Anti-Homosexual Bigotry = 1950's Racism 2.0

i would agree with this 99% of the time. but i dont think it really applies in the case of rights infringement. which this is.
 
$20,000,000 spent to deprive human beings of the same rights that everyday people take for granted?

Just think of how much humanitarian aide $20,000,000 could buy.

I'm just simply disgusted by this.
 
the argument that it is rights infringement is moot. Again, P-Face, we are not protected by the bill of rights for state laws, only federal ones. Albiet, there has been a massive incorporation both forced, and set by the precedence of supreme court rulings in the past 50 years that have defined certain rights that neither state nor federal governments can interfere with. These are: free speech, no segregation (race and gender defined only), eminent domain (only to a very certain extent), privacy (even though thats not even in the bill of rights, but roe v. wade) , due process, no double jeopardy, miranda rights, right to counsel, assembly, petition, press, unreasonable search and seizure, and exercise of religion.

But the power to marry, a power that is still tied somewhat to religion, though not expliciitly associated with any single established religion (thus legal given everson v. board of education) . Thus marriage, is a government provided service, not law, and can be selectively distributed (much like rebate checks) and the term marriage is up to the people, sometimes directly, to decide.

Moreover, it is on a district or constituency, by local constituency decided level where the federal gov't has no rein. The federal govt can ban gay marriage (Defense of Marriages Act under Clinton), but states have every right to disobey it (i.e. massachusetts) with no legal repurcussions.

What i'm trying to say is, any argument involving the constitution is moot seeing as how its 1 not a constitutional matter, 2 it is a locally decided subject, and it doenst infringe on any guaranteed rights.

Im also trying to defend the ability for states to still establish their own laws, laws that have been accepted by local constituencies where the federal government has no bearing.

If there are people who still value the structure of the traditional family and wish to live in a society free of confusion and a, in their view, destruction of the term "marriage" then it is their every right to defend it. One could even argue, that by overriding popular vote, and establishing a law accepting gay marriage (unconstitutional via art IV: every state must follow a republican govt) it would both violate the freedom of excersiing religion (excersising religious beliefs through voting) and violate the constitution.

Therefore, not matter what your view on homosexuality is, i believe that it should be up to the people of each state to decide whether or not they should allow homosexualtiy.

Voting on laws is the foundation of our govt and if youre going to grant the govt at a state level the power of marriage, or request it thereof (therefore implicitly granting the state the power to marry), then that law and/or power should be defined by the consent of the governed.
 
moreover, why can't gay people be happy with a civil union if it guarantees the same legal rights? Why does it matter to them? They want the same thing as me but they aren't the same plain and simple. Stripped to its very basic core, to a state where it cannot be further simplified, marriage is defined as a union of matrimony between a man and a woman. What Olbermann said about the blacks and white is moot because those were the legal terms on which marriage was granted in those days, not the actual definition of marriage. The basic definition of marriage has been unchanged since the very institution, the very idea, of marriage was created.

I mean to me it sounds rather unfair that people want to change the definition of a term externally, against the intentions of those who side, are a part of, or believe, in the establishment that created it in the first place.

A similar analogy would be like what if a snow blader, or a gaper snowboarder, or a gs suit wearing racer wanted to call himself a freeskier? Wouldn't you be at the very least a little upset? That snoblader or gaper or snowboarder or racer has every right to ski as us. They can display the title "snowsports enthusiast" as proudly as they want but to declare themselves a freeskier or newschooler would at the very least provoke some negative response from you. And don't say you wouldn't mind. You would.
 
No offense, but ski analogy wasnt the greatest.

And i personally feel as though calling them "civil unions" is rather like "colored facilities" a separate but equal type of thing. clearly it matters to them, otherwise it wouldnt be the issue it is. i argue that the definition of any word is determined by the user. if a person wants to think of marriage as only a man and a woman, so be it, but if a homosexual couple goes down to the courthouse, why cant they be married, why must it be civil unioned (unionized? whats the consensus on how you say it)?
 
I don't pretend to have the same constitutional law background that you apparently have, but the Supreme Court specifically ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is subject to the Equal Protection Clause. One could then argue that marriage is in fact not solely under the jurisdiction of the states, but also the federal government--making your primary argument moot [I couldn't resist].
Moreover, it seems that since Brown v. Board of Education, it has become ever clearer, through the steady progression of cases you listed, that the Bill of Rights and Constitution does incorporate the states. Many constitutional scholars would therefore argue that jurisdiction over marriage and specifically rights to be afforded same-sex couples is nowhere near settled law. The lack of a clear precedent has only to do with a right leaning court and the wisdom of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund to not test the issue at this time.
And I disagree with your justification. If anything, I wholeheartedly agree with theory that the Constitution is designed to protect the rights of the minority from the majority opinions as expressed through laws. I do feel, that though separate but equal would have eventually disappeared, Brown v. Board of Education was necessary and good. Considerably more injustice would have occurred in the time it would have taken the states to act on their own, just as injustice is being done now. Thus action by the courts, then and now, is justified.
I know better than to expect to persuade you, but I feel your opposition needs a legal foundation if this is where this argument is headed.
 
50,000 self-maintaining wells in arid regions

hundreds of tons of rice

5208 pounds of weed

funding for soup kitchens, homeless shelters, research to combat cancer, aids ect.

tens of thousands of malaria vaccines

 


too bad civil unions don't give you the same legal rights as marriage, otherwise i'd be all for it.

not recognized by federal government, no joint filing of income

not recognized across state borders

no Power of attorney, and complicated medical situations... don't even pretend that civil unions are a viable substitutions.

At it's very core i honestly cannot make out the difference in gay marriage vs straight marriage. If you say that procreation is the primary function of marriage you'd have to be in support of anti-marriage laws for infertile or elderly couples.

i really can't move beyond the superficiality contained in upholding the tradition, you want to uphold your tradition fine, but how do you pass laws that prohibit everyone else from following what they believe is right.

Give me your ruling on this situation; you have Tom and Jane, Jane is a lesbian physically attracted to other females. Tom has gender identity disorder where he is anatomically a man however believes he truly is a woman, and Tom is also attracted to females.

you've got a vagina and a penis standing on the pedestal, yet the genders of the marriage are homosexual, is marriage defined by sex or by gender?

 
Doesn't matter because sex and gender mean the same thing. leaving out how ludicrous of a scenario that this is, More than likely Tom would get an operation and change his name to Tammy. And no I'm not ignorant, I just refuse to put up with bullshit issues like getting a sex-change operation and expecting everybody to understand and accept you, when there's much bigger things going on in the world.
 
i tried to sit this one out as well, however, the idiocy of the people posting in here boggles my mind, pay more taxes get more representation? when does it say that the amount you're taxed and the amount of your representation run parallel to each other? NO WHERE, secondly, if the state supreme court declares a law (whether passed by the people or state legislature) unconstitutional it can be over turned according to the legal process. and the whole "what's in a name" dispute over civil unions and marriage being the same except for the title, one, there is sentimental value in a name, don't tell me other wise, all that the people in the gay community want is an EQUAL opportunity.
 
Newt Gingrich: "Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that

wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use

violence, to use harassment."

flash_video_placeholder.png


Keep this kind of garbage in mind when he tries to run for president in 4 years.

 
Have you ever looked at porn? Have you ever looked at lesbian porn? HOW IS THAT A BAD THING?
I think everything is just too focused on how it would feel to have a dick in their ass. (Protip: It can't feel worse than your head)

Typically NSers response aside, my real point is this:
Gay people are absolutely no different than you and me. They are people, they share some of the same strands of DNA as you and me. We come from the same ancestors. We all descend from Adam and his rib (If you take things literally). They are not as a group retarded, mentally challenged, or otherwise impaired. They just happen (by genetic or otherwise is completely beside the point) to love other people with the same inclining.
Tell me one single thing that is different about "the gays." I challenge anyone.
It is plain and simple, wrong, to treat anyone differently than you'd wish them to treat you.

 
sex and gender are not the same thing, sex is the actual anatomy one has, gender is the perceived sexual identity one has.

you are ignorant. It's not a question of people getting sex changes, it's a contrived, and perhaps stretched situation, however it illustrates the lack of knowledge those who oppose gay marriage have on the whole sexuality issue, while simultaneously positing the question of what is most important in marriage the gender of the people or the sex of the people involved.

If you can't distinguish the difference, get your nose out of deciding what is right and what is wrong.
 
so you're going to be making 250k a year and investing a bunch of money straight out of college?

hey I'm a poli sci major too! I wanna know where I can get the job you're getting! I was planning on law school, but that can't be what you're talking about. unless maybe you're going to harvard and have some good connections? or maybe daddy is giving you a sweet job, in which case, way to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps!
 
im going to law school. On my practice LSATs i got a 174 and i have a 3.9 GPA.

Im majoring in securities investment and exchange.

Im only minoring in polisci because i know its useless, especially for asians.
 
haha i love the word moot. mooooooooooooooooooooot.

sounds great and its fun to say.

Anyway, Loving v. Virginia was a civil rights case pertaining to racial segregation and the application of the 14th ammendment on the institution of marriage is in a way that is predefined by the slaughter house cases (relevant in only matters of race).

Moreover, just because it falls under equal protection, doesnt mean that it allows gay marriage, in fact dissents have stated it does not. The court still upholds the term marriage as a matrimonial union between a man and a woman. Marriage is still available to every citizen: if a gay man wants to marry a woman he has every right to.

Also just because something is given euqal protection clause protection (lol) doesnt mean it falls under hte realm of the federal government. The federal govt is still limited in power to what it is given in art 1-3. Moreover, equal protection only applies to the district in which the law applies to, not the entire nation. That said however, we do have article 4, the faith and credibility clause that says every state must recognized previously enacted powers and laws from other states. For example, a gay man can get married in massachusetts and live in nebraska and remain married.
 
which is exactly why the civil union isn't a viable replacement, there is no clause saying any state has to recognize a civil union from another state.
 
yeah there is. the faith and credibility clause applies to all active laws. if you are a fugitive in one state youre a fugitive in all states. same applies for civil unions
 
now i definitly didnt read all of your posts, and im sure you had many educated things to say. and i am not very well educated in this subject.

but

arent all men supposed to be created equal? giving them the exact same rights as everyone else. yes civil unions are good and all but its still seperating homosexuals from the rest of the heterosexual world. my argument is only, how would you feel if you were discriminated against for having brown hair or being of a different race? what if you were unable to get married in the united states because you are asian? how would that make you feel, would you feel as an equal? doubt it.

and to people saying that homosexuals should not be alowed to adopt. all of the people that i have met that have 2 moms or dads, honestly dont care about the things people say or do, they are generally very proud and will stand up to anyone. and do you think that waiting to be adopted is better than having someone that loves you and cares about you?
 
The first paragraph was, no offense, but a very naive and unsophisticated attempt at trying to make a point. Please read my full posts before trying to refute.

The second paragraph is, no offense, just as useless as a tiny sample size of anecdotal evidence is complete nonsense and inapplicable to what we are talking about.
 
Now. I do not have a massive background of legal knowledge, and im not going to pretend to.

But as i said earlier, civil unions seems to be a form of segregation, a sort of separate but equal type of thing.

As for the "definition" of the word, what does that even mean? Cant any person define the word as they please? If one person wants to give it the definition of only a man and a woman, so be it, good for them. If a pastor, rabbi, etc. thinks that that its the definition of the word, then go ahead, refuse to marry them. However if a gay couple goes to the courthouse, they should be married, not civil unioned.
 
small sample size, yes, but at least its some data (ive taken stats and know that it isnt really representative of anything but still, he's just throwing it out there)

I think that after reading this thread i can say that the issue here is not the legality of what happened in the election: its about what is really right and wrong. if we dont like the gov. its our job to change it, and thats what the protestors are doing. of course it sucks for homosexuals to have their rights taken from them but this is all part of changing the government. sure people may be opposed, but to get civil rights people had to do the same thing. its just a matter of time now in my eyes (that it will be banned or allowed- i can only hope it becomes allowed all over the country).
 
I totally Agree, all these people arguing that its not natural, WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO DEFINE WHATS NATURAL OR ISNT? FUCK YOUR BIBLE KORAN TORAH WHATEVER THE FUCK TELLS YOU THAT. for one it doesnt affect you why does it matter to you who gets married your not the one getting married with the other guy.
 
its not seperate but equal: its simply seperate.

Everyone still has the right to get married, despite their gender, sexual orientation, age, or race. You don't have to prove to the gov't that you love each other. What we have here is a gov't issued service, on a local level that has been voted by the states residents, that is defined as a matrimonial union between a man and a woman. A gay person has every right to partake in marriage as it is defined by the people: a gay man can marry a straight woman, or a straight man can marry a gay woman, or a gay man can marry a gay woman. So therefore, they are technically and legally still protected under equal protection (even though marriage isnt incorporated).

The "definition" of the word must be established legally before any institution can issue it. Since we live in a democracy, the majority of the people define it.

The argument that anyone can define a word as anything is ridiculous: try that when paying your taxes (i am defining taxes as dog shit). The definition of any word in our language is the definition that is popularly accepted. Thus if the majority believe it to be a union between a man and a woman, then its a union between a man and a woman.
 
sorry, I meant to say Patrick Devlin, I get them confused.
And I think that the state of California, by passing Proposition 8, has agreed that there is more moral harm done by allowing gays to marry than by not allowing them to marry. That's my point. That is the quantification of harm as decided by the citizens of California. More people voted for it than didn't. That's why it passed.
I don't think this is right whatsoever. If I lived in California I wouldn't have voted for it. But I am not going to sit here and complain about it to people who can't change anything for several reasons.
1) I am not gay and therefore do not have a vested interest.2) I do not live in California which is kind of what we're talking about at this point.3) I believe in democracy and I think this will eventually get sorted out.
My point is, and not necessarily just in this case, that when laws prevent things that offend the majority, there is often justification for those laws.
As for your Mill comment, just because you have a different opinion than him doesn't make you smarter than him. I disagree with about 95% of what Marx says, but I do not go around claiming that he's an idiot. In fact I think he was one of the most influential and best political minds of the 19th century.
And you're right we should totally disregard the opinions of the majority. Let's go for consensus, it works in my drum circle, why can't it work in the state and federal government.
 
wow, there was so much more to that post that didnt go......it kinda went like this:
your right i dont have much of any idea why i said what i did, i mean seriously it doesnt make much sense looking at it now..... my appologies to any one that was offended.
to answer to thred creator of the threads question though....
i think marriage is reserved for one man and one female....why?... cause thats what the Bible says, yeah yeah i know "stupid christian talking about the bible again" but hey i have a freedom of speech also.
However, the government shouldnt be able to say one gender has to "marry" another, cause this whole nation is based on our freedoms.so those are my thoughts and again i would like to stress my appology to any one or one's that i may and probably did offend with my recent posts. but what does some kid living hundreds of miles from you... why does his opinion really matter to you?
and drew. please dont make fun of someone elses beliefs.... i guess that is some what hypicritical for me to say after all that i posted before..
 
beliefs? Christianity, or actually religion as a whole is such bull shit. always talking about loving your fellow man and then pulling bull shit like the mormon's did in california, learn some tolerance. I can tell you first and foremost, I live in Massachusetts, where two men or two women can get married (that's right, married, not unionized) and there has been no negative impact on our social structure, nobody really gives a shit, there are kids with two moms or two dad's and they don't get crap from their peers either.
 
Again. When they voted for jim crow laws, it was because they believed black people would harm them. just because the majority of people voted for it doesnt make it right.
 
Im sorry man but religion is not beliefs or ideals because if they were we wouldnt be having this problem where people literally take the notion that the earth was created in 7 days. Religion is supposed to be taken metaphorically but in modern society it has become a way to brainwash ignorant people( and im not saying there arent smart people who practice religion and look at it the way its supposed to be which is the deeper meaning not the literal, but the people who voted yes on this clearly take religion literally and there are the close minded people too). If youve seen the movie leap of faith you would know what i mean. Now if people took religion with a grain of salt and looked at the good parts of it like turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor, or treat others as you would like to be treated then I would be all for religion, But we know that the majority of devout religous people like those ideas but dont practice them. Also religion has been a wall for assholes to hide behind trying to act moral eventhough they are not good hearted people.

Basically what I am saying is gays are people, would you like to not be able to marry? Its the same thing.

Ironically I went to catholic school for 12 years but am the least bit religous.
 
rather hypocritical considering the current situation.

not saying you specifically, but religion as a whole
 
"However, the government shouldnt be able to say one gender has to "marry" another, cause this whole nation is based on our freedoms"
^^^i thought thats what i said... or something along the lines of what you said.
and i agree with you on what i quoted, but seriously that idea of personal beliefs not interfering with the legistation will never happen in this age..... but yeah the government has way to much power these days.....
 
I'm not saying they are right. I'm saying i disagree with them.
What good is a democracy when votes no longer carry any legitimacy?
Furthermore, a major problem with the Jim Crow laws was voter discrimination.
I also don't think that people who voted for Jim Crow laws thought that black people would harm them. There was just a huge amount of hatred.
 
So as long as we vote for it anything would be ok?

Tell you what, lets ban Christianity in this country.

Fuck it, lets just ban religion.

Id like to do that, shit i think religion does harm, does that give me the right? no

And hell yeah Jim Crow laws were because of harm, and hatred. They were convinced black people would destroy everything they stood for. Guess what, regardless, there is hate in vote against gay marriage. Go read the Laramie Project, and tell me there's no hatred there...
 
the man brings a good point, what is the good of a popular vote as it pertains to changing the constitution of a state...... Prop 8 was to change the constitution of California, and now they are appealing and trying to call the law "un constitutional" hahaha WTF? they just changed the law to make it constitutional right?

i think ive made my stance clear, i could give a rats ass about who you marry, and what you do.

i do see it as a slippery slope though were men and woman in black robes can overturn the will of the people claiming it was "un constituonal" right after they changed the constution....
 
and again 99% of the time i agree. but this is infringing on the rights of the people. just like banning religion would.
 
Please read my post.
I cannot tell you what moral harm has been done if gay marriage is allowed because I agree with you that no moral harm is done. I am simply stating that the voters of California have agreed that some moral harm is done. What? I don't know.
Furthermore, and again read my post, DEVLIN, not Mill, I'm sorry, I confuse them, says that if a moral harm is being done to the majority, they are right in restricting the freedoms of the minority in order to prevent moral harm. He happens to not agree with homosexuality, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.
If you take one thing away from this post: I DO NOT AGREE WITH NOT ALLOWING GAYS TO MARRY.
I'm simply stating that there are legitimate reasons for restricting the freedoms of a minority if the majority feels moral harm is being done. That's the point I was trying to make earlier on in the thread.
I'm not trying to attack your beliefs whatsoever. I agree with you.
All I'm trying to say is that it don't think that religion is the only reason that people wish to disallow gays the right to marry.
I'm sorry for any confusion.
 
thank you.
I agree that this is infringing on the rights of the people.
I agree that banning religion would have the same effect.
I just think that this is going to hash itself out. I'm not worried about that. Sue me. I just think that you cannot change an entire way of thought for the 1% of the time where it goes wrong.
 
It makes me laugh that people still think of the United States as a democracy. The U.S. has never been a full fledged democracy, never. In a true democracy every single person's job would be to go vote on legislative matters. Seeing as this cannot exist so that society can properly function, we have a representative democracy, or a republic if you will. However, in order for the votes of the people/representatives to actually matter, the ruling cannot infringe on other people's rights. Which brings us back to square one, two dudes no being allowed to get married, sounds like it infringes on pursuit of happiness to me (which is a right protected by the U.S. constitution).
 
it happens every day though. you could argue that my freedom is being hampered by laws regarding speeds on roads. i am in the minority who thinks teh speed limit should be higher.

it appears that i am in the minority by thinking that the evil rich pay enough in taxes.

now i know these are small examples, but if you really ponder it the minority gets stepped on in one way or another all the time. (not using minority in any racial, or sexual preference, in any way)
 
Imagine that I want to go around killing people- everyone I see.
I'm in the minority.
You cannot restrict my freedom because of what you just said.
Everyone dies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top