Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[PJC]

Give me a bit to digest the fertility laws, not skirting it, just don't jump to conclusions very often.

Pretty straightforward, there are states that require proof of inability to reproduce as a condition of Civil Marriage.

Which throws a big whole in the procreation argument.






You keep going back to the procreation argument. That same-sex and different-sex couple are different because one can procreate and one can't.

But procreation has never been a requirement for Civil Marriage. (In the past it was a legal reason to seek a divorce, but that is another discussion.)

You say (and I paraphrase), "but that was the intent", OK - I gave you that (not really, but just as a point of discussion). But with that, there is still the fact that known infertile couples who will never be able to procreate are still allowed to Civilly Marry and as a matter of fact some couples must prove infertility before being allowed to Civilly Marry.

Given those conditions then, laws were written and passed to target a specific group - to keep the homosexuals from Civilly Marrying. If procreation then is the basis of the argument and an exception to the procreation requirement is provided for infertile different-sex couples - then under the Grievance Clause of the 1st Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment - it becomes the responsibility for the government to articulate a compelling government interest in justifying why two like situated groups are treated differently. Especially when the historical record shows that the reason for the passage of such laws was based on moral disapproval for the identified group.




Between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a same-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a different-sex couple?

From a government compelling interest standpoint - I'd go with "not".




From a legal perspective I would not say that there is a difference between the groups.

The real question is "Is there a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups (see above) differently to warrant upholding invidious and capricious laws which target a select group?"

I would enjoy hearing your side of this.

OK


>>>>

That's right, part of my argument is procreation.

Let change your question just a wee bit if that's ok? Between, law abiding, tax paying, related, whether they are fertile or infertile, consenting adult, US Citizen. What is the compelling interest in not allowing them to Marry?

Interesting, isn't it?

Your attempt to change the question is a deflection and an evasion from answering to the actual argument.

You've been relying on fallacious arguments; straw men, moving the goal posts, and errors of fact; now you are using a red herring.


Please, simply answering the question posed honestly, forthrightly, and candidly:
"Is there a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups (see above) differently to warrant upholding invidious and capricious laws which target a select group?"

Yes or no. If yes, what exactly is that compelling government interest?

 

[PJC]

My opinion is that, if same gender marriage is not different than opposite gender marriage, the answer is simple. The Government has either no compelling interest, or they have a compelling interest.

Can't be both, or can it?

You again evaded answering the question.

Is there a compelling government interest? If so, what is it?

 

[Flaylo]

So it is only about semantics for you. Okay. You made your point.

Your concession in that regard is cool and I thank you for that; unfortunately however it is irrelevent because the majority of the anti-gay marriage/religious far right crowd disagree with you and continue to deny gays "the tax rights and property rights under a civil union".

Peronally, the fact that gays want the word marriage does not infringe on my rights nor on anyone else's rights.

I am a firm believer in the paraphrased adage "Your rights end at my nose."

marriage ain't some shit to play with, thats the problem with man today, being brainwashed by bullshit like "You can be whatever you want to be and do anything you want" well without knowledge and God leading the way you cannot, leave what is God's to God and give those homosexuals those tax and property rights, but I know they wouldn't just want that, they want their homosexuality to be legitamitzed and accepted, laws can't force that.

The fact that gay people wish to marry the person they love is not “playing with” anything. Are you making the claim that gays are incapable of love? It is impossible to love someone romantically who is the same sex? Their relationships are not valid?

Brainwashed by bullshit? So you’re claiming that Americans are not free to be whatever they want to be, and do whatever they want to do as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others?

I agree people need knowledge.

But religion and belief in gods are not necessary for everyone. I have no beef with your religious beliefs; you are free to believe in a god and to worship as you choose. Would you allow me and others the same courtesy and respect to believe that there are no gods?

If marriage belongs to a god, and I am an atheist, is my heterosexual marriage invalid in your eyes? Religion had not a single thing to do with my wedding or my marriage.

You may decide not to answer that, so I will answer it for you just in case. Civil marriage does not require religious belief. Marriage exists and has existed separate from Christianity, separate from Judaism, separate from Islam, and separate from other religions for millennia. Neither religion nor gods invented it. Mankind did.

I don’t want to give gods anything; nor should I have to.

As for your fallacious projection assuming you know what gays want; how do you know? How many gays told you they want their homosexuality to be legitimized and accepted? Or are you making an assumption based solely upon your prejudices and biases?

Try facts and logic instead.

Let me ask you; if they have the full rights and the word marriage; what tangible effect will that have on your life, sir? What rights of yours are being infringed upon, specifically?

Love cannot be legislated stop it with that compelling interest bullshit, and to be specific, all people have the right to fucking marriage, what I am against is people seeking to change marriage to suit whatever situation you're in. High school diplomas are only issued when you finish and graduate high school, a person who has a GED and wants the definition of high school diploma changed to suit them is wrong just like gays are wrong, we can't go around redefining the fucking law to suit people's preferences, what next, bestiality and siblings who want fuck each other?

 

[ima]

Being openly against gays and gay marriage is a form of hate speech. I'd like to see some arrests and prosecutions. Cloaking a hate message in a thin veneer of religion shouldn't matter.

 

[Flaylo]

Being openly against gays and gay marriage is a form of hate speech. I'd like to see some arrests and prosecutions. Cloaking a hate message in a thin veneer of religion shouldn't matter.

Its not hate to be against gays marrying, anyone who says so is full of shit, whats socially more acceptable is not necessarily right and just.

 

[ima]

Being openly against gays and gay marriage is a form of hate speech. I'd like to see some arrests and prosecutions. Cloaking a hate message in a thin veneer of religion shouldn't matter.

Its not hate to be against gays marrying, anyone who says so is full of shit, whats socially more acceptable is not necessarily right and just.

You wouldn't get away with holding protests with signs saying that negros are going to hell because of their skin colour. Or that god hates negros, or that negros shouldn't marry or adopt...

 

[Flaylo]

Being openly against gays and gay marriage is a form of hate speech. I'd like to see some arrests and prosecutions. Cloaking a hate message in a thin veneer of religion shouldn't matter.

Its not hate to be against gays marrying, anyone who says so is full of shit, whats socially more acceptable is not necessarily right and just.

You wouldn't get away with holding protests with signs saying that negros are going to hell because of their skin colour. Or that god hates negros, or that negros shouldn't marry or adopt...

I actually don't give a shit, just because people aren't holding up the signs doesn't mean their mentality and minstate isn't thinking that same thing.

 

[rightwinger]

I am saying this shit once again, give them the tax rights and property rights under a civil union, I'm not against that LEAVE marriage for a man and woman since that what MARRIAGE has alway been and is, give them the tax and property rights without changing the definition of marriage. They should have NO complaints, anything other than that ids purposely advancing a homosexual agenda, not equal rights.

That train has already left the station

Offering the civil union cookie is no longer going to cut it. How many states still block civil unions?

Gays are going for the full monty right now. They will not accept anything other than full marriage ....and why should they?

You are now fighting a losing battle. The same battle you lost with interracial marriage. Time to just accept it like most Americans already have

 

[Flaylo]

I am saying this shit once again, give them the tax rights and property rights under a civil union, I'm not against that LEAVE marriage for a man and woman since that what MARRIAGE has alway been and is, give them the tax and property rights without changing the definition of marriage. They should have NO complaints, anything other than that ids purposely advancing a homosexual agenda, not equal rights.

That train has already left the station

Offering the civil union cookie is no longer going to cut it. How many states still block civil unions?

Gays are going for the full monty right now. They will not accept anything other than full marriage ....and why should they?

You are now fighting a losing battle. The same battle you lost with interracial marriage. Time to just accept it like most Americans already have

Civil unions with all the rights are just as full as a marriage , its just that one is exclusively for a man and woman, all the SCOTUS has to do is give civil unions the full tax and property rights and interracial marriage is not the fucking same as gay marriage, it was still a man marrying a woman, not a redefinition of marriage itself.

 

[JoeB131]

Two points

If "homosexual unions" are given "equal rights", what is to stop same sex relatives from forming a "union" to scam the tax code/gov't benefits?

What will be the policy regarding "homosexual unions", regarding travel into foreign nations where homosexuality is ILLEGAL? How many military personnel will be sacrificed trying to force this lifestyle onto "foreign soil"?

Incest is still against the law. That's what would stop such "unions" from happening.

As for your second question (seriously, one of those countries would be more than happy to have you), I doubt any country would risk an international incident.

Of course, if you think they don't have gays in Iran just like here, you are deluded.

 

[rightwinger]

I am saying this shit once again, give them the tax rights and property rights under a civil union, I'm not against that LEAVE marriage for a man and woman since that what MARRIAGE has alway been and is, give them the tax and property rights without changing the definition of marriage. They should have NO complaints, anything other than that ids purposely advancing a homosexual agenda, not equal rights.

That train has already left the station

Offering the civil union cookie is no longer going to cut it. How many states still block civil unions?

Gays are going for the full monty right now. They will not accept anything other than full marriage ....and why should they?

You are now fighting a losing battle. The same battle you lost with interracial marriage. Time to just accept it like most Americans already have

Civil unions with all the rights are just as full as a marriage , its just that one is exclusively for a man and woman, all the SCOTUS has to do is give civil unions the full tax and property rights and interracial marriage is not the fucking same as gay marriage, it was still a man marrying a woman, not a redefinition of marriage itself.

You kind of screwed that one up didn't you?

First you tried to ban civil unions in Red States. Did a pretty good job getting those Constitutional amendments passed didn't you?

Now that gays are winning the fight for full marriage rights you are scampering to offer them civil unions. Looks like you are too late doesn't it?

 

[Flaylo]

That train has already left the station

Offering the civil union cookie is no longer going to cut it. How many states still block civil unions?

Gays are going for the full monty right now. They will not accept anything other than full marriage ....and why should they?

You are now fighting a losing battle. The same battle you lost with interracial marriage. Time to just accept it like most Americans already have

Civil unions with all the rights are just as full as a marriage , its just that one is exclusively for a man and woman, all the SCOTUS has to do is give civil unions the full tax and property rights and interracial marriage is not the fucking same as gay marriage, it was still a man marrying a woman, not a redefinition of marriage itself.

You kind of screwed that one up didn't you?

First you tried to ban civil unions in Red States. Did a pretty good job getting those Constitutional amendments passed didn't you?

Now that gays are winning the fight for full marriage rights you are scampering to offer them civil unions. Looks like you are too late doesn't it?

I didn't try to ban shit, I was never against civil unions, I'm only against the redefinition of marriage, how the fuck you figure I was against civil unions? I'm all for it, give them the tax and property rights especially the taxes, no sense in only the rich g=benefiting from this tax system. There are not winning any fights its bullshit.

 

[rightwinger]

I am saying this shit once again, give them the tax rights and property rights under a civil union, I'm not against that LEAVE marriage for a man and woman since that what MARRIAGE has alway been and is, give them the tax and property rights without changing the definition of marriage. They should have NO complaints, anything other than that ids purposely advancing a homosexual agenda, not equal rights.

That train has already left the station

Offering the civil union cookie is no longer going to cut it. How many states still block civil unions?

Gays are going for the full monty right now. They will not accept anything other than full marriage ....and why should they?

You are now fighting a losing battle. The same battle you lost with interracial marriage. Time to just accept it like most Americans already have

Civil unions with all the rights are just as full as a marriage , its just that one is exclusively for a man and woman, all the SCOTUS has to do is give civil unions the full tax and property rights and interracial marriage is not the fucking same as gay marriage, it was still a man marrying a woman, not a redefinition of marriage itself.

Interracial marriage closely parallels gay marriage

Why was interracial marriage banned if it was between a man and a woman? Because racist assholes considered it yucky. They cringed when they saw blacks and whites holding hands. They said it was immoral. They did not want white women having sex with black men. They did not like the mixed race offspring of these unions. So they insisted that their government ban these marriages

People such as yourself consider sex between gays to be yucky. You cringe when you see gays hold hands. You do not want children to be raised by gays. You say it is immoral and you force your government to enforce your views

 

[PJC]

Love cannot be legislated stop it with that compelling interest bullshit, and to be specific, all people have the right to fucking marriage, what I am against is people seeking to change marriage to suit whatever situation you're in. High school diplomas are only issued when you finish and graduate high school, a person who has a GED and wants the definition of high school diploma changed to suit them is wrong just like gays are wrong, we can't go around redefining the fucking law to suit people's preferences, what next, bestiality and siblings who want fuck each other?

Didn’t say love should be legislated. (you’ve used a straw man fallacy).

Why should we ignore compelling interest? Because you can’t answer?? (you’re using an argument by dismissal)

Yes, thanks for conceding the point that all people have the right to marriage. We’re making some headway.

No one is changing marriage to suit anything. (your argument here is a red herring).

Your GED/diploma analogy is spurious and faulty. The State may have a legitimate compelling interest in keeping the definitions of the two separate. Many government institutions and universities regard the GED test credential as the same as a high school diploma with respect to program eligibility and as a prerequisite for admissions. The United States military, however, has explicitly higher requirements in admissions for GED test takers to compensate for their lack of a traditional high school diploma (as you clearly know, Flaylo). Likewise, economic research finds that the GED certification itself (i.e. without further postsecondary education or training) does not create the same labor market opportunities available to traditional high school graduates. There is clearly a difference in the two which the government may (or may not) find to be of sufficient disparity to claim a compelling interest exists for maintaining the separate definitions.

We’re not redefining the law. We’re simply using the law (in this case meaning specifically the 9th and 14th Amendments) as it is defined. None of the arguments you’ve presented have rebutted the legal points made regarding DOMA being unconstitutional. All you have done is used the same standard fallacies and deflections.

Case in point, your “bestiality and siblings” argument. It’s still a slippery slope argument and merely an error in reasoning, therefore it’s illogical and worthless.

Your habitual use of profanity indicates you’re angry and frustrated. Is it because you’re beginning to realize your arguments are unreasonable and they suck ass?

Just a suggestion: relax; it’ll help you think more rationally. (you can use that advice or tell me to shove it up my 4th point of contact, whichever you like….no biggie to me either way.)

And hey dude…… no reason to stress, bullets ain’t flyin’.

I ask you again: if they have the full rights and the word marriage; what tangible effect will that have on your life, sir? What rights of yours are being infringed upon, specifically?

why do you and your kind (meaning the anti-gay crowd) seem to always avoid answering honestly?

 

[PJC]

Being openly against gays and gay marriage is a form of hate speech. I'd like to see some arrests and prosecutions. Cloaking a hate message in a thin veneer of religion shouldn't matter.

Its not hate to be against gays marrying, anyone who says so is full of shit, whats socially more acceptable is not necessarily right and just.

If it is just being against gay marriage, that's one thing and it may not constitute hate. From the looks of some of yall's posts however, there seems to be quite a bit of animosity and loathing, judging from the prolific use of profanity, slurs and angry retorts.

I don't know why some of you guys harbor so much obsessive and prejudiced irrational hatred for people who have done you no ill.

 

[PJC]

Civil unions with all the rights are just as full as a marriage , its just that one is exclusively for a man and woman, all the SCOTUS has to do is give civil unions the full tax and property rights and interracial marriage is not the fucking same as gay marriage, it was still a man marrying a woman, not a redefinition of marriage itself.

No, they’re not just as full. Separate but equal is not equal. There is no legitimate justification for refusing to let them use the word marriage. We keep asking you guys for a justification; all ya’ll keep doing is avoiding and deflecting.

The opposition to interracial marriage used the same arguments you are using right now. The definition of marriage in this country has always been between men and women of the same race; those liberals are trying to change the definition of marriage to let the blacks marry the whites and the whites marry the blacks. It is against nature. It is against religion. It is against God. Blah blah frigging blah.

Same tired bigoted crap, different target of hatred.

I wonder, once gays have full and equal rights and are not openly discriminated against; which group’ll be your next target of intolerance?

It’s easy to find reasons to hate your fellow man; harder but more honorable to find reasons to live in peace with him.

 

[Seawytch]

There are not winning any fights its bullshit.

Yeah, actually, we are...

Poll: 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage

 

[PJC]

I didn't try to ban shit, I was never against civil unions, I'm only against the redefinition of marriage, how the fuck you figure I was against civil unions? I'm all for it, give them the tax and property rights especially the taxes, no sense in only the rich g=benefiting from this tax system. There are not winning any fights its bullshit.

The "you" he meant was clearly referring to the plural "you" (as in your fellow gay-haters). That's why i use the word "ya'll". You're fellow gay-haters banned civil unions. Blame them.

 

[Pop23]

Pretty straightforward, there are states that require proof of inability to reproduce as a condition of Civil Marriage.

Which throws a big whole in the procreation argument.






You keep going back to the procreation argument. That same-sex and different-sex couple are different because one can procreate and one can't.

But procreation has never been a requirement for Civil Marriage. (In the past it was a legal reason to seek a divorce, but that is another discussion.)

You say (and I paraphrase), "but that was the intent", OK - I gave you that (not really, but just as a point of discussion). But with that, there is still the fact that known infertile couples who will never be able to procreate are still allowed to Civilly Marry and as a matter of fact some couples must prove infertility before being allowed to Civilly Marry.

Given those conditions then, laws were written and passed to target a specific group - to keep the homosexuals from Civilly Marrying. If procreation then is the basis of the argument and an exception to the procreation requirement is provided for infertile different-sex couples - then under the Grievance Clause of the 1st Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment - it becomes the responsibility for the government to articulate a compelling government interest in justifying why two like situated groups are treated differently. Especially when the historical record shows that the reason for the passage of such laws was based on moral disapproval for the identified group.




Between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a same-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a different-sex couple?

From a government compelling interest standpoint - I'd go with "not".




From a legal perspective I would not say that there is a difference between the groups.

The real question is "Is there a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups (see above) differently to warrant upholding invidious and capricious laws which target a select group?"




OK


>>>>

That's right, part of my argument is procreation.

Let change your question just a wee bit if that's ok? Between, law abiding, tax paying, related, whether they are fertile or infertile, consenting adult, US Citizen. What is the compelling interest in not allowing them to Marry?

Interesting, isn't it?

Your attempt to change the question is a deflection and an evasion from answering to the actual argument.

You've been relying on fallacious arguments; straw men, moving the goal posts, and errors of fact; now you are using a red herring.


Please, simply answering the question posed honestly, forthrightly, and candidly:
"Is there a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups (see above) differently to warrant upholding invidious and capricious laws which target a select group?"

Yes or no. If yes, what exactly is that compelling government interest?

Funny, you claim I deflect, then you yourself deflect?

Please answer the following questions because it is you that claim that including same gender couples into marriage will treat all equal.

Is there a compelling state interest in denial of a marriage certificate to heterosexual siblings, both of the age of consent?

Is there a compelling state interest in denial of a marriage certificate to brothers, both of the age of consent?

You know they will be treated differently, won't they?

Gets a bit messy

 

[Flaylo]

I didn't try to ban shit, I was never against civil unions, I'm only against the redefinition of marriage, how the fuck you figure I was against civil unions? I'm all for it, give them the tax and property rights especially the taxes, no sense in only the rich g=benefiting from this tax system. There are not winning any fights its bullshit.

The "you" he meant was clearly referring to the plural "you" (as in your fellow gay-haters). That's why i use the word "ya'll". You're fellow gay-haters banned civil unions. Blame them.

I'm not a fucking gay hater just because I believe marriage is between a man and woman, fuck that, that guilt trip shit works not on me.