What is the Purpose of Gay Marriage?

[Seawytch]

The position that Gays are fighting for their civil rights to be married, protected under the 14th amendment is a redd herring.

Gays aren't looking for the same rights everyone has, they are looking to create a new right that nobody has, except in a few dumb states. You're gay right? Aren't you provided with the right to marry a consenting male adult if you choose? So what's the problem then? Oh, you want to marry a person of the same sex? Well you're not allowed and nobody is, barring a few states.

Are you aware that your argument was used in Loving? It was argued that it wasn't discrimination because blacks and whites could marry their own race.

Aren't you in fine company...

When marriage equality is realized, you'll be able to do it too so it won't be a special right.

I didn't know gay was a race.

It is an immutable trait. Discrimination is discrimination.

 

[Rocko]

Gays are citizens. Marriage is a right....ergo civil rights. If another specific group of Americans....let's say, those over 65 were suddenly denied legal marriage....there'd be a cry for equal civil rights alright.

The position that Gays are fighting for their civil rights to be married, protected under the 14th amendment is a redd herring.

Gays aren't looking for the same rights everyone has, they are looking to create a new right that nobody has, except in a few dumb states. You're gay right? Aren't you provided with the right to marry a consenting male adult if you choose? So what's the problem then? Oh, you want to marry a person of the same sex? Well you're not allowed and nobody is, barring a few states.

Actually with marriage equality there is not the creation of a right that nobody has. Straight people will also be allowed to Civilly Marry someone of the same gender.


That's not a "right that nobody has", they can do it also.


>>>>

As it stands (in most states) gay people aren't allowed to marry same sex partners and niether are straight people. There is no discrimination.

 

[Seawytch]

The position that Gays are fighting for their civil rights to be married, protected under the 14th amendment is a redd herring.

Gays aren't looking for the same rights everyone has, they are looking to create a new right that nobody has, except in a few dumb states. You're gay right? Aren't you provided with the right to marry a consenting male adult if you choose? So what's the problem then? Oh, you want to marry a person of the same sex? Well you're not allowed and nobody is, barring a few states.

Actually with marriage equality there is not the creation of a right that nobody has. Straight people will also be allowed to Civilly Marry someone of the same gender.


That's not a "right that nobody has", they can do it also.


>>>>

As it stands (in most states) gay people aren't allowed to marry same sex partners and niether are straight people. There is no discrimination.

Argument tried and failed in Loving v Virginia. Don't you question why lawyers defending DOMA and Pro 8 don't even try that one?

 

[Rocko]

Are you aware that your argument was used in Loving? It was argued that it wasn't discrimination because blacks and whites could marry their own race.

Aren't you in fine company...

When marriage equality is realized, you'll be able to do it too so it won't be a special right.

I didn't know gay was a race.

It is an immutable trait. Discrimination is discrimination.

Discrimination against what exactly? What can a straight person do that a gay person cannot? Neither can marry a member of their own sex.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The position that Gays are fighting for their civil rights to be married, protected under the 14th amendment is a redd herring.

Gays aren't looking for the same rights everyone has, they are looking to create a new right that nobody has, except in a few dumb states. You're gay right? Aren't you provided with the right to marry a consenting male adult if you choose? So what's the problem then? Oh, you want to marry a person of the same sex? Well you're not allowed and nobody is, barring a few states.

Actually with marriage equality there is not the creation of a right that nobody has. Straight people will also be allowed to Civilly Marry someone of the same gender.


That's not a "right that nobody has", they can do it also.


>>>>

As it stands (in most states) gay people aren't allowed to marry same sex partners and niether are straight people. There is no discrimination.

So tell us, how well did that logic work when used by the Commonwealth of Virginia in the Loving v. Virginia case?

Coloreds could marry, whites could marry - just not each other. There is no discrimination. Did the SCOTUS buy it?


>>>>

 

[Rocko]

Actually with marriage equality there is not the creation of a right that nobody has. Straight people will also be allowed to Civilly Marry someone of the same gender.


That's not a "right that nobody has", they can do it also.


>>>>

As it stands (in most states) gay people aren't allowed to marry same sex partners and niether are straight people. There is no discrimination.

So tell us, how well did that logic work when used by the Commonwealth of Virginia in the Loving v. Virginia case?

Coloreds could marry, whites could marry - just not each other. There is no discrimination. Did the SCOTUS buy it?


>>>>

Another redd herring that doesn't apply whatsoever. There is no discrimination. You're looking to change the institution, not allow equal access.

 

[WorldWatcher]

As it stands (in most states) gay people aren't allowed to marry same sex partners and niether are straight people. There is no discrimination.

So tell us, how well did that logic work when used by the Commonwealth of Virginia in the Loving v. Virginia case?

Coloreds could marry, whites could marry - just not each other. There is no discrimination. Did the SCOTUS buy it?


>>>>

Another redd herring that doesn't apply whatsoever. There is no discrimination. You're looking to change the institution, not allow equal access.

Not a red herring, I notice though that you failed to admit that the SCOTUS didn't by it then either.

Understandable.


>>>>

 

[Rocko]

So tell us, how well did that logic work when used by the Commonwealth of Virginia in the Loving v. Virginia case?

Coloreds could marry, whites could marry - just not each other. There is no discrimination. Did the SCOTUS buy it?


>>>>

Another redd herring that doesn't apply whatsoever. There is no discrimination. You're looking to change the institution, not allow equal access.

Not a red herring, I notice though that you failed to admit that the SCOTUS didn't by it then either.

Understandable.


>>>>

It's not the same argument.

 

[Seawytch]

Another redd herring that doesn't apply whatsoever. There is no discrimination. You're looking to change the institution, not allow equal access.

Not a red herring, I notice though that you failed to admit that the SCOTUS didn't by it then either.

Understandable.


>>>>

It's not the same argument.

of course it is. It's okay, they felt justified too. They even tried to use the bible like y'all do.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. ~ Judge Bazile 1965

 

[WorldWatcher]

Another redd herring that doesn't apply whatsoever. There is no discrimination. You're looking to change the institution, not allow equal access.

Not a red herring, I notice though that you failed to admit that the SCOTUS didn't by it then either.

Understandable.


>>>>

It's not the same argument.

Sure it is. That can't be admitted though because that would invalidate it's use.


The structure of the argument is because the individuals were treated the same that there was no discrimination. Then: Coloreds could marry coloreds and whites can marry whites - they are treated the same. Now: men can marry women and women can marry men - they are treated the same. Same structure. The only difference is then they used race, now the law uses gender.


>>>>

 

[Spoonman]

Gays are citizens. Marriage is a right....ergo civil rights. If another specific group of Americans....let's say, those over 65 were suddenly denied legal marriage....there'd be a cry for equal civil rights alright.

Marriage is not a right anymore than driving a car is a right. If marriage was a right, anyone could marry anyone they choose. Obviously not everyone will want to marry anyone. People are more selective than that. What if a 65 year old man wants to marry a particular 19 year old girl? The 19 year old girl would most likely say no, especially if she had a 21 year old knocking at the front door... The 65 may wish to marry, but he has no right to be married unless he can get someone to marry him. That would likely be someone 50 something or older....

Really? All rights are absolute? Everyone, without restriction, can have a gun?

The SCOTUS, on numerous occasions, declared marriage a fundamental right.

unfortunately, like with your rights to marry, the government is messing with our rights to own guns too. it is a real sad state of affiars when government starts to meddle with our rights. They never seem to get it right.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is not a right anymore than driving a car is a right. If marriage was a right, anyone could marry anyone they choose. Obviously not everyone will want to marry anyone. People are more selective than that. What if a 65 year old man wants to marry a particular 19 year old girl? The 19 year old girl would most likely say no, especially if she had a 21 year old knocking at the front door... The 65 may wish to marry, but he has no right to be married unless he can get someone to marry him. That would likely be someone 50 something or older....

Really? All rights are absolute? Everyone, without restriction, can have a gun?

The SCOTUS, on numerous occasions, declared marriage a fundamental right.

unfortunately, like with your rights to marry, the government is messing with our rights to own guns too. it is a real sad state of affiars when government starts to meddle with our rights. They never seem to get it right.

The point is that there is no absolute, unregulated right. If a societal harm can be demonstrated, a right can be restricted. There is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult partners.

 

[Spoonman]

Really? All rights are absolute? Everyone, without restriction, can have a gun?

The SCOTUS, on numerous occasions, declared marriage a fundamental right.

unfortunately, like with your rights to marry, the government is messing with our rights to own guns too. it is a real sad state of affiars when government starts to meddle with our rights. They never seem to get it right.

The point is that there is no absolute, unregulated right. If a societal harm can be demonstrated, a right can be restricted. There is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult partners.

i own a lot of guns. I own a lot of assault style weapons. I own a lot of large capacity magazines. I've shot well over 200,000 rounds through them. All of them were purchased perfectly legally. not one of those rounds from any of those magazines has ever hurt more than a target. yet, with the stroke of a politicians pen, most of them became illegal. there is a specific bill in the bill of rights that says I have a right to own those guns uninfringed. I don't believe any politician has the right to change that right. have they demonstrated how I have hurt anyone? yet my rights, like yours, have been infringed

 

[Seawytch]

unfortunately, like with your rights to marry, the government is messing with our rights to own guns too. it is a real sad state of affiars when government starts to meddle with our rights. They never seem to get it right.

The point is that there is no absolute, unregulated right. If a societal harm can be demonstrated, a right can be restricted. There is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult partners.

i own a lot of guns. I own a lot of assault style weapons. I own a lot of large capacity magazines. I've shot well over 200,000 rounds through them. All of them were purchased perfectly legally. not one of those rounds from any of those magazines has ever hurt more than a target. yet, with the stroke of a politicians pen, most of them became illegal. there is a specific bill in the bill of rights that says I have a right to own those guns uninfringed. I don't believe any politician has the right to change that right. have they demonstrated how I have hurt anyone? yet my rights, like yours, have been infringed

You're missing the point. Do we give convicted felons guns? Certifiably insane people?

 

[bendog]

You don't have a "right" to weapons anymore than anyone has a right to marry any other consenting adult or adultS Rather, the question is when, and to what degree, the govt can regulate via laws in such a way as limit EVERYONE'S rights to guns and marriage. What's the reason for the restriction? Is there a legit reason to deprive a felon of a gun or a GLBT person a marriage?

The BOR merely says the govt can't prohibit private ownership of guns for self defense. (actually it doesn't even say that much, but Scalia got four other votes for that)

 

[Spoonman]

The point is that there is no absolute, unregulated right. If a societal harm can be demonstrated, a right can be restricted. There is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult partners.

i own a lot of guns. I own a lot of assault style weapons. I own a lot of large capacity magazines. I've shot well over 200,000 rounds through them. All of them were purchased perfectly legally. not one of those rounds from any of those magazines has ever hurt more than a target. yet, with the stroke of a politicians pen, most of them became illegal. there is a specific bill in the bill of rights that says I have a right to own those guns uninfringed. I don't believe any politician has the right to change that right. have they demonstrated how I have hurt anyone? yet my rights, like yours, have been infringed

You're missing the point. Do we give convicted felons guns? Certifiably insane people?

no, you shouldn't give them guns. but in the process of trying to deal with the very small majority you shouldn't be infriging on the rights of of the rest.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The point is that there is no absolute, unregulated right. If a societal harm can be demonstrated, a right can be restricted. There is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult partners.

i own a lot of guns. I own a lot of assault style weapons. I own a lot of large capacity magazines. I've shot well over 200,000 rounds through them. All of them were purchased perfectly legally. not one of those rounds from any of those magazines has ever hurt more than a target. yet, with the stroke of a politicians pen, most of them became illegal. there is a specific bill in the bill of rights that says I have a right to own those guns uninfringed. I don't believe any politician has the right to change that right. have they demonstrated how I have hurt anyone? yet my rights, like yours, have been infringed

You're missing the point. Do we give convicted felons guns? Certifiably insane people?

Correct.

Just as we don’t allow siblings to marry, or fathers and daughters, or children under a certain age; no right is absolute, all rights are subject to some restriction.

It comes down to evidence and what can be proven in court.

And with regard to same-sex couples and marriage, those opposed have simply failed to document any factual evidence or justify a compelling reason to support their opposition.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I think it is to acknowledge that homosexual couples are a relevant and equal asset to society as same sex couples are - and if one is recognized by the State then both should be. I think neither should be.

"If one is recognized by the State."

This is what is wrong with this country.

THE STATE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RECOGNIZE ANYTHING

WHY THE FUCK DOES THE STATE DICTATE MARRIAGE AT ALL?\

WHY DOES IT SAY WHICH GUNS I CAN HAVE?

WHY DOES IT SAY WHICH DRUGS I CAN USE

WHY DOES IT SAY WHO I CAN MARRY

WHY DOES IT MAKE MY PERSONAL CHOICES THAT DONT HARM ANYONE ELSE?

GET A FUCKING CLUE

READ YOUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS (Common Sense, Federalist Papers, Ratification debates, Constitutional Convention, Articles of Confederation, EVERYTHING DURING THAT TIME THAT CONCERNED THE TOPIC)

FUCK THE STATE

 

[Nosmo King]

I think it is to acknowledge that homosexual couples are a relevant and equal asset to society as same sex couples are - and if one is recognized by the State then both should be. I think neither should be.

"If one is recognized by the State."

This is what is wrong with this country.

THE STATE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RECOGNIZE ANYTHING

WHY THE FUCK DOES THE STATE DICTATE MARRIAGE AT ALL?\

WHY DOES IT SAY WHICH GUNS I CAN HAVE?

WHY DOES IT SAY WHICH DRUGS I CAN USE

WHY DOES IT SAY WHO I CAN MARRY

WHY DOES IT MAKE MY PERSONAL CHOICES THAT DONT HARM ANYONE ELSE?

GET A FUCKING CLUE

READ YOUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS (Common Sense, Federalist Papers, Ratification debates, Constitutional Convention, Articles of Confederation, EVERYTHING DURING THAT TIME THAT CONCERNED THE TOPIC)

FUCK THE STATE

The marriage license issued by the state establishes a legal next of kin relationship. In essence, a new legal entity.

Surely you do not oppose the rule of law. Your comment about why the state should recognize anything at all flies in the face of the rule of law. Surely you are in favor of public health. That's why the state makes drug abuse a crime. Surely you support property rights.

All these matters are protected and established by government. Without government, without a scaffolding of law, we could not exist, let alone progress as a society. Your attitude reflects what I perceive as a deep mistrust of government. Would you prefer we had no government at all? No apparatus to maintain civic order?


Perhaps you should take a moment and consider these aspects of life before you make another immature profanity-laced rant against the rule of law. Your post is that of a petulant child who does not understand why he cannot have gummi bears and Mountain Dew for dinner.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The marriage license issued by the state establishes a legal next of kin relationship. In essence, a new legal entity.

Surely you do not oppose the rule of law. Your comment about why the state should recognize anything at all flies in the face of the rule of law. Surely you are in favor of public health. That's why the state makes drug abuse a crime. Surely you support property rights.

All these matters are protected and established by government. Without government, without a scaffolding of law, we could not exist, let alone progress as a society. Your attitude reflects what I perceive as a deep mistrust of government. Would you prefer we had no government at all? No apparatus to maintain civic order?


Perhaps you should take a moment and consider these aspects of life before you make another immature profanity-laced rant against the rule of law. Your post is that of a petulant child who does not understand why he cannot have gummi bears and Mountain Dew for dinner.

Look up the word "Allodial" and the phrase "Common Law" and you'll see how our ancestors dealt with these things before the "STATE" controlled all of our decisions. You'd be surprised how reliable free people are to handle their own problems. In fact you'd learn that they even did a better job at it.