how to explain gay rights to an idiot

[Jarhead]

And how, pray tell, do I "flaunt it? Is it in my avatar.....no. Do I talk about it all the time to the exclusion of nothing else....no.

Oh, that's right. I defend myself and fight for my rights as an equal American citizen. I mention my wife occasionally. APPARENTLY...that is "flaunting it".

Suuuuuuuuure.

Now, why don't you neg me some more and call me a "sick fuck" for saying that Pedophilia is and should always be considered a criminal act.

I gotta be frank with you Bodecea...I had no idea you were gay...and now that I know it really doesnt make a differewnce to me..

But the point is...as much as I agree with Warrior on many things...I dont see how you have EVER flaunted your sexuality and your sexual preferences.

If anything...I see more people who are homophobes expressing their sexual preference in a flaunting way for they are afraid to be seen as a "homo".....

Yeah we get that a lot around here.

Thanks, Jarhead.

Faggot queer.

 

[bodecea]

You have no problem whatsoever with imposing your morality on everyone else.

How am I forcing YOU to become gay or have a gay marriage or even go to a gay wedding, Katzndogs.

It is ONLY me forcing my morality onto you when I have the government pass laws making you live your life like mine. Cite such a law on the books, plz.

Actually...in all fairness....

THe gay community (for lack of a better way to put it) is forcing those that have religiously saw marriage as a rite between a man and a woman to change what they belioeved to be...and acted through.

In other words...from a religuious point...those that referred to their marriage religiuoulsy as a bond between the man and woman are now being told that they were not experineing what they were taught to believe.

It is a valid debate on both sides and minimizing the importance of how the religious right feels is no less worng than minimizing the importance of how the gay community feels.

But, ironically, it was churches that married gay couples first long before any of our state governments did. That train left the station a LONG time ago.

 

[bodecea]

How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

They have the same rights as everyone else, idiot.......

Simply not true.

 

[bripat9643]

The root of this problem is that government grants special privileges and benefits to people who are married. The irony is, the promotion of marriage is arguably a form of right-wing social engineering. If we could get it through our heads that government isn't the proper tool to decide what kinds of personal relationships should be encouraged (or not), we could probably avoid a lot of these kinds of problems.

You're forgetting on crucial issue, turd: children. Marriage laws exist primary for their benefit. Marriage is how we assign responsibility for their care and upbringing. Marriage benefits exist to make it easier for parents to take care of their kids. There is no other reason to have them.

All these lame-assed theories that ignore the facts of biology crash on that one immovable obstacle.

 

[bodecea]

I gotta be frank with you Bodecea...I had no idea you were gay...and now that I know it really doesnt make a differewnce to me..

But the point is...as much as I agree with Warrior on many things...I dont see how you have EVER flaunted your sexuality and your sexual preferences.

If anything...I see more people who are homophobes expressing their sexual preference in a flaunting way for they are afraid to be seen as a "homo".....

Yeah we get that a lot around here.

Thanks, Jarhead.

Faggot queer.

I'm crushed. Truely, truely crushed.
I will pray for you.

 

[dblack]

The root of this problem is that government grants special privileges and benefits to people who are married. The irony is, the promotion of marriage is arguably a form of right-wing social engineering. If we could get it through our heads that government isn't the proper tool to decide what kinds of personal relationships should be encouraged (or not), we could probably avoid a lot of these kinds of problems.

You're forgetting on crucial issue, turd...

turd?? seriously?

 

[bodecea]

The root of this problem is that government grants special privileges and benefits to people who are married. The irony is, the promotion of marriage is arguably a form of right-wing social engineering. If we could get it through our heads that government isn't the proper tool to decide what kinds of personal relationships should be encouraged (or not), we could probably avoid a lot of these kinds of problems.

You're forgetting on crucial issue, turd: children. Marriage laws exist primary for their benefit. Marriage is how we assign responsibility for their care and upbringing. Marriage benefits exist to make it easier for parents to take care of their kids. There is no other reason to have them.

All these lame-assed theories that ignore the facts of biology crash on that one immovable obstacle.

No.

 

[WorldWatcher]

However, I note that you still adhering to failed logic, that being since the laws are applied equally to males and females, there is not discrimination. That logic didn't work when it was whites and colored as we've already seen

If: You are of sound mind capable of consenting and consent, meet age requirements and have not had your rights restricted through due process of law.

Then: You can enter into a male/female marriage. You cannot be married to two people or be married to someone who is already married because then it's not a male/female marriage.

To say that whites cannot marry blacks violates the 14th because then two people are treated differently. Just as you can't have whites only drinking fountains for the same reason.

However, that someone "wants" something different is irrelevant to the law. That Steve wants to marry George and I don't want to marry George is irrelevant to the law. We are treated the same way. It's actually very, very clear. You just have to take your political tinted glasses off. I oppose all government marriage, but in no way do I want the law to be parsed by dictators to declare marriage not a government function. That scares me FAR more then having it.

This boils down to a repeat of the previous statements.

If the biological condition is race, then discrimination on that fact was wrong (as recognized by the courts) and it was struck down.

However that basing Civil Marriage on another biological condition, in this case gender, is correct.



As a matter of fact I am of sound mind and able to logically understand the argument presented, however due to the fact that both are based on biological conditions I recognize the fallacy of saying one is wrong, but the other is right.

I'm able to apply logic and separate my personal religious views and personal opinion to examine the two arguments based on their merits. The structure of the argument was lacking when it was made as a function of race and (I personally) find it lacking as it pertains to gender. Based on the logic that I see no difference between law abiding, tax paying, infertile, US Citizen, consenting, non-related adults in a different-sex couple establishing a legal family relationship and between law abiding, tax paying, infertile, US Citizen, consenting, non-related adults in a same-sex couple being able to enter into exactly the same type of family relationship.

I care not what someone "wants" as a basis of this analysis. I do care when social authoritarians want to use the law to prevent citizens from equal access to fair treatment by the government because they find the lawful actions of other citizens objectionable.



>>>>

 

[bripat9643]

They have the same rights as everyone else, idiot.......

Simply not true.

It is true.

 

[bripat9643]

The root of this problem is that government grants special privileges and benefits to people who are married. The irony is, the promotion of marriage is arguably a form of right-wing social engineering. If we could get it through our heads that government isn't the proper tool to decide what kinds of personal relationships should be encouraged (or not), we could probably avoid a lot of these kinds of problems.

You're forgetting on crucial issue, turd: children. Marriage laws exist primary for their benefit. Marriage is how we assign responsibility for their care and upbringing. Marriage benefits exist to make it easier for parents to take care of their kids. There is no other reason to have them.

All these lame-assed theories that ignore the facts of biology crash on that one immovable obstacle.

No.

Brilliant argument.

However, it's a colossal fail.

The facts I stated are irrefutable.

 

[bodecea]

They have the same rights as everyone else, idiot.......

Simply not true.

It is true.

Nope. It is not. At this moment in most states, gay couples....law-abiding, tax-paying gay couples cannot go to their County Offices and get a civil marriage license. They will be denied because they are both of the same gender. While another couple, male & female, can be right behind them in line and will not be denied.

That is unequal treatment UNDER THE LAW, and the 14th amendment forbids that without due process and cause.


(Scenerio: If a obese couple went in to get a license and were told that they cannot get one if they are both over 300 lbs, one of them has to be no more than 150 lbs....would you say that they have the same rights as everyone else?)

 

[bodecea]

You're forgetting on crucial issue, turd: children. Marriage laws exist primary for their benefit. Marriage is how we assign responsibility for their care and upbringing. Marriage benefits exist to make it easier for parents to take care of their kids. There is no other reason to have them.

All these lame-assed theories that ignore the facts of biology crash on that one immovable obstacle.

No.

Brilliant argument.

However, it's a colossal fail.

The facts I stated are irrefutable.

Your facts are easily refutted by the FACT that childbearing is not a requirement for getting a marriage license....nor is a marriage license a requirement for childbearing.

IPSO FACTO.

 

[Dragon]

The facts I stated are irrefutable.

No, they're nonsense, which is probably why she didn't bother to refute them. If you were right, then:

1) children born out of wedlock would have no legal recourse as far as requiring their parents to support them; and

2) no couple who did not want children would ever bother getting married.

Obviously, marriage serves many legal and social purposes besides having and raising children. It verifies a couple's commitment to one another. It provides legal standing to a spouse in terms of inheritance, property ownership, and decision-making.

I disagree with dblack for these reasons, but while I wouldn't say that the government should get out of recognizing relationships, I do think that having it recognize "marriage" is an intrusion of the state into what should be a religious matter. What I would actually like to see is for the state to recognize only civil unions for ALL couples, straight as well as gay, and make that something separate from "marriage." Marriage would then be something that people could do either in a religious setting or just between the two of them, with personal and spiritual meaning but without legal significance.

 

[George Costanza]

In Oklahoma we have a constitutional amendment that says that marriage is between one man and one woman. It also says that the state of Oklahoma will not recognize same-sex marriages performed in any other state. It has already survived three attempts to overturn it AND the Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled it is constitutional. I helped pass that amendment. I gave money to the effort to pass the amendment and I believe it is the right thing for Oklahoma.

That is not the case in California and other states. And quite frankly, I believe that this is a state's rights issue. If any state in this union believes that same-sex marriage is something they want to acknowledge, then I say that they are absolutely, 100% within their right to do so.

Any other arguement is crap soup...

And what is "state's rights" code for?

Anyone?

No one, huh? OK: "State's Rights" is code for: "We want to have this little enclave that is immune from due process of law and equal protection and all those other, bothersome things, when it comes to matters that are important to us, such as discrimininating against those groups of people we find disgusting, such as gays, blacks, and anyone else we decide we don't like."

Hmm. I distinctly remember being stopped at the California border in 1965 when my brother and I were joining our parents in their new home. They asked us if we had any kind of plants in the car (we didn't) and that if we did, we had to leave them at the border. After a brief inspection of our car and trunk, they let us continue on to our parents' home to live.

I connected that with a state's rights to control what comes over its border. Also, at the time, the state we left, the drinking age may have been different than California's, which mattered to everybody else except me. I had no ambition whatever to drink, having been well-taught at my grandmother's knee what was expected of little ladies.

My first week there was like <<<culture shock>>> to put it mildly. I was horrified to see people go to a theater in casual clothing, bikinis, and anything else they cared to wear, and nobody said anything to them.

So much for my sheltered life, but I think state's rights encompass a lot more than one's freedom in matters of orientation.

Of course it does. Most certainly there are issues that are better left to local (state) determination, rather than federal edict.

But the sad fact is, that the concept of state's rights has been horribly abused in the past by, shall we say, "certain segments" of our society, i.e., the Right. Remember how, in the 1950's and 1960's, many southern states had laws that were clearly in violation of the civil rights of black people? State's rights. Bull shit.

And today, whenever you hear some conservative yapping off about "state's rights," take a very close look at exactly what it is they want to have their state determine, and, more importantly, WHY they want it done that way. Is it a legitimate position to take? Or are they merely trying to ooze out from under the Bill of Rights or some other protective feature of the United States Constitution in order to discriminate against some group they simply don't like?

 

[dblack]

Obviously, marriage serves many legal and social purposes besides having and raising children. It verifies a couple's commitment to one another. It provides legal standing to a spouse in terms of inheritance, property ownership, and decision-making.

All of these functions can be addressed with contractual agreements between consenting adults. The state has no business defining these agreements or specifying who is allowed to sign them (apart from verifying informed consent). Parental rights and responsibilities are another matter entirely, and do not require a legal definition of marriage to resolve.

 

[Jarhead]

originally, marriage was defined as a rite between a man and a woman till death did them part.

Well...since the death doing them part has been eliminated....why cant the man and a woman part be eliminated?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The root of this problem is that government grants special privileges and benefits to people who are married. The irony is, the promotion of marriage is arguably a form of right-wing social engineering. If we could get it through our heads that government isn't the proper tool to decide what kinds of personal relationships should be encouraged (or not), we could probably avoid a lot of these kinds of problems.

wrong....the government IS a tool that helps determine what kind of society we become....including the monitoring of many types of relationships....IN ORDER to avoid lots of insidious problems within society...

the Left-wing promotes drugs, gay marriage, polygamy, promiscuity, prostitution, pornography and degeneracy....

....so i'd say the Left-wing is also in the business of "social engineering"......kinda the "sodom and gomorrah" version.....but oops....we are not supposed to reference religion because the left-wing is also against religion ......but one can easily see why.....

i'll take the Right-wing form of "social engineering" any day.....

 

[WorldWatcher]

Obviously, marriage serves many legal and social purposes besides having and raising children. It verifies a couple's commitment to one another. It provides legal standing to a spouse in terms of inheritance, property ownership, and decision-making.

All of these functions can be addressed with contractual agreements between consenting adults. The state has no business defining these agreements or specifying who is allowed to sign them (apart from verifying informed consent). Parental rights and responsibilities are another matter entirely, and do not require a legal definition of marriage to resolve.

The above is a false statement:

1. A "contractual arrangement" does not provide for the tax free transfer of real property to a spouse when the other spouse is deceased and relief from the resulting tax liabilities. On Civil Marriage does that.

2. A "contractual arrangement" does not allow for exemption form the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. This cannot be duplicated with a power of attorney.)

3. A "contractual arrangement" cannot provide for a spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution.

4. A "contractual arrangement" cannot provide for a spouse to be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

5. A "contractual arrangement" does not convey parenthood upon the birth of a child. A $50 marriage license does, for non-Civilly Married couples it would require a formal adoption costing hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

6. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

7. A "contractual arrangement" cannot waive the tax penalty for employer provided health insurance for a spouse of the same gender. (Same-sex Civilly Married couples are charged this extra tax on employer benefits where Different-sex Civilly Married couples are not.)

8. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

9. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

10. Even with a "contractual arrangement" and a will, not being Civilly Married allows for other relatives to step in and challenge a will under probate court and in some states allows those family members to over ride the decrees of the will.​

That being said their are currently hundreds if not thousands more elements on the law dependent on Civil Marriage to define "rights, responsibilities, and benefits" associated with that situation that cannot be duplicated with a "contractual arrangement".


>>>>

 

[dblack]

Obviously, marriage serves many legal and social purposes besides having and raising children. It verifies a couple's commitment to one another. It provides legal standing to a spouse in terms of inheritance, property ownership, and decision-making.

All of these functions can be addressed with contractual agreements between consenting adults. The state has no business defining these agreements or specifying who is allowed to sign them (apart from verifying informed consent). Parental rights and responsibilities are another matter entirely, and do not require a legal definition of marriage to resolve.

The above is a false statement:

1. A "contractual arrangement" does not provide for the tax free transfer of real property to a spouse when the other spouse is deceased and relief from the resulting tax liabilities. On Civil Marriage does that.

2. A "contractual arrangement" does not allow for exemption form the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. This cannot be duplicated with a power of attorney.)

3. A "contractual arrangement" cannot provide for a spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution.

4. A "contractual arrangement" cannot provide for a spouse to be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

5. A "contractual arrangement" does not convey parenthood upon the birth of a child. A $50 marriage license does, for non-Civilly Married couples it would require a formal adoption costing hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

6. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

7. A "contractual arrangement" cannot waive the tax penalty for employer provided health insurance for a spouse of the same gender. (Same-sex Civilly Married couples are charged this extra tax on employer benefits where Different-sex Civilly Married couples are not.)

8. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

9. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

10. Even with a "contractual arrangement" and a will, not being Civilly Married allows for other relatives to step in and challenge a will under probate court and in some states allows those family members to over ride the decrees of the will.​

>>>>

None of these were in Dragon's list. The things you're citing that cannot be addressed by contract are examples of special benefits and privileges granted by the state to encourage a certain kind of relationship with another person. It's the social engineering that is the root of the problem. The answer is not to slightly expand the circle of people we grant special privilege to (to include gays), but to eliminate the practice of granting special privileges in the first place.

 

[dblack]

wrong....the government IS a tool that helps determine what kind of society we become....including the monitoring of many types of relationships....IN ORDER to avoid lots of insidious problems within society...

the Left-wing promotes drugs, gay marriage, polygamy, promiscuity, prostitution, pornography and degeneracy....

....so i'd say the Left-wing is also in the business of "social engineering"......kinda the "sodom and gomorrah" version.....but oops....we are not supposed to reference religion because the left-wing is also against religion ......but one can easily see why.....

i'll take the Right-wing form of "social engineering" any day.....

Yeah, well, "live by the sword, die by the sword" eh? If you endorse the idea that the government should be telling us how to live, you've pretty much got to expect it's not always going to go your way.