Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on June 06, 2006, 12:04:07 AM
-
All of a sudden, out of nowhere, and apropos of nothing, same-sex marriage is once again on the agenda, and Bush starts giving speeches on teh ghey today, pressing for the Senate to amend the constitution to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
Mmkay.....
.... so, the Senate will pause and spend a week debating and then voting on a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages. That, despite the fact that most people think it won't even get a simple majority, never mind the super-majority required to amend the constitution. I guess that in times of such peace and prosperity, what else are they going to do to look like they're earning a paycheck? That must be it.
What's going on here?
And by that I obviously don't mean "What's going on in Iraq" or "What's going on in Iran" or "What's going on with immigration" or "What's going on with health insurance" or "What's going on with the deficits" or "What's going on with border control/security" or "What's going on with fuel prices" or just about a hundred thousand slightly more pressing issues....
I mean... Why the ghey alluhvasudden?
a) I don't know
b) Because it's an important issue, deserving of this kind of attention
c) It's not necessarily that important, but the recent overwhelming public outcry is demanding an immediate and swift resolution to this conflict
d) It's election year pandering
e) None of the above
My answer? Take a guess.
We're talking about a government who ran on, got elected due to, and governs based almost purely on symbolism: "Freedom", "evil-doers", "God", "the flag", "fear", "life", etc., etc........ etc.
And so what happens? What happens when the actual business of running a country proves to be just too much... hard work?
What happens when their feeble domestic policies, misguided and mismanaged wars, ideologically divisive social initiatives and ethically challenged managers produce nothing but failure after failure compounded by even more failure; whipped, diced and pureed.... creating a delicate and creamy dish of failure sauce?
That's easy. Just add two sprinklings of the ghey and whooboy, you've got a bona fide winner on your hands!
Ah, thank christ for meaninglessness and its ability to spark fire in the base.
By last count, we've got one or two Republicans around here, and I'm curious about them: Do they think Bush even gives a crap about gay marriage? I highly doubt that he does. No.... this one's for them. Aimed squarely at them.
Tell me, Republican voters, are you thanking your lucky stars tonight? Are you breathing a sigh of relief that, finally, some real business is getting done in DC?
-
Of course you know. It's about working the Republican base into a frenzy. They have this special event coming up... I think it's called an election. ;)
-
To make a constitutional amendment over this is just stupid.
-
i guess it's to late to give 'em a raise and the summer off?
-
Eh .... wasn't the last time some genius (or group of) decided the purpose of the U.S. constitution was to enforce a federal standard for moral behavior (prohibition) reversed because it was kinda stupid? Guess there's more drinking than homosexual affairs on the hill.
-
Hang, that was one of the more clever things ever said on this board.
-
Gay marriage - why?
Cause there GAY
-
senators do whatever they want beause they pwn joo!!!1!one.
if the read this thread, they'd have a laugh, but they are way too busy swimming in vats of treasure a la Scrooge McDuck except with hot naked interns.
-
"all a means to attract and distract"
-
Shouldn't gay's have to go through the same stuff as heterosexual couples in marriage? I say if they want it, let em do it. Screw your 20th century morals on homosexuality, FREE LOVE! This is the 21st century.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Of course you know. It's about working the Republican base into a frenzy. They have this special event coming up... I think it's called an election. ;)
Of course (and this was a no-brainer, but as usual) you're right.
And.... I think that even the vast majority of the Bush loyal recognizes that.
So lets skip ahead a few pages. Here's what we're looking at....
A group of people quite used to compromise. Extreme compromise. Compromise to the extent that these highly religious people will abandon the poor, advocate war, and blame any catastrophe directly on the sins of those who perish.... as long as the President gives a wink and a nod to God.
They will compromise as long as the denial of birth control is at least given some manner of consideration - no matter how outrageous. As long as sex-ed is chock full of mandated misinformation. As long as Bush publicly considers that the earth is a mere 6,000 years old. As long as he gives his support to scientific "balance." As long as long as health professionals feel safe to deny a prescription based on theocratic principles.
......... and as long as Bush throws his ever diminishing weight behind a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage.
These nutbars are what it takes for them to win an election.
So here we are. Five months from an election, and the bones are getting tossed out fast and furious to the nutbars who grudgingly lap them up. Grudgingly, because nobody else are so stupid as to rely on these freaks to get elected. And grudgingly, because while everyone knows it, nobody is exactly that happy about it.
It's a symbiotic nightmare. At this point, it becomes hard to distinguish the hosts from the parasites.
Republicans can't win an election without them, and their crazed agenda wouldn't even get boosted to anything close to a national debate without their grudging help.
-
I personally don't see what the big deal is about gay marriage.
Sure marriage has it's benefits.
But it sure as hell brings a whole ****load of baggage with it too.
-
gays are teh ghey...
...except kurt tank.
and really hot lesbians.
johnny bench is borderline.
-
Wag the dog....
-
It's the Rove "Fear, smear, and anti-queer!" election recipe.
It's worked for him and Bush since thier beginning together because obviously there are more than enough shallow-thinking lemmings who will eagerly swallow the crap.
-
well there goes the theory that nash was either on the run or under arrest :aok
-
Sure took the heat off the war on terrorists, iran,troops in irag
and everything else Bush didn't want to talk about didn't it.
Its like a kneejerk reaction. Slow news week coming, thing the press is going to gangbang you again? Have a rep senator try to sneak something by the senate ending any possiblilty of gay marrage.
Hey presto!
Fact remains the Federal Govt has NO right to be in this issue at all.
Its not a federal issue.
-
Bingo Ghosth. The "war on immigrants" is petering out so to keep things rolling they pull out old reliable - "homophobia." In the meantime they've also got a Canadian "open border "crisis" warming up in the bullpen.
Two of the three elements of the Rove Doctrine are in motion. "Fear" and "anti-queer." As election day comes closer they'll spin up "smeer" and shift "fear" into overdrive.
-
But... Marriage is under attack!!
I'm pretty sure it's those same people who were attacking Christmas and Easter. Pretty soon they'll attack the 4th of July and Labor day... then you'll all be sorry I tell ya!.
-
nash... watching a democratic frontrunner for gov here in kalifornia.... He said that he was gonna tell us what he stood for..
"I am strongly pro choice" " I am strongly in support of our teachers and strengthening public schools" "I am strongly for the environment"
So what is the difference? How do you seperate this guy from the paristites like the pro choice movement and..... the anti choice/anti voucher pro teacher union and..... the whacko environmentalists...
In short.... pandering to the whacko religious left..
I think that Bush is trying to help his party gather up the votes.... He did say that he would support an amendment for marriage when he was re-elected tho. soooo...
He is doing what he said he would do.
He is not my idea of the best president but... he is miles ahead of the klintons and the way they destroyed the country and he is miles ahead of the democrats that he ran against.
His legacy will be the two supreme court judges he put on the court and the many other judges.. The rolling back of gun control laws and restoration of gun rights.
So far as the amendment.... good thing to force those politicians to take a stand on it.
So far as wasting time? sheesh... like that never happens! that's all they do is waste time.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nash
Of course (and this was a no-brainer, but as usual) you're right.
And.... I think that even the vast majority of the Bush loyal recognizes that.
So lets skip ahead a few pages. Here's what we're looking at....
A group of people quite used to compromise. Extreme compromise. Compromise to the extent that these highly religious people will abandon the poor, advocate war, and blame any catastrophe directly on the sins of those who perish.... as long as the President gives a wink and a nod to God.
They will compromise as long as the denial of birth control is at least given some manner of consideration - no matter how outrageous. As long as sex-ed is chock full of mandated misinformation. As long as Bush publicly considers that the earth is a mere 6,000 years old. As long as he gives his support to scientific "balance." As long as long as health professionals feel safe to deny a prescription based on theocratic principles.
......... and as long as Bush throws his ever diminishing weight behind a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage.
These nutbars are what it takes for them to win an election.
So here we are. Five months from an election, and the bones are getting tossed out fast and furious to the nutbars who grudgingly lap them up. Grudgingly, because nobody else are so stupid as to rely on these freaks to get elected. And grudgingly, because while everyone knows it, nobody is exactly that happy about it.
It's a symbiotic nightmare. At this point, it becomes hard to distinguish the hosts from the parasites.
Republicans can't win an election without them, and their crazed agenda wouldn't even get boosted to anything close to a national debate without their grudging help.
Where to begin?
OK first things first......both sides pander to their base. Which in case you haven't noticed are nutjobs. (you probably only notice the right side because guess what? You are a pefect example of the left base)
Second...not everyone who thinks marriage is between a man and a woman only are religious.
Third....for a so called "lame duck" he sure is getting a lot done. Even with low poll numbers he can still run the country better than previous presidents who only cared about polls.
Finally....I don't really want an amendment but with judges changing laws at a whim it may be the only way to stop them. We have to draw a line in the sand some where and this is as good as a place as any.
-
Hang, that was one of the more clever things ever said on this board.
====
I would give it a 4.5 outta 10. Hang has set the bar very high for himself and here he misses it by a rather wide margin.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
Sure took the heat off the war on terrorists, iran,troops in irag
and everything else Bush didn't want to talk about didn't it.
Its like a kneejerk reaction. Slow news week coming, thing the press is going to gangbang you again? Have a rep senator try to sneak something by the senate ending any possiblilty of gay marrage.
Hey presto!
Fact remains the Federal Govt has NO right to be in this issue at all.
Its not a federal issue.
This was on the books for months to debate so this was not something new. This is more than showing the country where each politician stands. This is to remind the base on both sides that no matter who is in charge some issues will have to be (not)/supported by all. Which means every vote is important.
As I said before I am against an amendment but what other choice do you have when 1 judge can overturn what 70+% of a state voted for/against?
-
Mighty....Yep... I am not religious and I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I think that it is in the best interest of a country to reward behavior that is good for a country and if you marginalize marriage then you are making things worse.
Nash is very good at finding everything wrong with the only party that can allways beat the party he wants in power... it is a shell game as you have observed.... the nasty ugly shell that is the whacko left is what he is trying to distract you from..
The lefty whack jobs have no platform that any sane person would support so they pretty much are stuck with tearing down the other guy... You will never see nash explain what he wants to happen... only how bad the other guy is... no solutions from him because he knows his solutions are even eaisier to mock than the ones he is tearing down..
sooo, in that respect mighty... you are wrong... he knows perfectly well that he supports and panders to the far left whack jobs... he is just dishonest about how he presents it.
This is of course futile since everyone with any sense who has read these boards knows exactly how far left he is and what to expect from him...
People who find themselves agreeing with even the most simple thing he says are horrified and re-examine.
lazs
-
If no one cares about it then it won't help the republican party much. Personally I think he's trying to distract attention from his limp wristed efforts to regain control of immigration.
-
Actually, the fed govt DOES have a legitimate place in any lawmaking regarding marriage, for gays or not. Why? Because existing federal laws have different rules and status for people based on their marital status, as defined by both state and federal laws.
Taxes, are one example. Inheritance and property rights are others.
Here are two big example the gay marriage rights activists will (and should) use... the non-hype ones anyhow.
2 couples. Both have an adopted child, and a house with a house payment. Both work, so they have child care and retirement savings to consider. One couple is male/female, the other is male/male.
First issue - taxes. The traditional family gets numerous cash benefits designed to aid the family and children. Joint tax returns, both wage earners benefit from lower tax brackets, retirement deductions, mortgage interest deductions, and child credits. The gay couple, even if they both have the exact same incomes and expenses as the traditional couple, may pay more federal income tax because they are not considered "married". This makes an easy case against the federal government for sexual discrimination.
Second issue - death.
For the traditional family, if one family member dies, the other will (in most states) receive both custody of the child and rights to all "joint" property. After a court hearing, most widows/widowers will also receive rights to all "non-joint" property that is not otherwise given to another person in a will (such as bank accounts held since before getting married).
For the gay couple, there are numerous problems that have already occurred in "real life" and which still occur. First, if the one with his name on the house title dies, there is a good chance that the surviving partner will not receive ANY rights to the home and will in fact be evicted while the state determines who gets custody (usually extended "birth" family). The same problem goes for other property, such as investments, vehicles, and bank accounts. Second, is the issue of child custody. Not only may the surviving member lose their house, custody of the child may not pass to the surviving member regardless of who owns the house. Again, this has actually happened and still happens.
Here's the kicker - most (all?) states have "common law" marriage rules that mean a couple who has never been formally "married" to be in fact married after simply living together for a number of years, especially if they show some sort of marital intent such as having kids or owning joint property. But now there is a push to outlaw gay marriage to the point where an unmarried male/female couple will have more legal rights than a gay couple holding a marriage certificate from one of the few states that gives them out.
That's F**ed up IMHO. If the govt is going to set rules designed to provide family stability and ensure consistent legal application of property and custody of minors, then those rules need to apply to EVERYONE who could possibly be subject to those situations.
Simply put:
It's unfair to provide cash benefits to "married" couples including common law couples, and deny them to gay partners who have established a legitimate intent to establish a household together. Many of those tax laws are intended to benefit children, and it is fairly common for same-sex couples to have custody of a child either through adoption or from a previous marriage or non-marital relationship.
It's unfair to deny the right of survivorship to same-sex partners who have established a household or lifelong partnership, when those rights are usually given to traditional couples who were never formally married but fall under common law marriage rules. This form of discrimination not only directly impacts any children in the family, but it also disrupts the orderly conduct of society and the rule of law, when the laws are applied purely based on if the survivor was of the same or different sex as the deceased.
My solution (of course I have a solution) is to create a new federal definition of legal domestic partnership that applies to ANY type of "marriage" relationship, and give people who gain this new partnership status the exact same privledges, rights, and benefits that "married" couples have, without exception.
Yes there would be problems to be overcome (since bigamy is illegal, what about group "partnerships" with more than one couple?) but I think the federal govt needs to do something to address what are IMHO clear legal and social injustices being carried out, without making it worse by narrowing the definition of marriage while excluding other partnerships from the legal protections and financial benefits that traditional married couples have.
It's funny/sad how the same old arguments used to discriminate against blacks are now being used to discriminate against gay couples... If they don't want it to be called marriage, fine. Abolish the whole legal concept of marriage and replace it with a legal definition of "domestic partner" if necessary, but the raw and unconstitutional discrimination against couples based purely on sex needs to be addressed at BOTH the state and federal level.
-
I have to (shudder) agree with Nash (I feel dirty) and others that hte timing of this stinks. My attention span is rather short but did they even pass any type of immigration reform before moving on to this?
This month's offensive by President Bush and his allies in Congress against gay marriage and flag burning proves one thing: The Republican Party thinks its base of social conservatives is a nest of dummies who have no memories and respond like bulls whenever red flags are waved in their faces.
The people who should be angry this week are not liberals or gays or lesbians, but the president's most loyal supporters. After using the gay-marriage issue shamelessly in the 2004 campaign, Bush and Republican leaders left opponents of gay marriage out in the cold as they concentrated on the party's real priorities: privatizing Social Security and cutting taxes on rich people.
When Bush was at his position of maximum strength after the 2004 election, did he use his political energy on behalf of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? Not at all. In an interview with The Post on Jan. 14, 2005, he dismissed the question, arguing that since many senators felt that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was already an effective bar to the spread of gay marital unions, there was no point in fighting for a constitutional change.
"Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen," Bush said then. "I'd take their admonition seriously."
Spot on (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060501472.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns)
-
There's an obvious and legitimate reason a male/female couple should get tax breaks. Traditionally, except for the last 50 years or so, the female bears children and stays home nurturing her offspring while the male brings home the bacon. Typically, this child bearing began soon after marriage. The value of this to society and humanity is obvious to anyone with any sense. Why should a male/male couple derive this same tax break?
-
None of the above post should be taken to mean ANY level of agreement with Nash or "his kind"... :D
Seriously, it's a simple analysis of hard and fast facts concerning the very real consequences of the current legal benefits, privleges, and rights given to "married" couples and denied to gay "partners". The constitution does not define marriage, but it does state that there must not be any discrimination in the law based on race, sex, or creed. Creating a further constitutional amendment outlining the one special case were it IS ok to discriminate on the basis of sex is a horrible thought as it opens the door to other special cases.
What's next... An amendment stating that because a group of whackos drove some planes into some buildings, it's ok to discriminate against Muslims? What if the president says that it's only a single religion that's going to be discriminated against, so it's all ok? What about a law that says because Mexicans aren't "from here" and most of our illegal immigrants are from Mexico, it's ok to discriminate against anyone who looks Mexican?
I mean, it's not as if traditional AMERICANS are being discriminated against and the constitution didn't REALLY mean "ALL" people are created equal and that the laws should apply equally to "ALL" people? It's ok to write a few amendments and laws that discriminate in certain cases, because it's only a few people, right? I mean, "ALL" is a lot bigger now than it was back then...
The arguments are bogus, and the constitutional conflict is pretty clear IMHO. Either the constitution guarantees equal protections, benefits, and rights under our laws, or it doesn't. I say it does, and the laws need to reflect that.
-
an example would be capital gains on sales of homes... 250k exemption for singles and 500k for married.
But... eagl... I dissagree that this is wrong... I say this as a single person.
It is not discrimination... everyone including me and gay and child molesters has a right to marry... the exact same right. they just can't marry a goat or anoter same sex partner or a child.
Married couples have fought and won these rights and/or have been given them by society that thought they were a good thing to give married (between man and woman) couple to strengthen and reward the behaviour..
Now... I have no problem with your idea of a contract for other relationships while keeping marriage a contract betweeen man and woman and all the rights that entails..
As for a domestic relationship between gays or goats or whatever... they make the contract within the boundry of the law.
That is the simple part... if they want additional privliges... then they need to go through the same process that married people went through... they shouldn't be able to ride the coattails of the people who have done the work..
Why? because it is a betrayal... the people allowed these privliges on the pretense that they were for married people of the opposssite sex..
The laws and exceptions were made on that basis...you can't change the basic law with no input from the people who gave those rights under the understanding that it was strengthening (rewarding) the relationship between a man and a woman.
the way it should work is that a new kind of relationship...call it domestic partner should be formed and defined... it would have no rights save those of any contract.
Any additional rights it got would have to go through the process that married people did... You want a capital gains advantage for domestic partners? fine... put that up for legeslation or add it to the next one for married couples.
Do you see what I mean? What the gay marriage people are trying to do is co-opt the will of the people who gave a lot of varried rights to a group that they approved of. They don't want to put it up for everyone to decide like the real married couples had to.
lazs
-
Lukster,
Because a male/male couple, who may legitimately (under our laws) have custody of one or more children, have the same challenges that a male/female couple have when raising a child.
Are you saying that a child in the custody of a male/male couple does not have the right to be raised with the same legal benefits provided to his next door neighbor who is being raised by a male/female couple?
Let's take it a step further. Are you saying that a male/female couple who cannot have children on their own and therefore adopt a child, somehow deserve special rights that a male/male couple do not? What is the difference there, except for a social bias against same-sex domestic partnership?
Right now in the US, the only difference between those couples is that the US federal government gives the male/female couple very specific rights and benefits including very strong legal protections, and the same sex couple is explicitly denied those protections, on the basis of their sex alone.
Think very hard about your assumptions, because in this case, they are being driven by societal norms, not any conceivably fair reflection of the legal or constitutional realities of the issue.
-
Ok Lazs, let's test your claim that they have the same rights.
3 people. Joe, Mark, and Jane.
Joe has the right to marry Jane.
Mark has the right to marry Jane.
Jane has the right to marry Joe.
Jane has the right to marry Mark.
But Mark does not have the right to marry Joe, and Joe does not have the right to marry Mark.
More simply...
Let's say both Jane and Joe want to marry Mark.
In light of the very clear and specific guidance in the constitution, tell me how it could possibly be constitutional for any law to be passed that permits Jane and forbids Joe from marrying Mark.
Not only that, tell me how it can possibly be constitutional to pass a law that gives legal and financial rights/benefits to Jane if she lives in the same house as Mark, privledges that are given even if they are never formally married, but specifically denies those rights and benefits to Joe if he is living in the same house under the same circumstances as the Jane/Mark situtation.
The question of protecting couples that can have children keeps coming up, but this is a false argument because male/female couples that either cannot, or simply do not, have children, are still given the rights and benefits denied to same-sex couples. The ONLY difference is the sex of the partners. And since the constitution specifically states that laws cannot be passed that discriminate on the basis of sex, where does that leave us?
Right or wrong from a moral standpoint, the constitution flat-out forbids any type of sex discrimination and that constitutional protection must apply to all laws, not just the ones we find emotionally appealing.
-
Custody of a child does not equal reproducing which is the only thing that continues the human race. If a male adopts a child he does gain the tax exemption that anyone with a dependent enjoys. That another male would stay home to nurture the child is an anomaly.
The continuance of the human race is dependent on the male/female relationship resulting in offspring. Looking at this from a purely self serving viewpoint, males are tradtitionally the providers. What benefit does society derive from granting two males the same breaks?
-
2 more points Lazs.
First, goats are not constitutionally protected. The constitution and laws stemming from the rights and responsibilities laid out in the constitution, largely govern relationships between humans.
That said, a law permitting or forbidding marriage (or domestic partnership) between a man and a goat would not be unconstitutional. The constitution simply does not cover legal equality of non-human animals.
Second regarding your concern about laws passed in good faith... There were many laws in the past that were based on racial discrimination. Many of those laws were passed with the specific intent to comply with the "separate but equal" legal construct. Guess what - no matter how much faith and "honest" thought was put into those laws, they had to be tossed because the underlying assumption and underlying legal principle was flawed and unconstitutional.
Again, my point stands that the exact same arguments used to justify racial discrimination are being used once again in the arguments justifying unconstitutional laws that concern legal status of same-sex partners, whether you call it "marriage" or not.
-
lukster,
The same societal benefits that are gained by giving those breaks to male/female couples who are not able to have children "naturally" and who must adopt if they want to raise children.
I'll break one of my rules and drag my wife into this, because it will illustrate how wrong your discrimination justifications are.
My wife and I may not be able to have children, and we may have to adopt if we want to raise children. Not only that, but she makes a hell of a lot more money than I do, so if we want to have a stay at home parent present in our child's life, it's probably going to be me doing the Mr. Mom bit. Oh yea, we're outside your mystical child-rearing age.
According to your logic, my wife and I should get no legal benefits, no tax breaks, and no rights of survivorship if one of us should die. If the house is in her name because she's the wage earner, I should get evicted if she dies. If only one of us is listed on the adoption paperwork, the other one should lose custody if the adoptive parent dies.
Wait, that's not what you meant? Ok, so how is my personal situation any different from a male-male couple in our same situation, except for the sex of one of the partners? There is NO factual difference, yet you say the laws should treat our situations differently based on sex alone.
Or are you really saying that my wife and I should not receive legal marital status if we can't have kids? If that's what you mean, because that's what you said in your last post, then you might want to remain clear of the 5ish percent of women in this country who are unable to bear children because that's a terribly insensitive thing to say.
-
Moral arguments and the general "ickyness" that most people feel about homosexuality aside, it makes me SICK that the justifications people bring up against same-sex marriages apply not only to me and my wife, but millions of other couples.
Yet another common situation - A woman has a child before she gets married, and for whatever reason (cervical cancer, internal injuries, whatever), is unable to conceive another child. She then marries a man who binds himself legally and emotionally to this woman and child. He provides support and security. In recognition of this supporting relationship we call a "family", the government at the behest of society (voters) has provided numerous legal benefits covering everything from right of survivorship and inheritance, to cash tax benefits. The ability to bear children is out of the picture entirely, and so is religion because these two people can get married in a court or by a state appointed entity authorized to validate and issue marriage certificates.
That same situation however, if the man is replaced by a second woman, receives NONE of the same rights, benefits, or legal protections for no reason other than the sex of the second partner.
Again, tell me how that passes the constitutional test that states no law will be passed that discriminates on the basis of race, sex, or creed (religion)?
The legal construct we call "marriage" has NOTHING to do with the ability of the couple to have children, otherwise the federal government would only recognize the marital status of couples who do in fact self-generate offspring. Since there is no such test or requirement to be considered married, and in fact such a test would be considered discriminatory in itself, any such considerations have ZERO legal value.
Lukster I know you don't mean it personally, but what you're basically saying is that my wife and I should not be permitted to be married because we can not self-generate offspring. Most people would be deeply offended by that.
By logical extension, maybe you can imagine how offended same-sex partners feel when you say that they shouldn't be allowed to be married, since you state these general principles that would exclude traditional couples like me and my wife, but still apply them only to same-sex couples.
We have a word for that... "discrimination".
-
Sensitivity has little to do with the reality of the situation. I will grant that it is the basis for considering giving two males the same protections as the male/female union. Anyhow, the legal benefits of marriage were provided because society decided that it was profitable to encourage this union. Call it discrimination if you want. That word doesn't always have the impact of shame that some who use it expect of it.
-
Lukster, what you are determined to ignore is that discrimination of this type is explicitly forbidden by the US constitution. There is no argument you can make that gets past this fact.
People used to think it benefitted society to have slaves. Later, it was decided that slaves were bad but it was still ok to discriminate based on race. Guess what... Society doesn't have a say when it comes to discrimination because the constitution is very clear on this point.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Lukster, what you are determined to ignore is that discrimination of this type is explicitly forbidden by the US constitution. There is no argument you can make that gets past this fact.
I disagree. Granting tax breaks to those who are married is certainly no more discriminative than affrimative action. How is deciding who qualifies for marrigae any different than deciding who qualifies for affirmative action? If you happen to think affirmative action is non-constitutional I'll come up with another example.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
"all a means to attract and distract"
seems to have worked well
-
this guy has far too much time on his hands and an unhealthy interest in the internal goings on of the super power that owns him.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
seems to have worked well
Doubt it. Many will be looking closely at their candidates postion on illegal immigration. This is a sore issue that has been festering for many years. It won't go away with a little lip service.
-
Lukster,
Half of affirmative action is unconstitutional in my opinion, so again you're drawing parallels to the race issue to justify discrimination.
The half of affirmative action that gives minorities specific targeted assistance to address a societal imbalance does not appear to me to be unconstitutional. The part where that assistance comes at the direct expense of another person with race as the only discriminator IS unconstitutional however.
If a pot of money exists for the sole purpose of addressing a problem, it is not discrimination to give it out according to the plan to address that problem.
If however there is a merit-based discriminator in place and the legitimate winner of such a merit-based selection process is displaced by another person solely on the basis of race, then a law supporting such a process would be unconstitutional.
-
Do any of you realize how much of a slap in the face this timeing was?
Bushes Saturday address was the 25th anniversary of the 'discovory' of AIDS.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0605-04.htm
By a man who lost in Florida in 2000 and rigged Ohio in 2004. I refuse to call him "President" ...He's a criminal (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0604-20.htm)
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Do any of you realize how much of a slap in the face this timeing was?
Bushes Saturday address was the 25th anniversary of the 'discovory' of AIDS.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0605-04.htm
What does AIDs have to do with this? Unless you are saying that it is and was spread predominantly through permiscuous gay men. If not I fail to see the corilation.
-
The gay marrigie movement was largely started by AIDS. There was some push for it before.... but much more after people REALLY started needing things like health care for thier partners etc etc etc.
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
The gay marrigie movement was largely started by AIDS. There was some push for it before.... but much more after people REALLY started needing things like health care for thier partners etc etc etc.
Many providers offer coverage to "life partners" allready. Either you are tip toeing or dancing, I still don't see the corilation between AIDs and gay marriage.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Lukster,
Half of affirmative action is unconstitutional in my opinion, so again you're drawing parallels to the race issue to justify discrimination.
The half of affirmative action that gives minorities specific targeted assistance to address a societal imbalance does not appear to me to be unconstitutional. The part where that assistance comes at the direct expense of another person with race as the only discriminator IS unconstitutional however.
If a pot of money exists for the sole purpose of addressing a problem, it is not discrimination to give it out according to the plan to address that problem.
If however there is a merit-based discriminator in place and the legitimate winner of such a merit-based selection process is displaced by another person solely on the basis of race, then a law supporting such a process would be unconstitutional.
So you agree with the part of affirmative action that gives minorities targetted assistance. This sounds similar to giving a man and a woman a tax shelter.
You don't agree with affirmative action where that assistance is at the expense of another. Married people still pay taxes and are supporting society, not the other way around. In fact, without the male/female union there would be no society within a generation. You might argue that sheltering the man/woman marriage increases the taxes paid by the single man. That would be a very simplistic view that doesn't take into consideration the contribution of future tax payers by the married couple. Male/male relationships cannot produce these future tax payers.
-
lukster,
So again you're saying that my wife and I shouldn't be married because we can't produce future tax payers.
The first two times I figured you didn't really mean that, but now it's clear that you DO mean that.
When you can show that throughout history male/female couples were held in slavery and that their position in society is still affected by the fallout from that era, then I'll buy your argument that tax shelters for male/female partners is the same as affirmative action. Until then, it's a stupid argument.
When the laws governing marriage make having natural offspring a requirement to get a marriage certificate, I'll buy your argument about having children being the reason why male/female marriages are not unconstitutional. Until then, not only is it a stupid argument, it's also a direct assault against every childless married couple in history, because the benefits of being married are not limited to simple tax breaks. The whole thing, from right of survivorship (which you conveniently ignore while focusing on tax benefits only for couples who can naturally conceive a child) to inheritance laws are based on a legal definition of marriage that discriminates on the basis of sex alone.
You're repeating the same old argument that just because we've discriminated in the past, it's ok to keep doing it. And because we want to keep discriminating against certain people, we somehow need a constitutional amendment outlining the one (it'll be the last one, honest!) and only exception to the equal protections clause in the existing constitution.
So you're in favor of a constitutional amendment that legalizes sexual discrimination. What will be your stance when someone else proposes a constitutional amendment discriminating against you?
-
Talking about redefining marriage, if you allow gay marriage, meaning u change the definition of marriage, then you also need to leagalize polygamy.
man an a woman
then we leagalize
man and man
woman and woman
but also
man and woman and woman ...
woman and man and man ...
and of course, since same sex is allowed
man and man and man ...
woman and woman and woman ...
:huh
-
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth eagl. You and your wife are an anomaly. Most married couples can and do have kids. Would I deprive you of the benefits of marriage because of a malfunction? Of course not. I wouldn't deprive you of the benefits even if it were your choice to never have kids. Again, we're talking an anomaly. Women have a long tradition of staying home whether they have kids or not. That this has radically changed over the last 50 years may result in changes to the tax shelter enjoyed by married couples eventually.
-
Now you're saying discrimination based on tradition is ok?
You're really making it tough to write this constitutional amendment... Are they going to have to write in justification on the basis of a traditional family where the man works and the woman stays at home?
You're also fixating on the tax shelter aspects, and totally ignoring the other issues currently requiring "marriage", including right of survivorship, inheritance, and child custody.
You might also want to do a little more research before you go calling childless couples an anomaly... The rate is a lot higher than you think and not everyone who has to adopt advertises that fact. I don't hold your lack of knowledge on this subject against you, but your argument does demonstrate that you are not in possession of a number of facts.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Talking about redefining marriage, if you allow gay marriage, meaning u change the definition of marriage, then you also need to leagalize polygamy.
man an a woman
then we leagalize
man and man
woman and woman
but also
man and woman and woman ...
woman and man and man ...
and of course, since same sex is allowed
man and man and man ...
woman and woman and woman ...
:huh
Hey why stop there, WHy not man and animals, woman and donkeys. It'll be a hoot.
-
Or just re-define marriage as being a legally binding contract between two *people*, and be done with it. Unlike the constitutional guarantee against sexual discrimination, there is no constitutional guarantee for polygamy, so that's a baseless scare-tactic argument as well.
We have a current definition of marriage that is in question. Some states define it as a legally binding union or contract between two people, and some as the same contract but only between a man and a woman. One of those two definitions violates the constitution, and one does not.
The President knows this, and rather than support changing the laws to make them fit the existing constitution, he is proposing changing the constitution to permit laws that he knows darn well are unconstitutional. That's the whole reason for the proposed amendment, and that's the whole reason why that amendment can't be allowed to win. It would set the precedent that the constitution can be amended to allow discrimination in direct contradiction to the existing rights and protections guaranteed by the constitution, based on nothing but a gut feeling that some people don't deserve a legal status because they're "not like us".
Again, where have we heard these arguments before? Oh yea, that's right.
Guns, donkeys don't vote and there isn't a single donkey in the constitution, so ptooie on their opinion. :aok
-
Originally posted by eagl
Now you're saying discrimination based on tradition is ok?
You're really making it tough to write this constitutional amendment... Are they going to have to write in justification on the basis of a traditional family where the man works and the woman stays at home?
You're also fixating on the tax shelter aspects, and totally ignoring the other issues currently requiring "marriage", including right of survivorship, inheritance, and child custody.
You might also want to do a little more research before you go calling childless couples an anomaly... The rate is a lot higher than you think and not everyone who has to adopt advertises that fact. I don't hold your lack of knowledge on this subject against you, but your argument does demonstrate that you are not in possession of a number of facts.
Isn't affirmative action based on there being a a tradition of racial discrimination? Is that OK?
If I'm in error as to what constitutes an anomaly please provide some facts.
Like I said, discrimination isn't arbitrarily wrong. It all depends on the reasons.
-
The way I see it isn't complicated.
You give a married man and a woman a tax break becuase that is the basic family unit neeed for the survival of the species. Much effort and expense goes into raising kids, far more than what the tax break provides. If we are moving to women being providers equal to men then we might indeed modify this tax break to shelter only those with dependents. Removing it for everyone if it's not needed is the thing to do but giving the marriage tax break to two men is just plain stupid.
I have no problem with giving gay couples other rights that are no burden to society.
-
Many providers offer coverage to "life partners" allready. Either you are tip toeing or dancing, I still don't see the corilation between AIDs and gay marriage.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
And come on .. define the sexes for me..... Oh ya.... YOU CAN'T DO IT.
Huh?
Where'd you go to skewl dude? Or is it dudette? Drop yer drawers and I'll define yer sex for ya.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Huh?
Where'd you go to skewl dude? Or is it dudette? Drop yer drawers and I'll define yer sex for ya.
even if it accepts your offer, that may prove somewhat more difficult than you may imagine.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
Ya because others are sooooooo 'respectful' ... see above ----^
How else do you propose I educate ignorance? Am I not allowed to call someone ignorant or do you have another word you would prefer I use?
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Ya because others are sooooooo 'respectful' ... see above ----^
How else do you propose I educate ignorance? Am I not allowed to call someone ignorant or do you have another word you would prefer I use?
We've had this conversation before, sexes are completly identifiable by biology.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
We've had this conversation before, sexes are completly identifiable by bioligy.
Yet agin you show your ignorance.
http://www.medhelp.org/www/ais/
Here's an easy to find example of where your 'bioligy' definition fails.
-
Originally posted by storch
even if it accepts your offer, that may prove somewhat more difficult than you may imagine.
Hmmm. Well here's how I see it:
noodle=male
vagina=female
both=whole lotta fun
;)
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Yet agin you show your ignorance.
http://www.medhelp.org/www/ais/
Here's an easy to find example of where your 'bioligy' definition fails.
Syndrome: A group of symptoms that collectively indicate or characterize a disease, psychological disorder, or other abnormal condition.
Abnormal: Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant
Again Biology clearly defines male and female. What you posted is an anomaly (a deviation/departure from the norm)
Of course people would seek to redefine everything I posted to suit their agenda but if that's the case lets just throw websters and language as a whole out the window.
-
Isn't your whole problem with gay people that they are 'abnormal'?
So what is abnormal besides a Z score?
It's nice to see how you readily dismiss minorities. How convienant that when your genrelizations knowen as words fail you, that you call it abnormal or an anomaly.
Luckily for humans scientific thought came along and broke us away from generalized defenitions. Scientists use things like statistics to define, not websters.
-
Gay Marriage -why?
So Nash can can get hitched to an American and then he can vote!
:D
-
whoa there eagl.... you are coming at this as if it were a racial thing or as if there were discrimination... there is none.
everyone has the same right... they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. I do...you do... everyone does. I can marry a woman but not a man...And... what are those rights?
Well... they are finacial and status rights that people fought for. These were rights fought for and won on the premise that marriage consisted of a union between a man and a woman. they were voted on as such. I would venture to say that if people had known that gays were capable of marriage that they would have been a lot less generous with deductions and such.
Now you want to extend the rights to any sexual preference. you want to just grandfather them in and co opt the institution of marriage...
What is wrong with gays having a contract and then fighting for the status and rights as they come up? Why do they have to horn in?
and... constitutional? the constitution says nothing about children either... do you wish to extend the rights to child molesters?
And... if you are just talking about "fair" how is it "fair" that a couple get's a 500k capital gains deduction while I only get 350k even tho... I have a houshold with a daughter and grand daughter? Do I need less of a deduction? Is is "fair"?
The vast majority of people believe that their is a difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual union... they formed the institution of marriage based on a union between a man and a woman.
If homosexuals want to have their own type of union I have no problem with that. they are welcome to introduce legestlation that gives such a union benifiets. They are not welcome to horn in on an institution that is allready done all the groundwork...
those who believe that the instituion of marriage should be hetero and be given extra rights over, not only homos, but every other kind of relationship (including single parent) those people, we have the right to fight any marginalizeing of marriage by this or that group who want to horn in.
Gays have no right to change the defenition of marriage... they have every right... the same as anyone... to live within it by it's rules and they have every right to contract or invent an institution that sanctifies and gives privilges to their type of relationship.
I wish them luck but would fight their intrussion into an allready established institution....
Not being able to use the womens bathroom if you are a man is more discriminatory than not being able to marry the same sex. Some things simply have rules and restrictions and not everyone can allways play.
lazs
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Gay Marriage -why?
So Nash can can get hitched to an American and then he can vote!
:D
:rofl
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Isn't your whole problem with gay people that they are 'abnormal'?
So what is abnormal besides a Z score?
It's nice to see how you readily dismiss minorities. How convienant that when your genrelizations knowen as words fail you, that you call it abnormal or an anomaly.
Luckily for humans scientific thought came along and broke us away from generalized defenitions. Scientists use things like statistics to define, not websters.
I don't consider gays or consider gender confused people a minority in needing of "special rights" because that is what this is all about. We are born the way we are born, and in 99% of all cases it is either a male or a female. These genders have been layed through out most of the animal kingdome since the begining of time. I don't feel the need to pander to somone because they don't identify with society norms or gender identity. No one panders to me when I feel something isn't right so what makes them so special? It seems more and more that these "special groups" are no more than the fun police. They are unhappy that their life sucks so bad so they want to ruin it for everyone else.
Scientists use websters just as much as stats. The stats don't show a need to change gender norms that have been around for centuries.
-
Lazs, back in the 50s, you could make the argument that "The blacks have the same rights as anyone else. They have the right to use their bathrooms, and we have the right to use our bathrooms. They have the right to sit in their bus seats, just like _we_ have the rights to sit in _our_ bus seats. Why do the blacks suddenly want special treatment? Our country was built on the foundation that everyone has a place, heck, look at the civil war, hundreds of thousands died to establish the rights that the blacks have today. If people thought they needed to have all these special rights, then they would have said so at the end of the civil war."
I'll tell you something, I don't get it when people talk about the institution of marriage being under assault. I can't think of anything that gays being married could possibly do to hurt my marriage to my wife. We've talked about this, and maybe we're lucky, but as far as we know, our marriage isn't a house of cards that'll crumble the moment Joe and Ted or whatever get married.
Perhaps the folks pushing this amendment should spend more time on their OWN houses than trying to tell other people how to manage theirs.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Gay marriage - why?
its against nature, unfortunately only a decadent Society
would allow this. Dont trust me? study the past to see
what happened allready.
You are gay? its ok for me, but you dont have the right to
adopt a foreigner child to mimic a normal famaly, at least as
long i live.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lazs, back in the 50s, you could make the argument that "The blacks have the same rights as anyone else. They have the right to use their bathrooms, and we have the right to use our bathrooms. They have the right to sit in their bus seats, just like _we_ have the rights to sit in _our_ bus seats. Why do the blacks suddenly want special treatment? Our country was built on the foundation that everyone has a place, heck, look at the civil war, hundreds of thousands died to establish the rights that the blacks have today. If people thought they needed to have all these special rights, then they would have said so at the end of the civil war."
I'll tell you something, I don't get it when people talk about the institution of marriage being under assault. I can't think of anything that gays being married could possibly do to hurt my marriage to my wife. We've talked about this, and maybe we're lucky, but as far as we know, our marriage isn't a house of cards that'll crumble the moment Joe and Ted or whatever get married.
Perhaps the folks pushing this amendment should spend more time on their OWN houses than trying to tell other people how to manage theirs.
The whole white only argument doesn't work here chair and let me tell you why. Gays have the same EXACT rights as straits. THey have the right to marry somone of the opposite gender.
The problem is they don't WANT that they WANT same gender marriage. So we as a society just have to cave in to their every desires?
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
its against nature, unfortunately only a decadent Society
would allow this. Dont trust me? study the past to see
what happened allready.
You are gay? its ok for me, but you dont have the right to
adopt a foreigner child to mimic a normal famaly, at least as
long i live.
If nature is the driver, polygamy would be legal.
-
Nash,
d.)
It's a dog and pony show and is only being done so these jack-holes can go to their constituants and say "hey, look how I argued and voted on this crazy, barbaric threat against gays.
These tools on both sides already know what the vote will be, they just want to spend a good amount of time in the limelight so they can look like heros. It's just showtime, that's all.
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
Nash,
d.)
It's a dog and pony show and is only being done so these jack-holes can go to their constituants and say "hey, look how I argued and voted on this crazy, barbaric threat against gays.
These tools on both sides already know what the vote will be, they just want to spend a good amount of time in the limelight so they can look like heros. It's just showtime, that's all.
That's the first I've heard about this. Can you point me to some evidence that any Democrat thinks this is a splendid way to spend their time?
I don't mean to single you out, because I hear this "both sides" excuse used all the time. I can understand what the motivation for doing it is, certainly:
"If my party is screwed up, then they're all screwed up. If my party is corrupt, then they're all corrupt. If my party grabbed the wheel and drove the nation over a cliff and into a bad war, then they all did."
But as in this case, it's just not true.
Hell, you're already seeing lazs, over the course of a couple of weeks, trying to build a case by equating the highly political and influential right wing religious fundamentalists to people who think that there might actually be something to this whole global warming thing.
In effect; "If my party has fundamentalists, so do they." That's quite a stretch to put it mildly, but I gotta give it to lazs - he has one hell of an imagination.
I guess the thing is this: The Democrats aren't squeaky clean, so why not use what they actually do against them, instead of repeatedly trying to lay the Republicans' constant missteps at the feet of everyone? I'd have no problem with that at all.
The Democrats didn't ask for this marriage debate, so it'd be neat if you didn't try to imply that they did. That's all.
-
All I'm saying is that it's a dog and pony show. Both sides get to have fun with it for their perceived benefits.
I say "the tools on both sides" because it's true. Both sides know the outcome already, yet they want to get on stage for the main event, which is the "show"
-
"They" don't want to get on stage. The Republicans do.
"Both sides" don't want to "have fun with this". The Republicans do.
Can't you see the difference?
-
Originally posted by Nash
"They" don't want to get on stage. The Republicans do.
"Both sides" don't want to "have fun with this". The Republicans do.
Can't you see the difference?
I actually agree with you. One thing to keep in mind though is that in every state where this has been put on the balot, it has been approved, usually by an overwhelming majority.
-
It seems more and more that these "special groups" are no more than the fun police.
So your fun is being spoiled by gay marriage?.... intresting.... Gun"Swinger"?
Gays have the same EXACT rights as straits. THey have the right to marry somone of the opposite gender.
But they don't have the right to marry the person they love....
Wow, another ambiguous definition ... imagine that.
-
What an absolutely INCREDIBLE coincidence....
Nash bringing up the gay marriage ban on June 6 and...wonder of wonders... the SAME TOPIC on "his man" Drifty's blog datelined June 5!
Hey Nash, if Limbaugh's drones are "dittoheads" what are Driftydrones?
heh
-
Originally posted by Nash
"They" don't want to get on stage. The Republicans do.
"Both sides" don't want to "have fun with this". The Republicans do.
Can't you see the difference?
Here's the deal:
Both sides see an advantage in this. Each side can play this to their strenght. It's a win/win for all of them.
Think a little.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I actually agree with you. One thing to keep in mind though is that in every state where this has been put on the balot, it has been approved, usually by an overwhelming majority.
Including Oregon and California, those hotbeds of Republican activism. :rofl
Simple solution is don't give ANY married couple..people, sheep, dogs, whatever.... any special benefits (taxes, etc.) that a single person wouldn't get. Problem sol-ved.
-
The tools on both sides each know that this will not pass. Each side will then waste time to "debate" the issue for no other reason than political "glitter"
-
Toad, clear your private messages, mr popular :)
-
The Lawyers will pump a bunch of money to make sure this gets passed. I am sure they want to double their income potential.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
The Lawyers will pump a bunch of money to make sure this gets passed. I am sure they want to double their income potential.
It's not getting passed.....that's the thing. Everyone knows it will not pass.
Both sides are going to "debate" it though, by GOD!
-
Lol.... Christ, Toad.
It was the day's top story, the President gave not one but two speeches on it, it was on every blog and on every teevee and in every newspaper.... and now you're saying "what a coincidence!" to the fact that drifty happens to join in the thousands upon thousands of people, including me, who are talking about it?
What a gong show....
But at least you've stopped quoting other blogs, calling them driftglass' posts, and blaming me for getting my subject matter off of posts driftglass didn't even write.
Man, you seem to want this bad......
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
But they don't have the right to marry the person they love....
I love Jessica Alba, where in the constitution does it say I have the RIGHT to marry her? Hell I love her, Jessica Beil, and a few others.....where does it say I have the RIGHT to marry ALL of them.
No one has the right to marry the one they love, just to marry somone of the opposite gender. It's granted to everyone of every race anc creed.
-
Your forgetting that part about " I do "
and in history ... women didn't always get a choice.
Is that your best argurement? (rollseyes)
And I said THE person ... implying one, stop trying to equate this to polygamy when your loseing the argurement.
-
Hmm... but now that ya mention driftglass, I took a look and he makes an interesting argument regarding the perceived threat to the institution of marriage.
Personally, that angle never made sense to me. What is this threat? Admittedly, there are just some things I'll never be able to understand. Here's driftglass' take:
----------------------------
"So let us imagine there’s a box in, oh, say, Massachusetts or Oregon or Iowa.
A big box, and in that box are the following items:
1. A Bible.
2. A preacher.
3. A gay couple.
4. A straight friend.
5. Enough consumables and comforts to last a lifetime.
Sort of a Biosphere II, but with vastly better feng shui.
And you’re living la vida no-neck in some high-toned, melanin-poor gated exurb, or in some scruffier digs where the “gate” is a gaunt, three-legged pit-bull named Bobby Lee tied the rusted hulk of an El Camino up on ancient blocks.
Now at some point over the course of years, the gay couple may ask the preacher to pick up the bible and, with their straight friend standing witness, get hitched.
Or they may not.
In fact, they exist only in a cloud of quantum connubial possibilities until you bust the box open and demand to know just what in the **** they’re doing in there. And how can they have amassed such a formidable stockpile of really spiffy antiques without ever having left the box!
It is only when you kick the door down and intrude on their private business that the haze of potential outcomes collapses into a single, nuptial certainty.
So the question is, when exactly -- over the course of, say, forty years of leaving the box intact and letting them be -- did their status inside the box destroy your marriage outside the box?
When was it -- precisely -- during those four decades that this single detail of the lives of strangers who live so immensely far away from you in every meaningful way managed to intrude into your life so violently that it ruined your relationship with your spouse and debased the value of the love and mutual commitment you share?
So much so that the only possible solution is to amend the foundational documents of our democracy?
Because if you cannot identify the specific, quantifiable harm that such a union would have on you and yours, then shut your ****ing hole."
-----------------------
Lol.... I don't care what anyone says.... he's hilarious. :D
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hmm... but now that ya mention driftglass, I took a look and he makes an interesting argument regarding the perceived threat to the institution of marriage.
Personally, that angle never made sense to me. What is this threat? Admittedly, there are just some things I'll never be able to understand. Here's driftglass' take:
----------------------------
"So let us imagine there’s a box in, oh, say, Massachusetts or Oregon or Iowa.
A big box, and in that box are the following items:
1. A Bible.
2. A preacher.
3. A gay couple.
4. A straight friend.
5. Enough consumables and comforts to last a lifetime.
Sort of a Biosphere II, but with vastly better feng shui.
And you’re living la vida no-neck in some high-toned, melanin-poor gated exurb, or in some scruffier digs where the “gate” is a gaunt, three-legged pit-bull named Bobby Lee tied the rusted hulk of an El Camino up on ancient blocks.
Now at some point over the course of years, the gay couple may ask the preacher to pick up the bible and, with their straight friend standing witness, get hitched.
Or they may not.
In fact, they exist only in a cloud of quantum connubial possibilities until you bust the box open and demand to know just what in the **** they’re doing in there. And how can they have amassed such a formidable stockpile of really spiffy antiques without ever having left the box!
It is only when you kick the door down and intrude on their private business that the haze of potential outcomes collapses into a single, nuptial certainty.
So the question is, when exactly -- over the course of, say, forty years of leaving the box intact and letting them be -- did their status inside the box destroy your marriage outside the box?
When was it -- precisely -- during those four decades that this single detail of the lives of strangers who live so immensely far away from you in every meaningful way managed to intrude into your life so violently that it ruined your relationship with your spouse and debased the value of the love and mutual commitment you share?
So much so that the only possible solution is to amend the foundational documents of our democracy?
Because if you cannot identify the specific, quantifiable harm that such a union would have on you and yours, then shut your ****ing hole."
-----------------------
Lol.... I don't care what anyone says.... he's hilarious. :D
The guy is a moron.
-
And I don't read reviews printed in the New York Post, if ya know what I'm sayin'.....
-
Lets imagine a world with a preacher, a bible, a straight couple and a gay couple.
For forty years the straight couple has been a couple. The Gay couple has been a couple for 40 years.
Wow! What a strange world!
-
Originally posted by Nash
exactly -- over the course of, say, forty years of leaving the box intact and letting them be -- did their status inside the box destroy your marriage outside the box?
When was it --
I thought they were all "inside" the same box?
Drifty is a moron, in many ways.
-
Is there a way to post rebutals to Drifty's site? He'd be easy to have fun with.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
I thought they were all "inside" the same box?
Drifty is a moron, in many ways.
Wow.... reading comprehension problem?
You call him a moron based on your complete failure to comprehend something so simple. The entire premise of his analogy was lost on you... and that makes him the moron?
:rofl
-
(http://ln-s.net/Ac8)
Gunslinger, will you marry me?
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
Is there a way to post rebutals to Drifty's site? He'd be easy to have fun with.
Yeah Nuke - in the comments button thingy under each post. You just select "anonymous" as your username and away you go. No signing up, no nothing. Yer able to post, like, now.
This would actually be kinda fun to see.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Wow.... reading comprehension problem?
You call him a moron based on your complete failure to comprehend something so simple. The entire premise of his analogy was lost on you... and that makes him the moron?
:rofl
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Wow.... reading comprehension problem?
You call him a moron based on your complete failure to comprehend something so simple. The entire premise of his analogy was lost on you... and that makes him the moron?
:rofl
I'm 5 steps ahead of you.
Drifty is a moron.
Outside the box? Nothing is "outside the box"
-
I'm very, VERY smart.
Drifty is pretty dumb. He sounds dumb, says dumb things and makes little sense.
He's a moron.
-
I know you're smart. You've even said so.
Ya mighta missed it, but I answered you on how you can post there back on the last page.
I dare ya. ;) Just for kicks.....
-
Originally posted by Nash
I know you're smart. You've even said so.
Ya mighta missed it, but I answered you on how you can post there back on the last page.
I dare ya. ;) Just for kicks.....
okay, I promise I will post there. Not tonight though, as I'm gonna go to bed soon.
I really do think the guy is a moron though.
-
right.
-
right?
not sure what you mean, but I'm telling you that I will post on this dumchit's site.
-
Good night, Nuke. ;)
-
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
Ok, carry on...
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
I'm very, VERY smart.
It cracks me up everytime :lol :lol :rofl :rofl
-
Sry to intervene, but:
"I personally don't see what the big deal is about gay marriage.
Sure marriage has it's benefits."
If they get to be "legally married" they get the same right as any couples to adopt kids?
Would that cause a moral dilemma?
-C+
-
a jewish couple, an irish couple and a greek couple die in a horrible accident while on vacation. as they approach the pearly gates leading to heaven St. Peter is there waiting with a not so "glad to see you look" on his face.
to the jewish couple he says, you, you spent your entire lives thinking of nothing but money, money money money, that's it. it was your only concern. in fact you loved money so much you married a girl named penny. where is all your money now? go to hell. *poof*
to the irish couple he says, you, you spent your entire life thinking of nothing but drinking, drink drink drink, that was your only concern. in fact you loved drinking so much you married a girl named brandy. let's see you drink this problem away. go to hell. *poof*
with this lesson occurring before their eyes the greek turns to his wife and says "oh my god fanny, we don't stand a chance".
-
chair... racial discrimination is quite different. To say that gays are being discriminated against in marriage is simplisic and wrong in the extreme.
Anyone is allowed to get married... child molesters goat lovers and necrophiliacs... they just have to play by the rules and marry a person of the opposite sex who is competent and of age. It matters not what color or race or religion they are... or even their sexual preference...
In the south in the fifties (and it was going away even then) there were "seperate but equal" ideas floating aroud... colored drinking fountains and back of the bus sort of thing. A person could not drink from a fountain based on color.
Another example is the discrimination of male and female bathrooms... that is more in line with the marriage rules. Everyone can use the bathrooms so long as they are the correct sex. Some uni sex bathrooms allow anyone to use them but they have rules too.
This is not the case with marriage.. anyone can participate... no one cares what your color or whatever is.
Now...you could make the case that marriage in itself is "discrimination" in that it has rules. I can't marry a 12 year old for instance. I can't marry my mom or daughter to get all the benifiets that married people get.
And here is the crux of it. You claim that you as a married couple would not mind or worry if gays got married... that is fine but.... being married gives you no more vote on it than anyone else.
Gays do not want to get married for status... it is for the benifiets that mazrried people have... it will cost us all huge amounts of money to give these benifiets to gays... and why should only gays and conventional couples get these benifets? why not me supporting my daughter and granddaughter? where is my 500k capital gains deduction like mazrried people?
See.... people gave those rights to married couples for a reason... we all felt that it was a good thing to support conventional families..
Now... you can argue that some gays would make great families... that is fine... argue but.... don't try to usurp the process of getting all these rights in one fell swoop.
If gays can sign a worthless piece of paper and be instantly given all the rights married people were given over the centuries....
Why then not me? Why not single people... people who care for a dog...
Are we not then discriminated against by both hetero and homo couples?
Just because a person does not want to get married to either a gay or a hetro.... why should he/she be discriminated against?
don't you get it? if you claim that the rules of marriage are discrimination then there can be no rules.
At that point... you have destroyed... or at least, severly marginalized marriage.
If gays are allowed to sign a contract that gives them all the benifiets of marriage then so should anyone else regardless of sex, religion or being single.
The entire tax code is discriminatory.
Gays don't want a wedding and a cake and to be able to say they are married... they simply want to grab all the goodies that we as a people have given a group for reasons that we feel are to our benifiet..
gays saying that marriage is discrimination are like rich people saying that the earned income credit discriminates against them.
gays can have a contract and a wedding with all the trimmings right now... they can have all the benifiets right now too if they want to follow the rules.
I don't want to give em the benifiets and shoulder the expense tho of gay marriage... let em make their case... but all this dishonest stuff really gets to me... they simply want the handouts. so do I..... tough... we don't fit the rules as they are.
lazs
-
Patrick Leahy "This is playing poltics with basic rights, and I think that is wrong"
Bill Frist on the other hand.... LMAO "Will the judical branch override the will of the American people"
Frist obviously doesn't beleive in the constitution and the founding fathers who framed it largely to protect minorities from the majority. But with all the half-truth he drops it's little surprise.
Alexander Hamilton, for instance, helped stop a mob of patriots at "King's College" (now Columbia) from takeing the president of the college, a loyalist to the crown. Amazeing how he stood up for counter POV's and minority rights even then. It wasn't the only time he stood up to a mob. He also helped found the frist society for the manumition (sp) of slaves.
Looks like many "No" votes are poping up
-
Originally posted by Sandman
If nature is the driver, polygamy would be legal.
Polygamy in a unoffical fashion is legal. While you can't enter into mulitple legal marriages simultaneously you can have as many "girlfriends" as you want siring as many kids as you want legally all living in the same house. To not choose this way of life is a choice made freely which could imply that mongamy is a "natural" state for humans.
-
49 Yea 48 Nay
This joke is done with.
-
Anyone is allowed to get married... child molesters goat lovers and necrophiliacs... they just have to play by the rules and marry a person of the opposite sex who is competent and of age. It matters not what color or race or religion they are... or even their sexual preference...
Marriage in the US does discriminate against sexual preference since it does not allow same sex marriages.
In the south in the fifties (and it was going away even then) there were "seperate but equal" ideas floating aroud... colored drinking fountains and back of the bus sort of thing. A person could not drink from a fountain based on color.
And right now there are person who want to marry someone but cannot because laws do not permit it because of their sexual orientation.
This is not the case with marriage.. anyone can participate... no one cares what your color or whatever is.
But they do, however, care what your sexual orientation is.
Gays do not want to get married for status... it is for the benifiets that mazrried people have... it will cost us all huge amounts of money to give these benifiets to gays... and why should only gays and conventional couples get these benifets? why not me supporting my daughter and granddaughter? where is my 500k capital gains deduction like mazrried people?
Because they are a couple, just like a heterosexual couple. What's good for kitty is also good for puppy, by logical extension.
See.... people gave those rights to married couples for a reason... we all felt that it was a good thing to support conventional families..
Well if it's for supporting couples so they can raise children then those benefits should not be given to couples who can't or won't have any.
Why then not me? Why not single people... people who care for a dog...
Because you're not a couple and animals cannot consent to marriage since they do not understand the concept.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
Well if it's for supporting couples so they can raise children then those benefits should not be given to couples who can't or won't have any.
It may happen. Times, they are a changin'. Why else would you give a tax break to a married couple?
-
why do peeps keep picken on teh gheys :cry
-
avro... where does it say you can't have laws based on sexual preference... goat lovers are discriminated against... pedophiles and necrophiliacs are discriminated against....
Why should gays be the only group that gets a pass on the marriage rules? Why not single people? marriage discriminates against me as a single person... many places, a married couple get a higher health benifiet than me.... they get a 500k capital gains instead of my 250k...
marriage most assuredly discriminates against single people or those who are raising relatives without being married...
A gay can marry a person of the opposite sex and get all the goodies at least... A single person can not stay single and be married.... a person who is celebate can't consumate a marriage so.... the laws discriminate against him...
nope... can't use simple rules that apply to everyone to somehow make them seem like some sort of minority discrimination. A black person couldn't change his color to drink out of the white fountain but a gay most certainly can marry a person of the opposite sex.
I don't know if a constitutional amendment was/is needed but whatever the people want. There is a process.
If the rules can be broken based on sexual discrimination then you might as well not even have the institution of marriage... it is worthless.... allmost everyone of any bent will be able to make a case for discrimination based on something or another...
to describe yourself as a minority because of sexual preference may be correct but It is not a minority that needs any special protection... it is a minority that is not discriminated against in most instances.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
avro... where does it say you can't have laws based on sexual preference... goat lovers are discriminated against... pedophiles and necrophiliacs are discriminated against....
lazs
Easy, each one of the examples you provided have the same thing in common: They cannot give legal consent or enter a contract.
1. A goat cannot give legal consent for marriage or teh sex.
2. A child cannot give legal consent for marriage or teh sex.
3. A corpse cannot give legal consent for marriage or teh sex.
A "gay" (as you put it), on the other hand, presumably can (if they are of legal age, alive, and not a goat).
-
marriage most assuredly discriminates against single people or those who are raising relatives without being married...
You get a tax break for "dependants" weather young or old.
Sorry try agin. Your sides so called 'logic' fails agin and agin.
It seems you can't use your brain to get past your baser instincts from my POV. Careful or your medulla oblongata might take over when your NOT drinking (rollseyes)
-
gays are able to enter into any contract they want... they simply are not allowed to marry another person of the same sex. Single people can enter into a contract with themselves...you and your relatives can enter into contracts but you are still "discriminated against" so far as marriage.
So if your arguement is that so long as two adults are involved marriage is discriminatory if it dissallows the union is.... bunk. Lots of adults are discriminated against in marriage based on their preference... it is not just gay adults.
For instance.... my daughter and I are raising my grand daughter. We are a family unit supporting family values and an asset (grand daughter is cared for) to the community..... yet.... married couples get many more benifiets than us and.... we can't marry each other even tho two of the people in this relationship are adults.
Of course, I have no interest in marrying my daughter but would love all the bennies such as tax deductions etc.
lazs
-
blukitty... anyone can get a tax break for a dependent... you can be gay and do the exact same thing so..... try again.
What I can't get is say.... the capital gains deduction of a married person. The SS benifiets say... lot's of things. Any more than a gay person.
Who are you trying to kid... it aint the rice and wedding cake you want it is the MONEY.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
What I can't get is say.... the capital gains deduction of a married person. The SS benifiets say... lot's of things.
Then agin, I think that is wrong too. But I think alot is wrong with the so called rules of this society.
-
Lazs, what if the gay couple like guns and drive gas-guzzling hotrods??
-
Gay marriage - why?
That about sums it up. Why?
Why even attempt to promote something as something that is impossible?
-
"If we can put a man on the moon..."
-
Originally posted by lazs2
chair... racial discrimination is quite different. To say that gays are being discriminated against in marriage is simplisic and wrong in the extreme.
Anyone is allowed to get married... / ..... It matters not what color or race or religion they are... or even their sexual preference...
In the south in the fifties (and it was going away even then) there were "seperate but equal" ideas floating aroud... colored drinking fountains and back of the bus sort of thing. A person could not drink from a fountain based on color.
...
This is not the case with marriage.. anyone can participate... no one cares what your color or whatever is.
lazs
Oh what the hell....
From driftglass: (http://driftglass.blogspot.com/)
===========
"And if the only rationale you can conjure is... that “Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges” - then I commend to your attention the opening lines of the June 12, 1967, Loving v. Virginia decision, which gets referred to a lot in Left Bloggylvania, but not cited verbatim nearly often enough for my tastes, because here's how it begins. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html) (Emphasis added):
"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."
The law in Virginia as it read provided...
"Punishment for marriage. - If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years."
And the penalty for leaving the State to evade the law was...
...If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage."
What more needs be said?
When the cultural Gladys Kravitzes on the Right stomp into the public square dragging Gay Marriage along behind them, this is what’s really on the menu: Their insatiable appetite to impose their witchbag of hate, squeamishness and childish idiocy on everyone else in the Universe for no reason other than they are hateful, squeamish, childish idiots.
And since there is absolutely no quantifiable harm they can point to (In Loving, the “harm” cited was found in the language of Naim v. Naim which “concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride”…), time and again - from slavery, through Jim Crow, through “Loving” and now with Gay Marriage - you see the same democracy-loathing Red Statists thumping the same Bible, from the same pulpit, to the same squealing mob of culturally malnourished knuckleheads.
Generation after debased generation the disease is passed on, because regardless of where this moral cancer has geographically metastasized over the years, the continuous line of divinely-sanctioned White Male Christian Supremacy that runs from “God, Nooses and Negroes” to “God, Guns and Gays” comes straight out of the spiritual heart of the old Confederacy.
And because there are no tangible, measurable negative consequences, when you take it upon yourself to tell two consenting adults who and how they may marry you will always end up playing the “Almighty God”-card. Either explicitly, or by cowering behind such hollow, bigot-coded and patently ridiculous threats as, "Changing the definition of marriage would undermine the structure of the family."
On this issue - however icky you might personally find the whole idea of boys kissing boys or girls canoodling with girls - you can either be a Good Republican or a Good American, but you cannot be both.
Because when you insist that your perverse view of the Bible gives you the right to smash open Schrodinger's box and dictate who and how two consenting adults may marry, you will always end up standing on the gibbet, slipping the “Loving” rope around Liberty’s throat.
Always.
And that is no place that any decent American would ever want to be."
====================================
I know how much he gets some of y'all's nipples all twisted up...
So chew on that. :)
40 years ago interacial marriage was illegal. A mere fourty years ago!
Anyone opposing this has already lost.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Lazs, what if the gay couple like guns and drive gas-guzzling hotrods??
(answering for Lazs)
Then they wouldn't be gay.
-
:aok
As far as I know Pachmayar doesn`t make paisley grips and pink sidewalls never did go over real well.
-
avro... where does it say you can't have laws based on sexual preference... goat lovers are discriminated against... pedophiles and necrophiliacs are discriminated against....
Animals, children and corpses cannot consent while gays can.
You cannot have laws based on sexual preferences because the constitution gives EVERYONE equal rights. Right now gays do not have the right to get married according to there sexuals preferences while heterosexuals can.
Why should gays be the only group that gets a pass on the marriage rules? Why not single people? marriage discriminates against me as a single person... many places, a married couple get a higher health benifiet than me.... they get a 500k capital gains instead of my 250k...
marriage most assuredly discriminates against single people or those who are raising relatives without being married...
A gay can marry a person of the opposite sex and get all the goodies at least... A single person can not stay single and be married.... a person who is celebate can't consumate a marriage so.... the laws discriminate against him...
nope... can't use simple rules that apply to everyone to somehow make them seem like some sort of minority discrimination. A black person couldn't change his color to drink out of the white fountain but a gay most certainly can marry a person of the opposite sex.
Gays are asking to be treated the same as heterosexual couples, since that is what they are. The single person argument is contradictory since being single means you're not a couple, so why should you get privileges assigned to couples when you aren't one ? You're comparing apples and oranges again.
If you want want fairer treatment for single people who are raising relatives you have the right to lobby for it just like gays do. They asking for something does not hinder you're right to do the same for another group just like gay marriages do not affect heterosexuals marriages in any way. The constitution defends the religious freedom of the people so they cannot be forced to perform ceremonies they do not want to.
If the rules can be broken based on sexual discrimination then you might as well not even have the institution of marriage... it is worthless.... allmost everyone of any bent will be able to make a case for discrimination based on something or another...
Gays are not asking for any rules to be broken, they are asking for the same rights as other couples.
-
nash... even in my most biggoted early years of white power I never believed that discrimination based on color was fair... I certainly do not now. That goes for reverse discrimination like affirmative action and so called hate crimes.
A persons color is not changeable. I would not support any ammendment that said coloreds could not marry or... that they were the only ones allowed to marry for that matter.
Gays are not a minority in any real sense they are not denied any rights. They are also not asking for everyone to get the bennies they want from marriage... they are only concerned for themselves.
If discriminating against them in marriage is wrong then any rules in marriage are wrong. Marriage has no right to discriminate against any consenting adults for any reason. No discrimination based on sex should be allowed then... no men and women locker rooms... no male and female bathrooms... no boy scouts and girl scouts... no girls soccer and boys football....
men and women are different... marriage celebrates that union. It provides for a healthy way to raise offspring.... most of the people from countries on this BB that support gay marriage have illegitimacy rates in the 50% range... I want to listen to them about what is best?
and... no one has responded... if the rights were given by the people to a goup who had rules and then the rules were changed so that what was voted on or given freely is now 180 degrees different... then the voters were betrayed.
Ask yourself... would the majority of the people vote to give incentives to marriage if they knew that it was any contract between two adults no matter if they were of the same sex or blood? Of course not.
lazs
-
I personally think that I could not possibly care less if two gay people want to marry.
Let 'em.
How in this world could the "quality" or "sanctity" of my marriage to my wife be even the slightest bit affected by the marriage of two lesbians, or whatever? Not in the least.
I've known enough people in my life to have come to the following conclusion...decency, compassion, reliability, loyalty, common sense and intellect are hard enough to come by, regardless of what 'flavor' of human you are.
I'll judge people by how they behave, what they do to and for others, how they contribute to society.
I know gay couples who are far more fit to raise a child than several hetero couples who are so selfish, status-centric and negligent that I wouldn't let them watch my dogs for a week.
Furthermore, to make this a Constitutional issue defies every value I ever thought was part of being an American, and seriously dimishes the integrity of what an Amendment should be.
Leave these people alone, let them live like the rest of us, and save your venom, righteousness and bile for the sorts of people who really deserve it.
Careful, lest someone decide some aspect of YOUR life is not to be tolerated...you'll go from holier-than-thou to hunted in a heartbeat.
I'm not a particular fan of that lifestyle, and don't choose to wallow in it...but 'tolerance' doesn't mean I have to love it or live it...just let it be.
(PS..I use the words 'you' and 'your' in the generic sense, not specifically directed at anyone)
-
goomba... I recognize your sentiments. I agree with your sentiments. I would in no way wish to see gays discriminated against... This is not the case with gays changing the rules of marriage.... no more than men and womens bathrooms or locker rooms are discriminatory..
As for how you and your wife feel about gays not diminishing your marriage by their participation... that is admirable and... correct..
However... it is not about you and your wife and how much or little it diminishes your perception of marriage.
It is about money. It is not about having a cake and rice thrown at you or wearing wedding rings... it is about getting a tax break... It is about making everyone pay for a gay partners health care....
These rights were fought for/given to you and yours (you and yours meaning married people) by voters and citizens because we felt that your lifestyle was worth rewarding. That their was a good chance that you would raise the future of America. We might not have done so if the "rules" didn't count.
Now... it is the same with schools... why should a childless person or family pay property taxes on schools? He can't use em... he is being "discriminated" against? Nope... if he has a kid then his kid get's to use the school.... If a gay marries a consenting adult of the oppossite gender... he gets to get the tax and health goodies... everyone has the same opportunity.
You and yours (married people) are not the only ones involved here... just like people with kids are not the only ones who should have a say in our schools.
If there are no rules for marriage then everyone should get exactly the same benifiets as you and yours (married people)... those raising a dependend or even single people...
Your arguement only holds water if marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper and a wedding ceremony with no special rights.
I simply say... let gays get their own form of marriage and fight for/or be given extra rights one at a time. Gays can have a contract... they can have a wedding... they can even marry opposite gender.
They don't want that.... they want the MONEY... It is not about respect and rights.... It is about money.
lazs