriage. not. one. there seems to be NO legal rationale behind it, and yet, it still stands as is...and that is simply wrong.

Should we make polygamy legal as well?

NOTE: I'M NOT COMPARING HOMOSEXUALITY TO POLYGAMY, BUT RATHER SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T DENY THOSE ADULTS THE RIGHT TO MARRY EITHER, RIGHT?

and that dodge's the question.
bottomline is - there has not been even ONE compelling reason to deny homosexuals the rights of marriage. not one. asking if we should make polygamy legal has ZERO to do with if we should allow gays to marry. when a mixed race couple wanted the right to marriage...did you ask...should we allow children to marry...should we allow polygamy...sould we allow relatives? exactly. they have NOTHING to do with each other. so then, i say again, i have not seen ONE REASON for legal marriage to be denied homosexuals. you know it too, or you wouldn't doge the question with another question.

know1

decides2dream wrote:

know1 wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

bottomline, i have NEVEr seen even ONE compelling reason as to WHY homosexuals should be denied the rights of legal marriage. not. one. there seems to be NO legal rationale behind it, and yet, it still stands as is...and that is simply wrong.

Should we make polygamy legal as well?

NOTE: I'M NOT COMPARING HOMOSEXUALITY TO POLYGAMY, BUT RATHER SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T DENY THOSE ADULTS THE RIGHT TO MARRY EITHER, RIGHT?

and that dodge's the question.
bottomline is - there has not been even ONE compelling reason to deny homosexuals the rights of marriage. not one. asking if we should make polygamy legal has ZERO to do with if we should allow gays to marry. when a mixed race couple wanted the right to marriage...did you ask...should we allow children to marry...should we allow polygamy...sould we allow relatives? exactly. they have NOTHING to do with each other. so then, i say again, i have not seen ONE REASON for legal marriage to be denied homosexuals. you know it too, or you wouldn't doge the question with another question.

I phrased it as a question, but it makes a point nonetheless. Just because it was a question doesn't mean I'm dodging the question.

I've already stated earlier in the thread that I'm not opposed to it being legal. And like you, I haven't seen a enough reasons. But I haven't seen enough reasons for or against it being legal. I think both sides' arguments are fairly weak.

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

I phrased it as a question, but it makes a point nonetheless. Just because it was a question doesn't mean I'm dodging the question.

I've already stated earlier in the thread that I'm not opposed to it being legal. And like you, I haven't seen a enough reasons. But I haven't seen enough reasons for or against it being legal. I think both sides' arguments are fairly weak.

I've been making them left and right, but you just keep dodging them by saying "it's different" without providing any cogent argument for why it's different:

"You are saying exactly that. You are saying gays are not being discriminated against or denied equal rights because they can fake being straight and marry a woman, just like one could say blacks are not being discriminated against or denied equal rights under segregation because they can try to pass as white and go to any school they like. They both have the equal opportunity for a sham inclusion, provided they renounce who they are to get it."

So is segregation and exclusion ok, just as long as we leave some absurd justification for how they do have the same option for inclusion that depends upon them renouncing their very self?

jlew24asu

know1 wrote:

Ahh....but if we define it as between two people then we're denying the same "rights" to people who are polygamists.

(the quotes around rights are because I do not believe that marriage is a right)

I suppose so. but from a legal perspective it can be made illegal maybe? I'm no lawyer.