Is Gay Marriage Really That Big Deal?

[doobnVA]

where the fuck did i say i was against gay marriage?


you all just don't get it. all you see black or white. you don't understand there are OTHER options.



why i even bother.

You said you were basically against ALL marriage. That would include gay marriage, wouldn't it?

Or are you just against straight marriage? That actually makes sense. Let the gays have marriage. They can slap a wig and some makeup on it, make it prettier, yanno?

 

[fdd2blk]

You said you were basically against ALL marriage. That would include gay marriage, wouldn't it?

Or are you just against straight marriage? That actually makes sense. Let the gays have marriage. They can slap a wig and some makeup on it, make it prettier, yanno?

i said i was against the fact that marriage gave people privileges.

it's not a gay and straight thing.

you all can't see past 2 sides. i'm not taking a side, i am looking for a reasonable solution. it does NOT include separation. it's like you all need to label me so you can attack me. stop trying to be "right" for a minute and pay attention.

 

[fdd2blk]

i see this in most of the politics threads. first thing is find out which side the other person is on. if they are on your side then chum up and smoke a fatty. if they are on the other side then throw them out and call the cops on them. nobody ever comes up with any intelligent solutions though. see it's not about actually helping or making anything better. it's simply about being right, even at the cost of others. i'm really surprised i'm the only one who see's this.


my posts aren't about me being right and others being wrong. my posts are about the way things are. gays should not be compared to animals. they are people, just like everyone else. they should not be limited on "rights" simply because the haven't vowed to each other. straight people should not gain rights simply because they have. how many people "marry for money" or "a tax break"? too many, it's stupid. what if i want to share my life with my best friend joe? we aren't gay. we just are "best friends". i'd give my life for him. i'd trust him before i'd trust anyone else. i want him to be my "other half". now what?

to me, this is about equal rights and what we can do to get them for EVERYONE. anyone got any ideas? simply giving gays the "right to marriage" will not solve it. i think there is more to it then that.

 

[CrackerJax]

I think making sure that everyone has the equality of opportunity in the country is a good place to start. I'm not talking about favoritism, but simply having all groups equal under the law. Banning gay marriage violates that endeavor.
It's a good place to start, and work outwards from there.

 

[ChChoda]

How does giving benefits to heterosexual married couples impinge on the rights of gay couples? If it does, then what other bestowed benefits impinge upon my rights, as a taxpayer? I don't receive crop subsidies, welfare, food stamps, rental assistance, state health care, government grants, etc. Abolish all benefit programs, and I'm down with your cause of eliminating all marriage benefits. Excluding benefits from groups (married heterosexual couples, exclusively) which the citizens of a state deem worthy of benefits via state constitutions or state laws, to empathize with a small minority (gay couples), is tyranny.

 

[doobnVA]

i see this in most of the politics threads. first thing is find out which side the other person is on. if they are on your side then chum up and smoke a fatty. if they are on the other side then throw them out and call the cops on them. nobody ever comes up with any intelligent solutions though. see it's not about actually helping or making anything better. it's simply about being right, even at the cost of others. i'm really surprised i'm the only one who see's this.


my posts aren't about me being right and others being wrong. my posts are about the way things are. gays should not be compared to animals. they are people, just like everyone else. they should not be limited on "rights" simply because the haven't vowed to each other. straight people should not gain rights simply because they have. how many people "marry for money" or "a tax break"? too many, it's stupid. what if i want to share my life with my best friend joe? we aren't gay. we just are "best friends". i'd give my life for him. i'd trust him before i'd trust anyone else. i want him to be my "other half". now what?

to me, this is about equal rights and what we can do to get them for EVERYONE. anyone got any ideas? simply giving gays the "right to marriage" will not solve it. i think there is more to it then that.

I was really just poking fun, I wasn't trying to argue any legitimate point. I've already said (in another thread, I think) that I AGREE with you about marriage.

I think one way to truly "equalize" rights for EVERYONE (not just married people) is to reinstitute common law "marriage", or to create some kind of contract union that ALL people (gay and straight) can choose INSTEAD of marriage. I don't see anything wrong with allowing gays to marry OR enter a "civil union", but couples who choose NOT to marry shouldn't be penalized, either.

ALL couples who are in a committed relationship, whether married or not, should be able to enjoy the same "rights" (which if you ask me, aren't really rights at all, but privileges) that married couples enjoy.

 

[communistcannabis]

aslong as they don't have a problem with me growin dope, i don't have a problem with gays gettin hitched. aslong as what you do to make you happy doesn't infringe on my happiness knock youself out

 

[fdd2blk]

I was really just poking fun, I wasn't trying to argue any legitimate point. I've already said (in another thread, I think) that I AGREE with you about marriage.

I think one way to truly "equalize" rights for EVERYONE (not just married people) is to reinstitute common law "marriage", or to create some kind of contract union that ALL people (gay and straight) can choose INSTEAD of marriage. I don't see anything wrong with allowing gays to marry OR enter a "civil union", but couples who choose NOT to marry shouldn't be penalized, either.

ALL couples who are in a committed relationship, whether married or not, should be able to enjoy the same "rights" (which if you ask me, aren't really rights at all, but privileges) that married couples enjoy.

i was gonna give you your +rep back for this, but i have to spread some first.

 

[doobnVA]

i was gonna give you your +rep back for this, but i have to spread some first.

Awwww, thanks! I feel all warm and fuzzy inside now

 

[CrackerJax]

How does giving benefits to heterosexual married couples impinge on the rights of gay couples?

It is unequal. It is unfair. Why should you be favored over another? It's not simply about taxes. It's far more than that. It's about having the same legal status under the law, in it's entirety. No one would dare suggest that blacks shouldn't be able to marry? Marriage isn't always about birthing children. It's much much more than that, else why would there be so many married couples without children..... what's the point of that? It's about legal status,and equality should be our goal. The Constitution demands it.


I

f it does, then what other bestowed benefits impinge upon my rights, as a taxpayer? I don't receive crop subsidies, welfare, food stamps, rental assistance, state health care, government grants, etc. Abolish all benefit programs, and I'm down with your cause of eliminating all marriage benefits.

Most of the benefits you mention are tied to a person's economic position, not their social position. There are poor gays for sure, but there are wealthy ones too. It's about blanketing all gays with equal status as Hetero's.... no favoritism.

Excluding benefits from groups (married heterosexual couples, exclusively) which the citizens of a state deem worthy of benefits via state constitutions or state laws, to empathize with a small minority (gay couples), is tyranny.

No one is excluding hetero's here, it the other way round. Yes, it is tyranny. A social tyranny. The USA was built on the foundation that smaller groups should have an equal voice in their desires and destinies. That is being denied at this time.

 

[ChChoda]

It is unequal. It is unfair. Why should you be favored over another? It's not simply about taxes. It's far more than that. It's about having the same legal status under the law, in it's entirety. No one would dare suggest that blacks shouldn't be able to marry? Marriage isn't always about birthing children. It's much much more than that, else why would there be so many married couples without children..... what's the point of that? It's about legal status,and equality should be our goal. The Constitution demands it.


I
Most of the benefits you mention are tied to a person's economic position, not their social position. There are poor gays for sure, but there are wealthy ones too. It's about blanketing all gays with equal status as Hetero's.... no favoritism.





No one is excluding hetero's here, it the other way round. Yes, it is tyranny. A social tyranny. The USA was built on the foundation that smaller groups should have an equal voice in their desires and destinies. That is being denied at this time.

Men can go publicly topless, legally, but woman can't go publicly topless without breaking the law. What the fuck?!!!? How many peoples right to equality does this affect? This is a much greater infringement of rights than the gay marriage "issue", wouldn't you say? Equal rights for all!!!

We all have a right to contribute to the legal code of the states in which we live, by offering our opinions in the form of a vote. One person, one vote. Regardless of color. Regardless of race. Regardless of gender. Regardless of sexual orientation. Married or otherwise.

Being unfair doesn't automatically make it an impingement of rights. Rights and privileges are too often confused. Even the California Supreme Court understood this concerning prop 8. By a stroke of blind luck.

Being poor has little to do with many of my examples. You only have to pretend to be poor, or make yourself so by not being gainfully employed, in order to get the benefits of welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies, etc., although many legitimately poor people (the through no fault of there own crowd, I guess) do also benefit from these privileges granted them. Being a farmer (crop subsidies, land grants) is a choice, or are they born that way? Illegals are given the privilege of free schooling and medical in most states, regardless of net worth. Minorities are given privileged status in schools and the workplace via the outdated policy of affirmative action. The IRS bestows privileges to groups and classifications of individuals too numerous to mention. The federal government grants automatic citizenship to individuals and groups of individuals that they deem worthy, on a daily basis. A priceless privilege. And on and on. We are a country awash in selectively granted privileges, to those other than citizens, even.

Gays are blanketed with equal status as heteros. They can get married to an individual of the opposite sex, just as you and me, in most states, and they can marry whoever the heck they want (assuming it's one human) in many others. Just as I can't marry an individual of the same sex, or numerous individuals of the opposite sex, in most states, and in a many states I can marry any one human I please, same as gay individuals.

A social tyranny can only exist in the US when the laws of the lands are co-opted by the federal court. Our constitution is clear, and should be followed. The states citizens shall decide their own fates, and no others. When the people want marriage benefits to apply to certain other groups, or individuals even, or to strip the privileges from all, they will vote that into law. We'll just have to wait until then, then.

PS- The Russian and Indian constitutions, among many others, have an explicit "right to equality", but not ours. Ours stresses equal opportunity, under the law.

 

[fdd2blk]

fucking titties, now we are talking.

 

[fdd2blk]

are those bunny rabbits on her bed?

 

[ChChoda]

are those bunny rabbits on her bed?

I'd say guinea pigs...

 

[323cheezy]

Okay ever one who is for heterosexual marriage Raise theyre hand.....
okay everyone agrees....good.

Now eveyone who is for muli-racial marraiges raise there hand....
good no racist here...

Now everyone who is for homosexual marrige raise your hand....
Okay so most are for it ...

So you guys dont discriminate ... and are morally good people ...

Now Finnally.... Who is for a human being marring an animal raise your hand....
Hahahhhhh!!!!
caught u .... u bunch of discriminators....lol

sometimes we need to discriminmate for obvious reasons...
im not against gay marriage....

 

[spliffymcstoner]

Does not bother me in the least. If gays want to do it then fire away.

 

[CrackerJax]

Men can go publicly topless, legally, but woman can't go publicly topless without breaking the law. What the fuck?!!!? How many peoples right to equality does this affect? This is a much greater infringement of rights than the gay marriage "issue", wouldn't you say? Equal rights for all!!!

We all have a right to contribute to the legal code of the states in which we live, by offering our opinions in the form of a vote. One person, one vote. Regardless of color. Regardless of race. Regardless of gender. Regardless of sexual orientation. Married or otherwise.

Being unfair doesn't automatically make it an impingement of rights. Rights and privileges are too often confused. Even the California Supreme Court understood this concerning prop 8. By a stroke of blind luck.

Being poor has little to do with many of my examples. You only have to pretend to be poor, or make yourself so by not being gainfully employed, in order to get the benefits of welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies, etc., although many legitimately poor people (the through no fault of there own crowd, I guess) do also benefit from these privileges granted them. Being a farmer (crop subsidies, land grants) is a choice, or are they born that way? Illegals are given the privilege of free schooling and medical in most states, regardless of net worth. Minorities are given privileged status in schools and the workplace via the outdated policy of affirmative action. The IRS bestows privileges to groups and classifications of individuals too numerous to mention. The federal government grants automatic citizenship to individuals and groups of individuals that they deem worthy, on a daily basis. A priceless privilege. And on and on. We are a country awash in selectively granted privileges, to those other than citizens, even.

Gays are blanketed with equal status as heteros. They can get married to an individual of the opposite sex, just as you and me, in most states, and they can marry whoever the heck they want (assuming it's one human) in many others. Just as I can't marry an individual of the same sex, or numerous individuals of the opposite sex, in most states, and in a many states I can marry any one human I please, same as gay individuals.

A social tyranny can only exist in the US when the laws of the lands are co-opted by the federal court. Our constitution is clear, and should be followed. The states citizens shall decide their own fates, and no others. When the people want marriage benefits to apply to certain other groups, or individuals even, or to strip the privileges from all, they will vote that into law. We'll just have to wait until then, then.

PS- The Russian and Indian constitutions, among many others, have an explicit "right to equality", but not ours. Ours stresses equal opportunity, under the law.

Yes exactly equal opportunity under the law. Except that marriage laws are not given equally. Now if marriage carried purely a ceremony and meant nothing more than that.... ok, u might have something there.

However, marriage has all sorts of legal addendums attached to it. There in lies the problem. That's where the equal opportunity under the law hits the wall.

 

[ChChoda]

Yes exactly equal opportunity under the law. Except that marriage laws are not given equally. Now if marriage carried purely a ceremony and meant nothing more than that.... ok, u might have something there.

However, marriage has all sorts of legal addendums attached to it. There in lies the problem. That's where the equal opportunity under the law hits the wall.

"Under the law", as in, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/under, the law. Gays have the same opportunity to marry as other individuals. The exact same opportunity, UNDER, state law, enacted by citizen legislators.

Medical marijuana "laws are not given equally". Should they be nullified by the Supreme Court? Everyone can smoke legally, or, no one can smoke legally? Medical conditions be damned, because it's not fair to the recreational users.

 

[CrackerJax]

But it isn't equal to hetero marriage. That's my point. It should be.

 

[doobnVA]

The problem with the equal protection clause in regards to gay marriage, is that the Supreme court hasn't designated homosexuals as a suspect class (a group of people to be protected under law), which means they aren't entitled to "equal protection under law", so the states can discriminate against them with no fear of reprisal from the federal government.