Thread: Equal Protection Under the Law.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

If you're gay, you're probably going to want to live with your partner.

Maybe, maybe not. Either way - that's your choice.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

You can't keep that private because neighbors see you and your partner come and go.

Yeah, because two guys or two girls living in the same apartment/house must be gay...couldnt POSSIBLY be roommates....

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Then they whisper that knowledge throughout the community and historically you could find yourself blacklisted from obtaining work or worse (bricks through your windows, etc).

Is a community not permitted to have its own standards? Why should East Pigdick, Arkansas have the same community standards as NYC? The whole point of our country is to enable states people to live as they wish. If 1000 people in an area want one standard and 1 person wants something different, tough shit for the 1. Nobody is obligated to hire you. Bricks through your windows would be illegal and a completely different issue.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

You can keep private that you like to masturbate on women's panties because nobody sees you doing it. You can keep private that you like to eat the rubber from the bottoms of shoes because noone sees you do it.

And you can keep private the fact that you like stuffing your cock in another guys ass because unless you're doing it outside or with the windows open, nobody sees you do it.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

But when you live with someone, people are going to know it even if you never say a word about it.

Really? You mean everyone, everywhere just assumes two men living in the same house are homosexual lovers? Seriously? Wow - and all this time when I was younger I and had roommates I thought we were sharing housing to cut costs. Color me surprised that everyone else thought we were gay - and there must have been a LOT of gay couples, threesomes and foursomes in my complex too.

Seriously - you're projecting. Nobody gives two shits who you live with or what you do behind closed doors. Don't make it public. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

You might as well tell a black person to stop advertising in public that they're black.

Completely different. Really. It is.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

If you're talking about the 1% or 0.1% of gays who are flamingly flagrant, then you're punishing the 99% who DO maintain a relatively quiet lifestyle because of some outrageous types.

Oh - you mean like how you paint all of us who object to gay "marriage" with the same broad brush or how any gun owner must be a mass murderer waiting to happen?

Get real. I'm not punishing ANYONE. Its only the flamers I have an issue with anyway - i couldn't give a fuck less about the ones who act normal. Just ask one of my best friends - and his boyfriend. Yeah - he's gay and he also hates flamers.

If you want to know how i feel about it - fucking ask and stop assuming. Just because I disagree with your views does not mean I hate you or wish to actively persecute you.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

I find flaming homosexuals rather annoying, but I also realize they are the extreme minority.

No shit. Thank God too because I can only kick the shit out of so many people a day.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

I have known dozens of homosexuals (primarily because of who they live with, not because they talk about it) throughout my life and only 1 of them was flaming.

You just KNEW they were gay because they lived together? Pretty arrogant of you. You sure you never asked at some point?

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

I also find flaming gun nuts annoying too (mainly because they're so fucking stupid),

What defines a flaming gun nut? Someone who carries a concealed weapon or someone more like the Michigan Militia or Gecko45?

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

even though I have known hundreds of people who own guns who are not annoying about it and are quite intelligent.

Gee - thanks so much for being surprised that we have a brain. You don't even see the condescension dripping in your comments.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

If you would legalize gay marriage, the gays would go about their lives and quit pushing to overthrow archaic and discriminatory laws.

Somehow discrimination (or discernment) has gotten a bad rap. It is amazing that you keep pushing to treat as equal, behavior that is not equal. There is more than one other example that some argue make sense.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Great thread fishjoel! Don't forget other socially acceptable variations of non-equal protection:

1. BEHAVIOR/ABILITY DISCRIMINATION
- handicap parking
- special education (~ 10-30 x $/student)
- pedophiles (consensual)
- criminals (voting & guns)
- blind (driving licenses)
- drunk drivers (license revoked)
- denied loans just because of inability to pay
- Welfare
- Social Security (Long Term Disability)
- Medicaid
- Gay Marriage
- Necrophilia Marriage (non-living discrimination)
- Polygamy
- Bestiality Marriage


2. AGE DISCRIMINATION
- Voting
- Retirement
- Social Security (Retirement)
- drivers license
- buying alcohol
- running for office
- consent in marriage
- consent in sex (pedophiles)


3. SEX DISCRIMINATION
- Father's award of joint physical custody
- Violance Against Women's Act
- Selective Service
- Planned Parenting (Men's Health)
- Registry for Sex Offenders
- WIC (Women, Infant, Children)
- Prison Population

4. FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION
- progressive tax rates
- means testing for Social Security, Medicare, financial aid for college
- denied loans just because of inability to pay


5. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
- MLB (% of Whites)
- NBA (% of Whites)
- NFL (% of Whites)
- BET (Black Entertainment Television)
- NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)

Discrimination or discernment has become a destroyed concept. Discrimination/Discernment is good like in recognizing UNEQUAL ABILITY/BEHAVIOR ought to result in different treatment such as denial of loans, drivers licenses to blind and gay marriage.

Plus affirmative action.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

You simply DO NOT get it.

No, I get it - i just don't accept your bullshit for anything other than what it is.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

I could give two fucks about society's approval.

Really? Then why does it have to be "marriage"? Is "civil union" not acceptable?

Originally Posted by Unique POV

We want equal protection for our jointly held assets.

You can have that pretty easily. 5 minutes and some forms. You can even get them from legalzoom.com

Originally Posted by Unique POV

The fact of the matter is that MARTIAL assets are protected in many instances where they can not get the same legal protections from ANY OTHER civil legal contract.

Common misconception. USED to be that way, not so much anymore.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Say tomorrow I get in a terrible car wreck and I have a traumatic brain injury that will require me to live in a SNF for the rest of my life. I've done all of the responsible things that I can do... like get long term care insurance... but the fact is that even that will not pay for all of my care so at some point I must apply for the Medicaid benefits that I have worked for all of my adult life. In order to qualify... my assets must be below a certain threshhold... in most states this threshold is $2000. This means that my house, my cars, my accounts must all be liquidated and the proceeds spent on my care until I reach that 2k threshhold. If these are jointly held assets... my partner can keep her half of the proceeds, but this does not negate the fact that she has just lost her home, cars and all of the things that she has ALSO worked for all of these years.

No - not even close to true. Your liquid assets would have to be reduced, but if you have joint ownership of a property, no, you cannot be forcibly divested of it. You could, however, do something a married person could not and transfer ownership in its entirety to your partner.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Now let's say the exact same thing happens to you tomorrow. Your wife will be able to keep the house, the cars, the accounts.... all of it, because they are MARITAL assets, and your ability to qualify for Medicaid will not be hampered at all.

Utter bullshit and I can say that with absolute certainty. Just went through this a year and a half a go with my mother in law. Incidentally - she was no longer married (her husband died 10 years ago) and her house/cars/etc were not counted in the medicaid valuation.

Try again - learn the facts though, OK?

Originally Posted by Unique POV

That is not even moral... much less EQUAL PROTECTION.

How is it amoral? What is amoral is thinking you have a right to other people's money without them putting restrictions on it.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

There you go, flagrantly pushing your sexuality in our faces.

Irritating isnt it?

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

There aren't laws forbidding you from marrying a woman with whom you mutually fall in love are there?

There sure are. I cannot marry her if I am already married to someone else, or if she is, or if she is too closely related to me or if she is under 18 - just to name a few.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

So I guess the issue of gay marriage doesn't really pertain to you.

Nope - sure doesnt - except that homosexuals want to tell me I'm wrong for not wanting them to have special treatment and that kinda pisses me off.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

You're not being discriminated against.

Nope - I'm not - and neither are homosexuals. Not getting what you want is not discrimination.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

People who aren't being discriminated against rarely push for change, its human nature.

REALLY?

You realize it was mostly WHITES who pushed through the civil rights laws, right? Oh wait - it was ALL whites. You realize it was ALL men who pushed through legislation allowing women to vote right? You realize it was ALL whites who made slavery illegal, right?

Don't be an idiot. Of course people who aren't discriminated against push for change. What is wrong is wrong - regardless of if it affects me directly or not.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

If you would legalize gay marriage, the gays would go about their lives and quit pushing to overthrow archaic and discriminatory laws.

Ah - so if i just give you what you want you'll stop whining? I hear that from my 8 year old daughter - and i tell her no too.

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

No, I get it - i just don't accept your bullshit for anything other than what it is.

Really? Then why does it have to be "marriage"? Is "civil union" not acceptable?

You can have that pretty easily. 5 minutes and some forms. You can even get them from legalzoom.com

Common misconception. USED to be that way, not so much anymore.

No - not even close to true. Your liquid assets would have to be reduced, but if you have joint ownership of a property, no, you cannot be forcibly divested of it. You could, however, do something a married person could not and transfer ownership in its entirety to your partner.

Utter bullshit and I can say that with absolute certainty. Just went through this a year and a half a go with my mother in law. Incidentally - she was no longer married (her husband died 10 years ago) and her house/cars/etc were not counted in the medicaid valuation.

Try again - learn the facts though, OK?

How is it amoral? What is amoral is thinking you have a right to other people's money without them putting restrictions on it.

No... you can not just simply transfer your assets. Medicare and Medicaid can go back and look at such transfers for a period of up to seven years prior to the application for benefits. If it appears the transfer was made to "hide" funds... benefits can and will be denied.

And perhaps your state medicaid laws vastly differ from those of other states (I doubt it... but MAYBE they do) but yes... your home and cars ARE indeed financial assets that must be liquidated. Not only is this what I do for a living... but I also went through the same thing with my wife's mother 5 years ago. Her home, her cars, and her motor home ALL had to be sold, and her bank accounts spent down... with deposit slips showing the proceeds from the sales of her assets deposited into her account... and receipts showing the funds in her account had actually been spent 100% on her care down to the 2k threshhold, before she could qualify for medicaid. She had a live in boyfriend at the time who if they had been married could have kept it all... but since they were not he lost his home. The difference is... that they had the oppurtunity to avail themselves of the protection of marriage had they so desired. That protection is illegally denied my wife and I.

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

Yeah, because two guys or two girls living in the same apartment/house must be gay...couldnt POSSIBLY be roommates....

After 15 years of living together? Really? Are they not allowed to hug, hold hands, or kiss in public the way hetersexual people are known to do?

And you can keep private the fact that you like stuffing your cock in another guys ass because unless you're doing it outside or with the windows open, nobody sees you do it.

How many gay men have you seen stuffing their cock into another guys ass in public? I have never seen it.

Really? You mean everyone, everywhere just assumes two men living in the same house are homosexual lovers? Seriously? Wow - and all this time when I was younger I and had roommates I thought we were sharing housing to cut costs. Color me surprised that everyone else thought we were gay - and there must have been a LOT of gay couples, threesomes and foursomes in my complex too.

Are you really that inept at social clues? People in college have roommates. A 40 year old man living with a 23 year old man really isn't very common. Yes, occasionally, but when you see them dining together or going away for vacations together its pretty obvious.

Seriously - you're projecting. Nobody gives two shits who you live with or what you do behind closed doors. Don't make it public. Simple as that.

So apparently anti-sodomy laws never happened? And gay people have never suffered discrimination?

Oh - you mean like how you paint all of us who object to gay "marriage" with the same broad brush or how any gun owner must be a mass murderer waiting to happen?

Huh? Objecting to gay marriage lacks any coherent rational argument that isn't disguised bigotry. I've never said gun owners are mass murderers waiting to happen. I'm very pro-2nd amendment if you follow any of my posts on the topic.

Get real. I'm not punishing ANYONE. Its only the flamers I have an issue with anyway - i couldn't give a fuck less about the ones who act normal. Just ask one of my best friends - and his boyfriend. Yeah - he's gay and he also hates flamers.

I don't punish the majority for the idiotic actions of the minority.

If you want to know how i feel about it - fucking ask and stop assuming. Just because I disagree with your views does not mean I hate you or wish to actively persecute you.

I think you've made it fairly clear how you feel about it.

What defines a flaming gun nut? Someone who carries a concealed weapon or someone more like the Michigan Militia or Gecko45?

Someone who talks about guns endlessly day after day, including how many they own, the types of ammunition they make, what they want to buy next, etc, etc. Just stfu and buy your gun don't bore the rest of us with endless drivel. Some milita types possibly fall close to this category, but they tend to remove themselves from the part of society where I operate so I don't know any of them.

Gee - thanks so much for being surprised that we have a brain. You don't even see the condescension dripping in your comments.

I don't intend condescension, I just find the endless moronic arguments against gay marriage to lack any substance. "Gays are trying to ruin conventional marriage". "Gays cannot reproduce and marriage is about reproduction". "Gays need to stop throwing their sexuality in our faces". "Marriage has historically been defined between a man and woman".

Just fucking legalize it, and THEN if they throw their sexuality in your face, then maybe you have a point.

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

There sure are. I cannot marry her if I am already married to someone else, or if she is, or if she is too closely related to me or if she is under 18 - just to name a few.

Those would all apply if gay marriage was legalized. They're not asking for SPECIAL treatment, they're asking for the legal power to be married.

Also, although the makeup of congress was mostly white, there was a far greater percentage of blacks pushing for civil rights laws.


Congress simply could read the writing on the wall 100 years after the civil war. It was inevitable, and constitutional.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Congress simply could read the writing on the wall 100 years after the civil war. It was inevitable, and constitutional.

Which is exactly what will happen with gay marriage. Public opinion is just shifting far too rapidly for it to be prevented now. Even a conservative majority USC will not want to be seen my a vast majority of Americans as anti civil rights. The law, even the constitution, is of course open to different interpretations... but even so... there are just many more avenues one could take to justify a pro equal rights stance than to deny one.

Of course the closer it comes... the louder those who oppose the change will rant and rave. Of course those rantings and ravings will only strengthen the pro equal rights movement... just as they always have.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Interesting you would consider that an attack. My family is made up of damned fine people, but they are also conservative and so I grew up knowing their socially conservative views... as I am sure your own children know yours. And maybe you haven't ostracized her... but you have apparently decided that when she has a family... her family will be undeserving of having the exact same legal rights as the family she grew up in.

She decided that for herself. *shrug*

Originally Posted by Unique POV

... Even a conservative majority USC will not want to be seen my a vast majority of Americans as anti civil rights. ....

It's not a right to be married. And you seem to misunderstand the silent majority- you can't use peer pressure to influence them.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

It's not a right to be married. And you seem to misunderstand the silent majority- you can't use peer pressure to influence them.

No.... but equal access to legal protections such as legal contracts... is indeed a constitutional right. I have a constitutional right to protect my financial assets in the exact same way that you do. The right to free association... and yes... entering into a contract has already been legally defined as a part of the right to free association, is also constitutionally due me. This means that I have the right to enter into contracts with the legally consenting person I choose. Not who you find to be acceptable. Just because these rights are currently denied me... does not mean that these rights do not already exist.

This is why the modern conservative movement is a complete shambles. On one hand for economic issues they supposedly hate government power, intrusion and intervention, and on the other hand for social issues they rely on government power, intrusion, and intervention. Its schizophrenic.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

No.... but equal access to legal protections such as legal contracts... is indeed a constitutional right. I have a constitutional right to protect my financial assets in the exact same way that you do. The right to free association... and yes... entering into a contract has already been legally defined as a part of the right to free association, is also constitutionally due me. This means that I have the right to enter into contracts with the legally consenting person I choose. Not who you find to be acceptable. Just because these rights are currently denied me... does not mean that these rights do not already exist.

There's no legal contract that you're being denied. It's merely the State not having a compelling interest to grant you special privileges.