What is the Purpose of Gay Marriage?

[NYcarbineer]

so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....

Why is it whenever Conservatives are faced with expanding basic rights to their fellow citizens, they complain that such a logical and moral extension of basic rights is, in their narrow view, "special rights"? I heard the very same arguments during the 1960s and the Civil Rights movement. Again in the 1970s and the Women's Rights movement.

Seems protecting basic civil rights for every citizen means creating "special" rights to the stunted Conservative view of 'rights'.

Perhaps that sorry attitude explains why during each and every struggle for tolerance and the protection of rights to each and every minority group, it has been Conservatives providing the resistance.

It seems that Conservatives are happy with their rights but down right belligerent about protecting the rights of others. In other words, they love America, but hate Americans.

*whiine*

obviously you think everybody should be able to marry....from gays to bisexuals to polygamists to brothers and/or sisters to NAMBLA pervs to "whatever feeeeeels good"......you epitomize the moral relativism of secular progressives who are destroying our country from within...

When people start threads advocating those sorts of marriage, then you should feel free to argue with them.

In the meantime, you should try to show us why same sex marriage, with exactly the same rules and responsibilities and rights and privilegs as opposite sex marriage, with the exception of the opposite sex requirement,

has any inherent, unique quality about it that is so detrimental to society that the government has a compelling interest to keep it from being legally recognized.

 

[Seawytch]

so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....

Why is it whenever Conservatives are faced with expanding basic rights to their fellow citizens, they complain that such a logical and moral extension of basic rights is, in their narrow view, "special rights"? I heard the very same arguments during the 1960s and the Civil Rights movement. Again in the 1970s and the Women's Rights movement.

Seems protecting basic civil rights for every citizen means creating "special" rights to the stunted Conservative view of 'rights'.

Perhaps that sorry attitude explains why during each and every struggle for tolerance and the protection of rights to each and every minority group, it has been Conservatives providing the resistance.

It seems that Conservatives are happy with their rights but down right belligerent about protecting the rights of others. In other words, they love America, but hate Americans.

*whiine*

obviously you think everybody should be able to marry....from gays to bisexuals to polygamists to brothers and/or sisters to NAMBLA pervs to "whatever feeeeeels good"......you epitomize the moral relativism of secular progressives who are destroying our country from within...

 

[NYcarbineer]

so...? there's been prohibition against gay marriage for probably as long....or even simply being gay....both prohibitions exist today in many countries....

there have always been aberrations in nature....doesn't mean they all need to be accepted in a society....

Since when did a history of discrimination serve as just cause for a continuation of discrimination?

since he brought it up....

Was it a good argument against women's suffrage to point out that there was a long history of not allowing women to vote?

 

[Nosmo King]

so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....

Why is it whenever Conservatives are faced with expanding basic rights to their fellow citizens, they complain that such a logical and moral extension of basic rights is, in their narrow view, "special rights"? I heard the very same arguments during the 1960s and the Civil Rights movement. Again in the 1970s and the Women's Rights movement.

Seems protecting basic civil rights for every citizen means creating "special" rights to the stunted Conservative view of 'rights'.

Perhaps that sorry attitude explains why during each and every struggle for tolerance and the protection of rights to each and every minority group, it has been Conservatives providing the resistance.

It seems that Conservatives are happy with their rights but down right belligerent about protecting the rights of others. In other words, they love America, but hate Americans.

*whiine*

obviously you think everybody should be able to marry....from gays to bisexuals to polygamists to brothers and/or sisters to NAMBLA pervs to "whatever feeeeeels good"......you epitomize the moral relativism of secular progressives who are destroying our country from within...

It is a desperate move expanding the parameters of the debate to the sublime. Gays yes. Bisexuals yes. Polygamists, no as polygamy is a crime and the first step to protecting the rights of criminals is to de-criminalize the act and there's no support for that. Siblings? As I explained, siblings have a next of kin relationship. That is the relationship established by the marriage contract, therefore, siblings have no need to marry. NAMBLA? The most blatant of all straw men!

What's so awful about protecting the rights of all sober, mature, tax paying, non-criminal Americans?

Why is it every time rights are protected for minorities, Conservatives whine about "special rights"?

 

[WorldWatcher]

please explain your reasoning...

I think she's saying that religion is a choice, unless you can point to a religion gene - then her statement about choice would be consistent with your statements about choice.


(Just translating.)


>>>>

riiiight....that clears it up....

Are you saying one's religion isn't a choice?


>>>>

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Why is it whenever Conservatives are faced with expanding basic rights to their fellow citizens, they complain that such a logical and moral extension of basic rights is, in their narrow view, "special rights"? I heard the very same arguments during the 1960s and the Civil Rights movement. Again in the 1970s and the Women's Rights movement.

Seems protecting basic civil rights for every citizen means creating "special" rights to the stunted Conservative view of 'rights'.

Perhaps that sorry attitude explains why during each and every struggle for tolerance and the protection of rights to each and every minority group, it has been Conservatives providing the resistance.

It seems that Conservatives are happy with their rights but down right belligerent about protecting the rights of others. In other words, they love America, but hate Americans.

With Prop 8, conservative's main argument is that government should be regulating procreation. With DOMA they are arguing that gays should be taxed more.

The epitome of irony!

Government regulation and high taxes. Seems the Conservatives quiver is full of arrows, or boomerangs!

you progressives like to regulate everything else.....and taxes are nothing new with you guys...

 

[bendog]

Why is it whenever Conservatives are faced with expanding basic rights to their fellow citizens, they complain that such a logical and moral extension of basic rights is, in their narrow view, "special rights"? I heard the very same arguments during the 1960s and the Civil Rights movement. Again in the 1970s and the Women's Rights movement.

Seems protecting basic civil rights for every citizen means creating "special" rights to the stunted Conservative view of 'rights'.

Perhaps that sorry attitude explains why during each and every struggle for tolerance and the protection of rights to each and every minority group, it has been Conservatives providing the resistance.

It seems that Conservatives are happy with their rights but down right belligerent about protecting the rights of others. In other words, they love America, but hate Americans.

With Prop 8, conservative's main argument is that government should be regulating procreation. With DOMA they are arguing that gays should be taxed more.

The epitome of irony!

Government regulation and high taxes. Seems the Conservatives quiver is full of arrows, or boomerangs!

Say, suppose all those GLBT folks wanting to get married should ask for more marriage taxes. Maybe the gop would flip!

 

[Seawytch]

With Prop 8, conservative's main argument is that government should be regulating procreation. With DOMA they are arguing that gays should be taxed more.

The epitome of irony!

Government regulation and high taxes. Seems the Conservatives quiver is full of arrows, or boomerangs!

you progressives like to regulate everything else.....and taxes are nothing new with you guys...

Way to support that argument! Gays should pay more taxes because they're gay, but the rich should pay less because they're rich.

Can't regulate guns in any way, but bodies, he'll yeah! Great platform.

 

[Seawytch]

With Prop 8, conservative's main argument is that government should be regulating procreation. With DOMA they are arguing that gays should be taxed more.

The epitome of irony!

Government regulation and high taxes. Seems the Conservatives quiver is full of arrows, or boomerangs!

Say, suppose all those GLBT folks wanting to get married should ask for more marriage taxes. Maybe the gop would flip!

Or we could say our religion requires we be legally married...

 

[Jarhead]

so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....

Why is it whenever Conservatives are faced with expanding basic rights to their fellow citizens, they complain that such a logical and moral extension of basic rights is, in their narrow view, "special rights"? I heard the very same arguments during the 1960s and the Civil Rights movement. Again in the 1970s and the Women's Rights movement.

Seems protecting basic civil rights for every citizen means creating "special" rights to the stunted Conservative view of 'rights'.

Perhaps that sorry attitude explains why during each and every struggle for tolerance and the protection of rights to each and every minority group, it has been Conservatives providing the resistance.

It seems that Conservatives are happy with their rights but down right belligerent about protecting the rights of others. In other words, they love America, but hate Americans.

*whiine*

obviously you think everybody should be able to marry....from gays to bisexuals to polygamists to brothers and/or sisters to NAMBLA pervs to "whatever feeeeeels good"......you epitomize the moral relativism of secular progressives who are destroying our country from within...

why do you see their position in that light?

If you are pro second ammendment, does that mean you ALSO believe it is right for 3 year olds to carry concealed weapons in public?

Is that how you would want the other swide to debate your position? You want them to say "you want to allow 3 year olds to carry live ammo!"

Try to understand the position of those that are for gay marriage....dont cloud it by inserting perversion and the rediculous.

It intentionally diminishes their position...and if you need to diminish their position by inserting the rediculous, then you must feel very insecure about your own position....

 

[Valerie]

One of the most useful aspects of the gay marriage debate is that it reminds us that when conservatives go on and on and on and on about 'liberty',

as they are so often inclined to do,

they are talking out their asses.

You mean faux conservatives? Looks like the GOP just may figure it out some day!

Views are even changing among some college Republican groups.

The College Republicans at the University of Pennsylvania recently announced its support for same-sex marriage.



RELATED: College Republicans echo findings of GOP 'autopsy'
https://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/index.php/ccp/college-republicans-echo-findings-of-gop-autopsy



Anthony Liveris, vice president of the group, said that the organization attempted to create a cross-Ivy League support statement with other chapters about the issue, but received push back from some of the other schools. So far, he says, U Penn and Columbia University are the only chapters that have publicly expressed support for marriage equality.


"A true conservative should endorse empowering Americans to marry whom they love, not limit them," said Liveris in a statement.


Millennials react to same-sex marriage cases

Last spring, GOP pollster Jan van Lohuizen sent a memo to fellow Republicans involved in the presidential campaign noting that support for same-sex marriage was growing “at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down.”

He recommended the party modulate its views by toning down its overt opposition to gay marriage while emphasizing themes of fairness and freedom from government interference.

Tug-of-War Within GOP Over Gay Marriage | Iowa Republicans For Freedom

 

[Ravi]

One of the most useful aspects of the gay marriage debate is that it reminds us that when conservatives go on and on and on and on about 'liberty',

as they are so often inclined to do,

they are talking out their asses.

You mean faux conservatives? Looks like the GOP just may figure it out some day!

Views are even changing among some college Republican groups.

The College Republicans at the University of Pennsylvania recently announced its support for same-sex marriage.



RELATED: College Republicans echo findings of GOP 'autopsy'
https://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/index.php/ccp/college-republicans-echo-findings-of-gop-autopsy



Anthony Liveris, vice president of the group, said that the organization attempted to create a cross-Ivy League support statement with other chapters about the issue, but received push back from some of the other schools. So far, he says, U Penn and Columbia University are the only chapters that have publicly expressed support for marriage equality.


"A true conservative should endorse empowering Americans to marry whom they love, not limit them," said Liveris in a statement.


Millennials react to same-sex marriage cases

Last spring, GOP pollster Jan van Lohuizen sent a memo to fellow Republicans involved in the presidential campaign noting that support for same-sex marriage was growing “at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down.”

He recommended the party modulate its views by toning down its overt opposition to gay marriage while emphasizing themes of fairness and freedom from government interference.

Tug-of-War Within GOP Over Gay Marriage | Iowa Republicans For Freedom

Maybe the hold outs are just being vindictive.

Let's face it, it is doubtful the GOP will ever receive majority support from gays at the voting booth. Add to that the fact that an actual conservative would never be against limiting someone's rights without good reason and what do we have left?

Punishment. The GOP seems to be punishing gays just like they punish so many other groups that see through them.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Why is it whenever Conservatives are faced with expanding basic rights to their fellow citizens, they complain that such a logical and moral extension of basic rights is, in their narrow view, "special rights"? I heard the very same arguments during the 1960s and the Civil Rights movement. Again in the 1970s and the Women's Rights movement.

Seems protecting basic civil rights for every citizen means creating "special" rights to the stunted Conservative view of 'rights'.

Perhaps that sorry attitude explains why during each and every struggle for tolerance and the protection of rights to each and every minority group, it has been Conservatives providing the resistance.

It seems that Conservatives are happy with their rights but down right belligerent about protecting the rights of others. In other words, they love America, but hate Americans.

*whiine*

obviously you think everybody should be able to marry....from gays to bisexuals to polygamists to brothers and/or sisters to NAMBLA pervs to "whatever feeeeeels good"......you epitomize the moral relativism of secular progressives who are destroying our country from within...

When people start threads advocating those sorts of marriage, then you should feel free to argue with them.

In the meantime, you should try to show us why same sex marriage, with exactly the same rules and responsibilities and rights and privilegs as opposite sex marriage, with the exception of the opposite sex requirement,

has any inherent, unique quality about it that is so detrimental to society that the government has a compelling interest to keep it from being legally recognized.

i see....you think gays are somehow *special*.....

you will argue for yourselves but not for the two brothers who want to get married too?....or the bisexual that needs two mates?.....or the rich guy who wants to marry half a dozen 18 year olds?....

what "inherent, unique quality" about those people is "detrimental to society" any more than yours.....?

 

[Jarhead]

*whiine*

obviously you think everybody should be able to marry....from gays to bisexuals to polygamists to brothers and/or sisters to NAMBLA pervs to "whatever feeeeeels good"......you epitomize the moral relativism of secular progressives who are destroying our country from within...

When people start threads advocating those sorts of marriage, then you should feel free to argue with them.

In the meantime, you should try to show us why same sex marriage, with exactly the same rules and responsibilities and rights and privilegs as opposite sex marriage, with the exception of the opposite sex requirement,

has any inherent, unique quality about it that is so detrimental to society that the government has a compelling interest to keep it from being legally recognized.

i see....you think gays are somehow *special*.....

you will argue for yourselves but not for the two brothers who want to get married too?....or the bisexual that needs two mates?.....or the rich guy who wants to marry half a dozen 18 year olds?....

what "inherent, unique quality" about those people is "detrimental to society" any more than yours.....?

I see...so those that support the second ammenedment are selfish.

Why dont they want gun rights for 2 year olds.....and criminals on parole...and mentally challanged?

Stop debating like a child and start to try to understand the popsition of your opponent.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

When people start threads advocating those sorts of marriage, then you should feel free to argue with them.

In the meantime, you should try to show us why same sex marriage, with exactly the same rules and responsibilities and rights and privilegs as opposite sex marriage, with the exception of the opposite sex requirement,

has any inherent, unique quality about it that is so detrimental to society that the government has a compelling interest to keep it from being legally recognized.

i see....you think gays are somehow *special*.....

you will argue for yourselves but not for the two brothers who want to get married too?....or the bisexual that needs two mates?.....or the rich guy who wants to marry half a dozen 18 year olds?....

what "inherent, unique quality" about those people is "detrimental to society" any more than yours.....?

I see...so those that support the second ammenedment are selfish.

Why dont they want gun rights for 2 year olds.....and criminals on parole...and mentally challanged?

Stop debating like a child and start to try to understand the popsition of your opponent.

already have....they can't prove any reason for 'equal protection' because they can't prove immutability of sexual preference in Court...therefore they resort to 'choice'.....

...which leads to above questions.....

 

[WorldWatcher]

i see....you think gays are somehow *special*.....

you will argue for yourselves but not for the two brothers who want to get married too?....or the bisexual that needs two mates?.....or the rich guy who wants to marry half a dozen 18 year olds?....

what "inherent, unique quality" about those people is "detrimental to society" any more than yours.....?

I see...so those that support the second ammenedment are selfish.

Why dont they want gun rights for 2 year olds.....and criminals on parole...and mentally challanged?

Stop debating like a child and start to try to understand the popsition of your opponent.

already have....they can't prove any reason for 'equal protection' because they can't prove immutability of sexual preference in Court...therefore they resort to 'choice'.....

...which leads to above questions.....

Not one law pertaining to restricting Civil Marriage was written on sexual orientation, each and every one was written in terms of gender - an immutable characteristic.



>>>>

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I see...so those that support the second ammenedment are selfish.

Why dont they want gun rights for 2 year olds.....and criminals on parole...and mentally challanged?

Stop debating like a child and start to try to understand the popsition of your opponent.

already have....they can't prove any reason for 'equal protection' because they can't prove immutability of sexual preference in Court...therefore they resort to 'choice'.....

...which leads to above questions.....

Not one law pertaining to restricting Civil Marriage was written on sexual orientation, each and every one was written in terms of gender - an immutable characteristic.



>>>>

thereby providing 'choice' regarding gender....(& marginalizing children)

why not 'choice' for the number as well....?

 

[sfcalifornia]

i don't have to prove immutability.....gender is the criteria for marriage....

you're the one claiming immutability so as to be a protected class....so prove it....

I didn't ask you to prove it and I didn't claim homosexuality is a protected criteria for marriage.

I asked you if your heterosexuality is immutable or if you, at some point in your life, turned straight.

Well?

so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....

So NOW sexual orientation IS immutable?

marriage laws don't discriminate by gender....all men all women can marry....

discrimination doesn't fly....sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like skin color...

So which is it? Is sexual orientation immutable or not?

And how many sexual preferences can there be? Either you like men or women or both?

That's three.

No one's asking for PROTECTED class. Gay people are asking for EXPANDING the federal marriage recognition. See the difference?

 

[sfcalifornia]

so...? there's been prohibition against gay marriage for probably as long....or even simply being gay....both prohibitions exist today in many countries....

there have always been aberrations in nature....doesn't mean they all need to be accepted in a society....

You are so full of shit you have no idea.

Gay-friendly churches have been marrying gay couples for as long as I can remember.

You want to know how I know?

Because I've been going to gay weddings for decades.

So don't even begin to say there's a prohibition against gay marriages.

What you are talking about is the fact that the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriages. That's all. And since it's only the federal government we are talking about here, your religious interests in this debate are irrelevant.

try to keep up.....i was not referring to just U.S. history but to "Gays have been marrying for probably as long as there have been humans."

One country at a time.

How about we focus on the US first before we worry about theocratically ruled Muslim countries?

But since you brought it up:

A Long Tradition Of Same Sex Marriage

As churches struggle with the issue of homosexuality, a long tradition of same sex marriage indicates that the Christian attitude toward same sex unions may not always have been as "straight" as is now suggested. A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai.

It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The husband and wife are in fact two men.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple who enjoyed a celebrated gay marriage. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their gay marriage.

Gay marriage is as old as history, rooted in the mists of antiquity.

Same-Sex Relationships in Early Civilization

Ancient evidence survives of kingdom-sanctioned, same-sex cohabitation, as in the tomb drawings of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom.
Same-Sex Unions throughout Time: A History of Gay Marriage

 

[WorldWatcher]

already have....they can't prove any reason for 'equal protection' because they can't prove immutability of sexual preference in Court...therefore they resort to 'choice'.....

...which leads to above questions.....

Not one law pertaining to restricting Civil Marriage was written on sexual orientation, each and every one was written in terms of gender - an immutable characteristic.



>>>>

thereby providing 'choice' regarding gender....

Gender is not a "choice" it fixed in womb. People are born with either male genital or female (barring the very, VERY rare case of a child born with both sets of sex organs).

(& marginalizing children)

I agree, the discriminatory laws are marginalizing children. The last census showed that 25% of same-sex couples were raising children. During the oral arguments it was pointed out thawt 40,000 children in California were being marginalized because of the discriminatory law.

why not 'choice' for the number as well....?

Bigamy is illegal, being homosexual is not.

But since you asked, there is a compelling government interest in limiting Civil Marriage to two people...

1. The Supreme Court, who according to the Constitution (Article 3, Section 2) arbitrate Constitutional issues as to law and fact. The Constitutionality of legally barring polygamy as a function of Civil Marriage was decided in 1878 in Reynolds v. United States. As such polygamous Civil Marriage does not fall under "Civil Rights", people have the right to Civilly Marry (assuming competence to make such a commitment) but do not have a right to Civilly Marry more than one person.

2. Secondly, because something is a Civil Right does not mean that the exercising of that right cannot be made conditional or restricted if there is a compelling government interest in restricting such activity. Recognition of Civil Marriage for same-sex couples requires no real changes in the functioning of civil law. The system and structure of Civil Marriage already exists, adding same-sex couples makes no change to that structure. On the other hand, providing polygamy under Civil Law would greatly complicate the functioning of government. At last count (around 2004 IIRC) there were 1,134 Federal laws in which Civil Marriage was a condition of the law, then add to that hundreds of laws for each State. When you have two people legally entering a spousal relationship, then laws are pretty straightforward on the application of those laws under different circumstances such as tax law, inheritance, transfer of property, parentage, child custody, social security, medical decision making, etc.

Take for example the logical condition of two spouse Civil Marriage, you have person A married to person B. The functional aspects of government are pretty easy to define in terms of two people. On the other hand when you have a polygamous Civil Marriage involving person A, person B, person C, and person D. Then A+B+C+D are married to each other as a group. In addition B+C+D are married to each other whether A is in the equation of not. Same with A+C+D. Same with A+B+D. Same with A+B+C. Then of course A+B are married individually. Same with A+C. Same with A+D. Then of course B+C are married individually. Same with B+C. Same with B+D. Etc. Etc. The complexity of the legal rights, responsibilities, and benefits grows exponentially with each additional spouse as the same degree of marriage between individuals to each other individual and to the group in general grows.

Now, take each of the previous examples (tax law, inheritance, transfer of property, parentage, child custody, social security, medical decision making), which are only a small fraction of the thousands of laws, and extrapolate the complexity of A+B+C+D (and all the various permutations that creates) and government could not functionally work in the area of Civil Marriage.

Therefore, there is a compelling government interest in limiting Civil Marriage to two spouses as increasing the number of spouses makes the legal consequences of additional spouses and the functional cost of government in managing it's programs as they relate to that complex Civil Marriage unmanageable.


>>>>