Thread: Gay Marriage - a possible solution for all sides

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Does an apple equal an orange ?

No, an apple doesn't equal an orange.

Why not ?

Because they are different.

This doesn't mean that an apple is better than an orange or that an orange is better than an apple, it just means that they're different.

Isn't it nice having different items of fruit to choose from ? Of course it is, this is why we celebrate and enjoy diversity in so many areas of life.

Like apples and oranges are different, so are heterosexual relationships different than homosexual relationships.

Like apples can never be equal to oranges, heterosexual relationships can never be equal to homosexual relationships. They are different.

Heterosexual relationships are called marriages. Homosexual relationships are called civil unions or homosexual relationships or a number of different things. No matter the name, they're different and calling them the same name makes as much sense as calling oranges apples or apples oranges in the name of "equality."

They can never be equal no matter what they're called, because they are different.

So why such passionate demand for the word marriage ? Isn't this about equal rights ? If this is about rights, why are we not hearing about rights ? Instead we hear over and over that "gays" should be able to "get married."

If they want the word "married" or "marriage," they can certainly use it to refer to their relationships if they like. This doesn't make them married any more than calling an apple an orange makes that apple into an orange or vice versa. This adamant demand for a word suggests that there is much more to this than just "equal rights."

If they wanted equal rights, they would be asking for equal rights. They aren't doing that, they're demanding the word too.

I suggest you review the 9-0 Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia (1967).

wherein it says things like this: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The court said that such discrimination clearly violates both the Due Process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Now unless you can show to me some compelling state reason why such discrimination should stand, you have lost this discussion. To be a compelling state reason you would have to show that gay marriage is a clear and present danger to the state. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Vandeervecken

I suggest you review the 9-0 Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia (1967).

Ok, why don't we do that.

Originally Posted by Vandeervecken

wherein it says things like this: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The court said that such discrimination clearly violates both the Due Process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Now unless you can show to me some compelling state reason why such discrimination should stand, you have lost this discussion. To be a compelling state reason you would have to show that gay marriage is a clear and present danger to the state. Good luck with that.

Using your own "logic."


You say: "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.""

You go on to say: "The court said that such discrimination clearly violates both the Due Process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Now unless you can show to me some compelling state reason why such discrimination should stand, you have lost this discussion."


So, you're allowing yourself to compare race and ethnicity to what makes an individuals sexual organs get tingly and stimulated. A word of advice, do not make any such statements in public around any people of color.



Using your own "logic," we can make the argument that because:

----------------------------------------------------------------

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The court said that such discrimination clearly violates both the Due Process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Then I should be able to marry a 12 year old girl (or boy). We "love" each other afterall, we make each other "happy."


There's no difference between race and sexual preference in your world, why should there be any difference between race and age ? why should there be any difference between race and species, or number of individuals or species involved. ... since we're having fun with your lack of good judgement.


Moving on:

The assertion that homosexuals are a minority group under current civil rights laws is false. Minority status has been determined by the U.S. supreme court on three criteria:


1. Economic deprivation: No. Those engaged in the homosexual "lifestyle" are among the most advantaged people in the U.S. On average, they have a higher per capita income than heterosexuals and higher household incomes. [ Wall Street Journal, Feb. 10, 1989, and New York Times, Aug. 22, 1990 ]



2. Political powerlessness: No. Homosexuals demonstrate great influential political power far beyond their actual numbers. The human rights campaign fund has annually donated millions of dollars to candidates, more than most other non-corporate PACs [The Economist, Apr. 24, 1993]. Media news and entertainment coverage is overwhelmingly favorable.



3. Immutable characteristics: No. Minority groups share unchangeable, benign, non-behavioral traits such as race, ethnicity, disability, or national origin. Homosexuals are the only group to claim minority status based on behavior.


Moving on again, you say: "To be a compelling state reason you would have to show that gay marriage is a clear and present danger to the state. Good luck with that."


So, if something cannot be shown to be a "clear and present danger to the state" it must be given legal encouragement ? Surely I don't have to list things that cannot be shown to be a "clear and present danger to the state" that are not legal or allowed to happen with governmental support.


You have yet to offer any reason our society should call "gay" couples "married."


Are you interested in rights for 'gay' people or are you interested in a word ? Isn't this about equal rights ? If this is about rights, why aren't you arguing about rights ? If you have a word fetish, go play Scrabble.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Does an apple equal an orange ?

No, an apple doesn't equal an orange.

Why not ?

Because they are different.

Fan-frakking-tastic. Now if you'd just explain how this relates to same sex couples, then that would be great.

This doesn't mean that an apple is better than an orange or that an orange is better than an apple, it just means that they're different.

...

Like apples can never be equal to oranges, heterosexual relationships can never be equal to homosexual relationships. They are different.

Leaving aside the very basic contradictions there, how exactly are apples and oranges not equal? Surely it's a matter of taste?

And again, this is just a ramble with absolutely no evidence.

Isn't it nice having different items of fruit to choose from ? Of course it is, this is why we celebrate and enjoy diversity in so many areas of life.

Like apples and oranges are different, so are heterosexual relationships different than homosexual relationships.

You want to provide evidence? Other than "fruits are different, therefore same sex and opposite sex marriages are different"?

Heterosexual relationships are called marriages. Homosexual relationships are called civil unions or homosexual relationships or a number of different things. No matter the name, they're different and calling them the same name makes as much sense as calling oranges apples or apples oranges in the name of "equality."

They can never be equal no matter what they're called, because they are different.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Yet.

Again.

Do you have any evidence other than "I say it is, therefore it is, so clearly it is and therfore it is - gawd, I'm smart"?

So why such passionate demand for the word marriage ? Isn't this about equal rights ? If this is about rights, why are we not hearing about rights ? Instead we hear over and over that "gays" should be able to "get married."

We are hearing about rights - you just don't want to listen. Do you realise what kinds of rights come with marriage? It must be nice to not have to think about it.

If they want the word "married" or "marriage," they can certainly use it to refer to their relationships if they like. This doesn't make them married any more than calling an apple an orange makes that apple into an orange or vice versa. This adamant demand for a word suggests that there is much more to this than just "equal rights."

Or, and I know this probably hasn't occurred to you, it could be that it is about equal rights - y'know, the equal right to marry. Is this difficult for you to comprehend?

If they wanted equal rights, they would be asking for equal rights. They aren't doing that, they're demanding the word too.

We are asking for equal rights - hence the demand (yeah, that's what it is and there's nothing wrong with that) for recognised marriages.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

So, you're allowing yourself to compare race and ethnicity to what makes an individuals sexual organs get tingly and stimulated. A word of advice, do not make any such statements in public around any people of color.

Awesome - I assume that if the government stopped recognising opposite sex marriage, you wouldn't consider that a breach of rights. After all, it's only what gets you tingly! No big deal!

Right. I'm glad we cleared that up.

Then I should be able to marry a 12 year old girl (or boy). We "love" each other afterall, we make each other "happy."

Oh, grow the fuck up. The difference there is that a child cannot enter into such an agreement. I believe this has something to do with the fact that they are children. Amazing, I know.

There's no difference between race and sexual preference in your world, why should there be any difference between race and age ?

That makes no sense whatsoever. That would be as if I said: "Since there's no difference between the races in your world, if we let people of different races marry, then we'll have to do the same for different species and ages. QED." It would be bullshit but it would make as much sense as your statement.

why should there be any difference between race and species, or number of individuals or species involved. ... since we're having fun with your lack of good judgement.

Uh, because children and non human animals cannot make those kinds of contracts or consent to - anything, really. I'm not sure, because of your appalling writing, but are you equating interracial marriage with bestiality?

Moving on:

The assertion that homosexuals are a minority group under current civil rights laws is false. Minority status has been determined by the U.S. supreme court on three criteria:


1. Economic deprivation: No. Those engaged in the homosexual "lifestyle" are among the most advantaged people in the U.S. On average, they have a higher per capita income than heterosexuals and higher household incomes. [ Wall Street Journal, Feb. 10, 1989, and New York Times, Aug. 22, 1990 ]

So what? The lack of marriage rights mean that they can lose their homes and savings, face higher taxation rates and harsher insurance conditions, because of their sexual orientation. Unless you face losing your house when your spouse dies, then no, you don't have the right to comment.

2. Political powerlessness: No. Homosexuals demonstrate great influential political power far beyond their actual numbers. The human rights campaign fund has annually donated millions of dollars to candidates, more than most other non-corporate PACs [The Economist, Apr. 24, 1993]. Media news and entertainment coverage is overwhelmingly favorable.

Hey, black people have PACs, influential civil rights lobbies, civil rights leaders, special treatment in hiring and enrollment etc. They can't be a minority group under civil rights law! Gosh, I am soooo relieved!

3. Immutable characteristics: No. Minority groups share unchangeable, benign, non-behavioral traits such as race, ethnicity, disability, or national origin. Homosexuals are the only group to claim minority status based on behavior.

You do realise that there's more to sexual orientation than sex? Otherwise a virgin could never have a sexual orientation. And how is liking adults with matching pee pees meant to not be benign?

Moving on again, you say: "To be a compelling state reason you would have to show that gay marriage is a clear and present danger to the state. Good luck with that."


So, if something cannot be shown to be a "clear and present danger to the state" it must be given legal encouragement ? Surely I don't have to list things that cannot be shown to be a "clear and present danger to the state" that are not legal or allowed to happen with governmental support.

So you admit that Teh Gheyz aren't a "clear and present danger"? So there's no reason to just let those who want to marry each other. Gosh, I'm so glad we sorted that out.

You have yet to offer any reason our society should call "gay" couples "married."

You've yet to provide evidence that the GOVERNMENT ("society" can go fuck itself) should not.

Are you interested in rights for 'gay' people or are you interested in a word ? Isn't this about equal rights ? If this is about rights, why aren't you arguing about rights ? If you have a word fetish, go play Scrabble.

We're interested in both. The right to marry. Is that difficult for you to understand?

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Ok, why don't we do that.

Using your own "logic."


You say: "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.""

You go on to say: "The court said that such discrimination clearly violates both the Due Process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Now unless you can show to me some compelling state reason why such discrimination should stand, you have lost this discussion."


So, you're allowing yourself to compare race and ethnicity to what makes an individuals sexual organs get tingly and stimulated. A word of advice, do not make any such statements in public around any people of color.

Interesting. so not only are you bigoted against homosexuals, you seem to be bigoted against people of color as well. I know many, many people of color. I grew up in a neighborhood where us white folk were a very small minority and went to a high school that was predominantly non-white as well. Very few of the people of color I know are bigoted against homosexuals, and more to the point very few people of color I know are incapable of controlling themselves if someone says something they do not agree with. so lets see, you think homosexuals are evil and people of color are bigots who cannot control themselves. Tell us, what other groups do you hold in contempt and what negative stereotypes do you assign to them?

All that being said and to your point, yes I compare them. Both are parts of a person that they do not choose, and have no control over changing, and skin color and sexual orientation are both reasons historically that people have been discriminated against.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Using your own "logic," we can make the argument that because:

----------------------------------------------------------------

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The court said that such discrimination clearly violates both the Due Process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Then I should be able to marry a 12 year old girl (or boy). We "love" each other afterall, we make each other "happy."

There's no difference between race and sexual preference in your world, why should there be any difference between race and age ? why should there be any difference between race and species, or number of individuals or species involved. ... since we're having fun with your lack of good judgement.

Marriage under the law is a contract, 12 year olds have not reached their majority and cannot legally consent to contract. Long established law based on compelling state interest. Same with animals, they cannot legally enter a contract.

As to number, I favor legal polygamy as well. Line and clan marriages too.

I might also note that you can claim I have a lack of good judgement over and over, it doesn't make it true, or you any less a bigot.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Moving on:

The assertion that homosexuals are a minority group under current civil rights laws is false. Minority status has been determined by the U.S. supreme court on three criteria:


1. Economic deprivation: No. Those engaged in the homosexual "lifestyle" are among the most advantaged people in the U.S. On average, they have a higher per capita income than heterosexuals and higher household incomes. [ Wall Street Journal, Feb. 10, 1989, and New York Times, Aug. 22, 1990 ]



2. Political powerlessness: No. Homosexuals demonstrate great influential political power far beyond their actual numbers. The human rights campaign fund has annually donated millions of dollars to candidates, more than most other non-corporate PACs [The Economist, Apr. 24, 1993]. Media news and entertainment coverage is overwhelmingly favorable.



3. Immutable characteristics: No. Minority groups share unchangeable, benign, non-behavioral traits such as race, ethnicity, disability, or national origin. Homosexuals are the only group to claim minority status based on behavior.

Noting you cite reference data moire than a decade old, laughable. noting also that ones sexual orientation is indeed immutable. I cannot even change why type of woman attracts me, much less decide to be attracted to men. Could you decide to be attracted sexually to a member of your own gender? Sexual orientation is vastly more than a behavior. I knew I was heterosexual long before I had engaged in ANY type of sex, including masturbation. Do you claim my wife and I are only heterosexual when we are actively having sex?

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Moving on again, you say: "To be a compelling state reason you would have to show that gay marriage is a clear and present danger to the state. Good luck with that."


So, if something cannot be shown to be a "clear and present danger to the state" it must be given legal encouragement ? Surely I don't have to list things that cannot be shown to be a "clear and present danger to the state" that are not legal or allowed to happen with governmental support.


You have yet to offer any reason our society should call "gay" couples "married."


Are you interested in rights for 'gay' people or are you interested in a word ? Isn't this about equal rights ? If this is about rights, why aren't you arguing about rights ? If you have a word fetish, go play Scrabble.

you have to show a compelling state interest in order to discriminate against someone or something,. Because you don't like it is not a sufficient warrant.

It isn't about a word, it is about the right to marry. Separate but equal has NEVER been equal, yet you argue for it. Not surprising given your horrifically bigoted view of people of color, I bet you miss Jim Crow too.

Originally Posted by Vandeervecken

Interesting. ...........................

It isn't about a word, it is about the right to marry. Separate but equal has NEVER been equal, yet you argue for it. Not surprising given your horrifically bigoted view of people of color, I bet you miss Jim Crow too.

Yes, very interesting

Now you've managed to make me a racist even

The extent of your confusion is vast

I'm truly in awe Have a great evening.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Yes, very interesting

Now you've managed to make me a racist even

The extent of your confusion is vast

I'm truly in awe Have a great evening.

You are the one that implied that people of color were A: all bigoted against homosexuals and B: Incapable of controlling themselves if they hear something they disagree with. Your warning you know not to ever compare race and sexual orientation around people of color.

What else can one take from that but racism?

Clearly the best solution is to make marriage a strictly religious institution, then each church can decide who they want to marry and deny marriage to.

Strip ALL marriages in existance today and those to happen in the future, of any and every legal right, responsibility and benefit that comes along with it. Make every single couple, gay or straight, hire a lawyer to create the many contracts that will grant them just a few of the rights, benefits and priviledges that currently come with one marriage certificate. Then kiss the rest of the legal rights, benefits and priviledges that currently come with marriage that CAN'T be reproduced with any other civil legal contract good bye forever.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

So, you're allowing yourself to compare race and ethnicity to what makes an individuals sexual organs get tingly and stimulated. A word of advice, do not make any such statements in public around any people of color.

No. He's comparing race to gender. It's gender discrimination to not allow one to choose the gender of a person they would like to enter into a civil legal contract with. Can you name one single other civil legal contract that defines the genders of the people that can enter into it?

The problem is the mental immaturity of people that can't think about gay people without thinking about gay sex at the same time. They see Adam and Steve holding hands and all they are able think about is what happens in Adam and Steve's bedroom. The juvenile squeamishness of such mental midgets should have no bearing on any other person's civil rights.

Originally Posted by Vandeervecken

You are the one that implied that people of color were A: all bigoted against homosexuals and B: Incapable of controlling themselves if they hear something they disagree with. Your warning you know not to ever compare race and sexual orientation around people of color.

What else can one take from that but racism?

Welcome to USPOL!

You're trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. Just so you know.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Welcome to USPOL!

You're trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. Just so you know.

I'm new to USPOL but not new online. I recognize the type well. Thanx for the welcome.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Bigotry :rolleyes:

Nice try.

I'm confused at your taking issue with the use of the word bigotry. Though I'm kind of confused my the majority of your post (sarcasm loses it's sting when it's written). Many people are evidently intolerant of same-sex marriage, therefore by definition they are bigots. What is your objection to same-sex marriage?

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Clearly the best solution is to make marriage a strictly religious institution, then each church can decide who they want to marry and deny marriage to.

Strip ALL marriages in existance today and those to happen in the future, of any and every legal right, responsibility and benefit that comes along with it. Make every single couple, gay or straight, hire a lawyer to create the many contracts that will grant them just a few of the rights, benefits and priviledges that currently come with one marriage certificate. Then kiss the rest of the legal rights, benefits and priviledges that currently come with marriage that CAN'T be reproduced with any other civil legal contract good bye forever.

Gosh, that isn't the only choice. As I understand marriage law today, it is in fact civil law, and one must first get a civil permit/license for marriage. Various people, including Justices of the Peace can perform marriage ceremonies. Whomever performs the ceremony signs the paper and send the paper in to the civil system. So, nothing needs to change, really, except to say that gender is not a factor in obtaining a marriage license.