Gay Marriage

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,

It isn't a "rights" issue, this is an issue about a group of people trying to change things so they "get" something - legal status of "marriage". That's fine - lets see some legislation - not have a judge decide for everyone.

CkG

It is a rights issue.. whether or not it is a "Protected Right" under the Constitution. It has to be determined by the branch of government charged with that responsibility. It is not explicit in there so it must be interpreted one way or another. It don't matter if no homosexual marriages occur as a result of a 'Yes' determination or not.. it goes way way way way beyond that. It means that the 14th Amendment - if the Supreme Court holds homosexual marriage to be protected - has been stretched so far and in so many directions that what used to be State Rights are totaly and completely gone. We might as well eliminate all State Government and save the money. Let everything be run from Washington. Hamilton won..!!!
It seems to me that Homosexual marriage may well be as much a right as Heterosexual marriage but, the test case must get there first.
Just think about all the various issues that have fallen under the 14th. WE must demand a explicit statement of what the 14th covers and not use it to "create law" as the majority of the Court in Session determine.. it becomes totaly political. It is why the Liberals fight so hard to thwart the elevation of very Conservative Judges to the Federal Bench.
Ever listen to Joe Biden question Nominees? Roe is always a question as well as the other topics of the day.
As to the lesser issue, I think without doubt and not for any legal reason that homosexual marriage should be allowed and recoginzed in those States who agree.

Pass Legislation then, the Feds did in 1996.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Also just an FYI for the people who continuously misrepresent the proposed Constituional Amendment situation - it isn't an Amendment to "ban" homosexuals or their lifestyle. It is to protect the definition of marriage, as used in the "spouse" context I previously covered, from people trying to redefine it as "any two people". But along those lines...why is the "two" qualifier added? Why only two? Are you a bigot? Also why add the "people" qualifier? Why "two people"? Are you a bigot?
Just pointing out the absurdity of the "any two people" change...if you really believe that it being man&woman is bigotry

CkG

Okay...let me address this. Certainly, the amendment does not overtly ban homosexual lifestyle, but it finds its inspiration AND purpose in a movement and ideology which portrays homosexuals as morally indecent. No politician would overtly propose an amendment saying that homosexuals couldn't marry - that would be too blunt and to-the-point. But it IS, however, possible to 'conveniently' bar homosexuals from legal union by prescribing 'marriage' to be a union between a man and a woman only. The same sort of indirect underhand technique was in widespread use amongst the South after the Civil War, imposing literacy tests and other intellectual qualifications in order to be able to vote. Naturally, Blacks fell into the category who conveniently failed these tests over and over, although the laws did not explicitly mention Blacks directly. The bottom line is that if a constitutional amendment to define marriage is established, it disenfranchises a large minority population of the United States and that is unacceptable.

Moreover, in reference to your concern over slippery slope, you're diverging from the topic, trying to break the argument by proposing absurd examples (i.e. "If marriage can be between a man and a man, what's next? People marrying their dogs?") Unfortunately for your examples, they are a bit TOO absurd to weaken the gay marriage argument - it does not follow that by allowing two more classes of people to marry, that we will subsequently legalize laws or start movements to allow for polygamous marriage or intra-species marriage - in fact, the latter two are entirely unrelated to the crux of the homosexuality issue and are defined by separate social and psychological ties than homosexual marriage. It is utterly laughable to use this sort of argument - it's like arguing that your daughter shouldn't go out with a football player because she will "undoubtedly" get pregnant, drop out of school, go on welfare, never get to college, marry a deadbeat, have more kids, and end up in a homeless shelter. Please - come up with a better objection, if you can. Arguing against gay marriage because you're afraid people will want to marry their cats or dogs is about as laughable as trying to pawn off Kerry/Edwards or Bush/Cheney as gay lovers.

*sigh* Nice try with the "slippery slope" BS. That's not the point. The point is - why do YOU get to set the limit at "TWO" "PEOPLE" when you whine about "discrimination" and "rights" when the law states that a spouse is a person of the opposite sex. Why is one "bigotry" and the other not? THAT is my point(of what you quoted) - I could care less about having polygamy recognized or other "abnormal" relationships but when people sit here and whine about "homosexual rights" and then set the threshold based on what they feel is right/wrong they are being intellectually dishonest.
I'm not "afraid" of homosexuals or them "marrying" but sheesh - look in the mirror when you scream "bigot". Make sure YOU aren't doing the exact same thing you attempt to scold others for.

It isn't a "rights" issue, this is an issue about a group of people trying to change things so they "get" something - legal status of "marriage". That's fine - lets see some legislation - not have a judge decide for everyone.

CkG

Finally you admit you're talking bigotry. Thanks. The answer to why one kind of bigotry over the other is easy enough. Both gays and straights all lust for more than one mate so in order to make society function better without the winners like me getting all the mates and losers like you sitting out on the curb plotting criminal acts, we level the playing field and keep both gays and straights limited to one mate at a time. It's secular common sense bigotry not the religious type that's irrational and bible based. It's functional. Nobody gets to have more than one spouse and everybody suffers equally in not being able to marry all the people they love instead of some not being allow to marry just the one they love.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Finally you admit you're talking bigotry. Thanks. The answer to why one kind of bigotry over the other is easy enough. Both gays and straights all lust for more than one mate so in order to make society function better without the winners like me getting all the mates and losers like you sitting out on the curb plotting criminal acts, we level the playing field and keep both gays and straights limited to one mate at a time. It's secular common sense bigotry not the religious type that's irrational and bible based. It's functional. Nobody gets to have more than one spouse and everybody suffers equally in not being able to marry all the people they love instead of some not being allow to marry just the one they love.

No, I'm saying that those accusing others of bigotry are guilty of it by their standards if they use the "two people" argument.

Bigot.

CkG

 

[0roo0roo]

not really. being fair and allowing for consenting adults to pair does not create imbalance. polygamy cannot be universal by definition. quite different from simply gay marriage.

 

[LunarRay]

CAD,

Pass Legislation then, the Feds did in 1996.

That is the point! No legislation is needed if it is a Protected Right. It is law. It is the Constitution if they hold it to be so.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

*sigh* Nice try with the "slippery slope" BS. That's not the point. The point is - why do YOU get to set the limit at "TWO" "PEOPLE" when you whine about "discrimination" and "rights" when the law states that a spouse is a person of the opposite sex. Why is one "bigotry" and the other not? THAT is my point(of what you quoted) - I could care less about having polygamy recognized or other "abnormal" relationships but when people sit here and whine about "homosexual rights" and then set the threshold based on what they feel is right/wrong they are being intellectually dishonest.
I'm not "afraid" of homosexuals or them "marrying" but sheesh - look in the mirror when you scream "bigot". Make sure YOU aren't doing the exact same thing you attempt to scold others for.

It isn't a "rights" issue, this is an issue about a group of people trying to change things so they "get" something - legal status of "marriage". That's fine - lets see some legislation - not have a judge decide for everyone.

CkG

If I misinterpreted what you wrote as not a concern with a slippery slope, then perhaps you should write more clearly. I don't think YOU are clear on the issue - the issue is not a matter of 'bigotry,' it is a matter of equal rights. Polygamy is a completely separate topic, and perhaps is an 'issue' which affects both heterosexual AND homosexual couples.. That is not legal for heterosexual nor homosexual couples, and in that regard the law advocates equal treatment for both sexual orientations. It does NOT, however, grant the same protections of marriage for both homosexual/heterosexual couples, and that is where the problem arises. The limit is set at two persons in a marriage because of social and political factors BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS ARGUMENT, which relates to homosexuals and the right to marry. Stick to the topic, buddy - it's easy to bash something when you start bringing up completely unrelated topics, trying to merge them into the main stream of the argument.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,

Pass Legislation then, the Feds did in 1996.

That is the point! No legislation is needed if it is a Protected Right. It is law. It is the Constitution if they hold it to be so.

No, but you see it isn't a "right" nor is is "protected". The LAW states that a spouce is someone of the opposite sex. The courts can't change that. Well...they could try but it'd consist of making tons of legislation/regulation irrelevant(which could speed the removal of the IRS and SS...so maybe it's OK )

CkG

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Finally you admit you're talking bigotry. Thanks. The answer to why one kind of bigotry over the other is easy enough. Both gays and straights all lust for more than one mate so in order to make society function better without the winners like me getting all the mates and losers like you sitting out on the curb plotting criminal acts, we level the playing field and keep both gays and straights limited to one mate at a time. It's secular common sense bigotry not the religious type that's irrational and bible based. It's functional. Nobody gets to have more than one spouse and everybody suffers equally in not being able to marry all the people they love instead of some not being allow to marry just the one they love.

No, I'm saying that those accusing others of bigotry are guilty of it by their standards if they use the "two people" argument.

Bigot.

CkG

I've said this over and over again. NO, NO, NO! There is no sense of 'bigotry' here because nobody is allowed to have more than one legally married partner - (adulterous relationships, mistresses, etc. otherwise). This applies whether the union is gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, whatever. Now the problem here is that gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry. That is an inequality between treatment of homosexuals AND heterosexuals with respect to the right to marry. Your allegation of hypocrisy from those who would suggest that gays should be allowed to marry one partner like heterosexuals suffers from intolerance is absolutely hilarious. At this rate, ANY comment could be considered 'intolerant.' Your problem is that you fail to recognize that each comment is perfectly legitimate within a limited context. While it may be 'bigotry' to implicitly suggest that a union should consist of only two people, that lies within an observation made with an entirely different lens, a lens which is completely irrelevant to this argument.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

*sigh* Nice try with the "slippery slope" BS. That's not the point. The point is - why do YOU get to set the limit at "TWO" "PEOPLE" when you whine about "discrimination" and "rights" when the law states that a spouse is a person of the opposite sex. Why is one "bigotry" and the other not? THAT is my point(of what you quoted) - I could care less about having polygamy recognized or other "abnormal" relationships but when people sit here and whine about "homosexual rights" and then set the threshold based on what they feel is right/wrong they are being intellectually dishonest.
I'm not "afraid" of homosexuals or them "marrying" but sheesh - look in the mirror when you scream "bigot". Make sure YOU aren't doing the exact same thing you attempt to scold others for.

It isn't a "rights" issue, this is an issue about a group of people trying to change things so they "get" something - legal status of "marriage". That's fine - lets see some legislation - not have a judge decide for everyone.

CkG

If I misinterpreted what you wrote as not a concern with a slippery slope, then perhaps you should write more clearly. I don't think YOU are clear on the issue - the issue is not a matter of 'bigotry,' it is a matter of equal rights. Polygamy is a completely separate topic, and perhaps is an 'issue' which affects both heterosexual AND homosexual couples.. That is not legal for heterosexual nor homosexual couples, and in that regard the law advocates equal treatment for both sexual orientations. It does NOT, however, grant the same protections of marriage for both homosexual/heterosexual couples, and that is where the problem arises. The limit is set at two persons in a marriage because of social and political factors BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS ARGUMENT, which relates to homosexuals and the right to marry. Stick to the topic, buddy - it's easy to bash something when you start bringing up completely unrelated topics, trying to merge them into the main stream of the argument.

Try following along and you might understand next time. My posts on "rights" were because people were claiming it a legal argument but it isn't. I am quite clear on this issue and it is not a "rights" issue but rather a legal standing issue due to regulations and guidelines the Gov't has shown can be used(and the courts have allowed).
Now as to this supposed "slippery slope" BS that people keep claiming - I'm not arguing that. No where did I say more and more would come because of the redefinition of "spouse" or "marriage" - I made the point that YOU and anyone else who wishes to claim that it should be "any TWO PEOPLE" are bigots by your own standards. So again, what right do you have to redefine "spouse" or "marriage" yet still exclude others? Why "two"? Why "people"? What gives you the right to limit it but yet you rail against others for what you percieve as them "limiting"?
No, you can't discount other things just because you don't want to talk about them(because it may show your argument is BS ) The issue here is the gov't limitations surrounding "marriage". The homosexuals claim it's a "right" they should have yet the gov't defines "spouse" as someone of the opposite sex. There is no "right" to marry and if you want to play the it affects both game then I'd argue that "marriage" as it exists today(in the LAW) affects both equally. A homosexual man is not prevented from having a spouse(as defined by the law).
Want to try again? The topic isn't limited to what you think is a good argument. You have to look at the entire picture of the law.
All that being said - get the LEGISLATURE to write law redefining "spouse" and/or "marriage" and you all might have a "rights" case but until then you have nada.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Finally you admit you're talking bigotry. Thanks. The answer to why one kind of bigotry over the other is easy enough. Both gays and straights all lust for more than one mate so in order to make society function better without the winners like me getting all the mates and losers like you sitting out on the curb plotting criminal acts, we level the playing field and keep both gays and straights limited to one mate at a time. It's secular common sense bigotry not the religious type that's irrational and bible based. It's functional. Nobody gets to have more than one spouse and everybody suffers equally in not being able to marry all the people they love instead of some not being allow to marry just the one they love.

No, I'm saying that those accusing others of bigotry are guilty of it by their standards if they use the "two people" argument.

Bigot.

CkG

I've said this over and over again. NO, NO, NO! There is no sense of 'bigotry' here because nobody is allowed to have more than one legally married partner - (adulterous relationships, mistresses, etc. otherwise). This applies whether the union is gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, whatever. Now the problem here is that gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry. That is an inequality between treatment of homosexuals AND heterosexuals with respect to the right to marry. Your allegation of hypocrisy from those who would suggest that gays should be allowed to marry one partner like heterosexuals suffers from intolerance is absolutely hilarious. At this rate, ANY comment could be considered 'intolerant.' Your problem is that you fail to recognize that each comment is perfectly legitimate within a limited context. While it may be 'bigotry' to implicitly suggest that a union should consist of only two people, that lies within an observation made with an entirely different lens, a lens which is completely irrelevant to this argument.

Then using your argument -there is no "bigotry" here because a homosexual is allowed to have a "spouse" as I said in my other post. You are lying when you say gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry. They most certainly can "marry" and if they want the LAW to recognize that "marriage" they must have a "spouse"(which again for those who are slow is someone of the opposite sex). So no, there is no "inequality" here -both sexual oreintations have access to "marriage".

Oh and I wish to revisit this comment you made: "The limit is set at two persons in a marriage because of social and political factors... "
Ah so that is OK for society and politics to decide but for some reason defending the definition of "spouse" and/or "marriage" is "intolerant"/"bigotry"/or whatever else you want to claim.

Again, get some legislation passed that changes "spouse" and/or "marriage" if you think the gov't should give legal status to homosexual "marriage".

CkG

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Then using your argument -there is no "bigotry" here because a homosexual is allowed to have a "spouse" as I said in my other post. You are lying when you say gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry. They most certainly can "marry" and if they want the LAW to recognize that "marriage" they must have a "spouse"(which again for those who are slow is someone of the opposite sex). So no, there is no "inequality" here -both sexual oreintations have access to "marriage".

Oh and I wish to revisit this comment you made: "The limit is set at two persons in a marriage because of social and political factors... "
Ah so that is OK for society and politics to decide but for some reason defending the definition of "spouse" and/or "marriage" is "intolerant"/"bigotry"/or whatever else you want to claim.

Again, get some legislation passed that changes "spouse" and/or "marriage" if you think the gov't should give legal status to homosexual "marriage".

CkG

This is not an argument about legal semantics. Neither is it an argument about definitions and/or legal meanings of words. Those are completely irrelevant to the argument, yet you persist in using them. The words used in laws can be modified in meaning and the laws changed to fit them. We are discussing the moral issue of gay marriage, and semantics or unrelated discussions about polygamy are about as far from that as you can get. Please, for the love of god, stick to the topic, and try not to diverge from it. Your attempts to feign that you are not are absolutely pathetic.

I have no idea where you got the idea, but gays and lesbians are currently NOT allowed to marry. With the exception of the state of Mass., if a gay couple shows up to obtain a marriage license they will be turned away because they do not fit the bill - they are not a heterosexual couple. Your sophomoric argument that they can "marry" but not be legally recognized in that "marriage" is quite possibly the biggest waste of bandwidth I've ever seen. That's like trying to say that both Bill Gates and a guy in a cardboard house live in "houses" and have equal access to "houses." Give me a break. Without legal recognition, there is no marriage, PERIOD. Gays cannot apply for and recieve marriage licenses, and therefore are NOT able to marry. Heterosexuals can apply for and receive a marriage license. The two couples do not recieve the same protections under the law and therefore, (big surprise) we have inequality and a pretty hot issue.

Incidentally, beautifully done. You have managed to exercise standard political practice and not only deliberately cut out the second segment of the passage ". It does NOT, however, grant the same protections of marriage for both homosexual/heterosexual couples, and that is where the problem arises." and subsequently used it to assume that I a.) have no problem with social pressures and/or political forces determining legislation, and moreover, assume that your 'defense' of 'spouse' and 'marriage' is 'intolerance.' Note that I have barely, if ever at all, brushed on the definitions of spouse and marriage. I am arguing on a moral front and/or equality, you are arguing legal semantics. The result is that this argument is as productive as the Senate during a filibuster. Perhaps that is why this country fails to progress ethically - every corner you turn, every time some changes try to occur you have people caught up over the definitions of "life," "spouse," or "marriage," without actually realizing that there is a larger more pragmatic solution to the problem.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Then using your argument -there is no "bigotry" here because a homosexual is allowed to have a "spouse" as I said in my other post. You are lying when you say gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry. They most certainly can "marry" and if they want the LAW to recognize that "marriage" they must have a "spouse"(which again for those who are slow is someone of the opposite sex). So no, there is no "inequality" here -both sexual oreintations have access to "marriage".

Oh and I wish to revisit this comment you made: "The limit is set at two persons in a marriage because of social and political factors... "
Ah so that is OK for society and politics to decide but for some reason defending the definition of "spouse" and/or "marriage" is "intolerant"/"bigotry"/or whatever else you want to claim.

Again, get some legislation passed that changes "spouse" and/or "marriage" if you think the gov't should give legal status to homosexual "marriage".

CkG

This is not an argument about legal semantics. Neither is it an argument about definitions and/or legal meanings of words. Those are completely irrelevant to the argument, yet you persist in using them. The words used in laws can be modified in meaning and the laws changed to fit them. We are discussing the moral issue of gay marriage, and semantics or unrelated discussions about polygamy are about as far from that as you can get. Please, for the love of god, stick to the topic, and try not to diverge from it. Your attempts to feign that you are not are absolutely pathetic.

I have no idea where you got the idea, but gays and lesbians are currently NOT allowed to marry. With the exception of the state of Mass., if a gay couple shows up to obtain a marriage license they will be turned away because they do not fit the bill - they are not a heterosexual couple. Your sophomoric argument that they can "marry" but not be legally recognized in that "marriage" is quite possibly the biggest waste of bandwidth I've ever seen. That's like trying to say that both Bill Gates and a guy in a cardboard house live in "houses" and have equal access to "houses." Give me a break. Without legal recognition, there is no marriage, PERIOD. Gays cannot apply for and recieve marriage licenses, and therefore are NOT able to marry. Heterosexuals can apply for and receive a marriage license. The two couples do not recieve the same protections under the law and therefore, (big surprise) we have inequality and a pretty hot issue.

Incidentally, beautifully done. You have managed to exercise standard political practice and not only deliberately cut out the second segment of the passage ". It does NOT, however, grant the same protections of marriage for both homosexual/heterosexual couples, and that is where the problem arises." and subsequently used it to assume that I a.) have no problem with social pressures and/or political forces determining legislation, and moreover, assume that your 'defense' of 'spouse' and 'marriage' is 'intolerance.' Note that I have barely, if ever at all, brushed on the definitions of spouse and marriage. I am arguing on a moral front and/or equality, you are arguing legal semantics. The result is that this argument is as productive as the Senate during a filibuster. Perhaps that is why this country fails to progress ethically - every corner you turn, every time some changes try to occur you have people caught up over the definitions of "life," "spouse," or "marriage," without actually realizing that there is a larger more pragmatic solution to the problem.

Ah, but that is where you are wrong. It is a legal issue - hence people whining about "rights" and using the courts to get their way.
I think it's you who doesn't want to follow the discussion, thus ignoring the legal aspects. Sure the moral question is important, as society is the determiner of what is allowed based on society's morals. So what is it? Is it a legal decision or is it a societal decision? ...or both? Either way it seems marriage is defined as one man and one woman.
Buahahahaha - I'm not sure who you've been talking to but a homosexual male is more than able to "marry" and likewise so is a homosexual female. They are not given legal standing if they choose someone of the same sex though because that doesn't fit the definition of "spouse" as per the Law. Now again, because you don't seem to understand, A man(homosexual or hetero) is more than able to marry a "spouse" to gain legal standing as "married". But since don't seem to be able to comprehend the issue, this is the last time I'm going to repeat it to you. I said a homosexual is allowed to marry -which you assumed was talking about marriage to someone of the same sex. That is not the case and is the whole point. No one(with legal status) is prevented from "marriage" because of their sexual preference. A homosexual man is more than able to marry a woman, just as a homosexual female can marry a male. No one is denied due to their "orientation".

Sorry but it is the side you fight for that is trying to redefine what the meaning of words are. I will fight to preserve the existing meaning of the words. You can argue "morality" or "equality" all you want but do you really think you can win that fight? "Equality" is already in place as I've been pointing out(but you don't seem to want to understand). And you'd be better off fighting for legislation to change how the gov't defines marriage than try to fight on the basis of "morality" or "society". But let me ask you this - where do you get your morals from? You base them on?

Anyway - you can try obfuscate the issue here but the law is quite clear on this issue so if you wish to see that changed - you better get some support for a change in legislation(the most pragmatic and realistic solution ).

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

"Incidentally, beautifully done. You have managed to exercise standard political practice and not only deliberately cut out the second segment of the passage ". It does NOT, however, grant the same protections of marriage for both homosexual/heterosexual couples, and that is where the problem arises." and subsequently used it to assume that I a.) have no problem with social pressures and/or political forces determining legislation, and moreover, assume that your 'defense' of 'spouse' and 'marriage' is 'intolerance.' Note that I have barely, if ever at all, brushed on the definitions of spouse and marriage. I am arguing on a moral front and/or equality, you are arguing legal semantics. The result is that this argument is as productive as the Senate during a filibuster. Perhaps that is why this country fails to progress ethically - every corner you turn, every time some changes try to occur you have people caught up over the definitions of "life," "spouse," or "marriage," without actually realizing that there is a larger more pragmatic solution to the problem. "

This is because Caddy and people like him live a life of sin. They misapply the mind that God gave them. They use it for cunning and devious thinking instead of direct perception of emotional truth. It is because as bigots, they feel their moral truth is more important that other people. They would rather preserve in law a bigotry toward homosexuals as somehow unworthy of marriage than allow them the right to the self expression of marital love toward a same sex partner as they do in their own lives with their own spouses. They use their minds to pretend in fancy legalistic ways that they are not evil. A simple thing like marrying the person you love escapes them. Gays have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex so there is no bigotry in the law, but watch what would happen if marriage was arranged by government lottery and every couple was pared by a computer program. "Tyranny that I can't marry the person I love." For them it's just that homosexuals aren't worth their consideration as fellow humans. God looks down on them so it's OK for bigots to stiff them too.

Marriage is a sacred ancient right almost as old as homosexuality. Pair bonding is a human trait. Any people whose minds have not been stuffed full of religious hate for homosexuals have had gay marriage all through the ages. We are still in the dark ages psychologically but are slowly advancing. We are leaving behind the stupidity of ancient texts and culling their original meaning. Real religion is about the Unity of Love, a mystical state attained by Jesus and some others. Where hate enters religion is where the Devil has wormed his way in. Bigotry is the handmaiden of Satin and it also crawls like a worm all dressed up in a cunning mind.

Caddy, I would assume from your argument that it was wrong of the courts to intervene and prevent laws against interracial marriage and that it should have been up to the states to pass legislation as to whether blacks could marry whites. I guess the courts shouldn't have practiced their judicial activism and allowed the south to continue to practice the bigotry of racism. Your attitude to gay marriage is exactly the same sort of divine wisdom that propelled southern wisely racist whites to keep marriage and the races pure, no, just something you know has to be true, right? You know those racists meant well. It was all about the preservation of marriage.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This is because Caddy and people like him live a life of sin. They misapply the mind that God gave them. They use it for cunning and devious thinking instead of direct perception of emotional truth. It is because as bigots, they feel their moral truth is more important that other people. They would rather preserve in law a bigotry toward homosexuals as somehow unworthy of marriage than allow them the right to the self expression of marital love toward a same sex partner as they do in their own lives with their own spouses. They use their minds to pretend in fancy legalistic ways that they are not evil. A simple thing like marrying the person you love escapes them. Gays have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex so there is no bigotry in the law, but watch what would happen if marriage was arranged by government lottery and every couple was pared by a computer program. "Tyranny that I can't marry the person I love." For them it's just that homosexuals aren't worth their consideration as fellow humans. God looks down on them so it's OK for bigots to stiff them too.

:thumbsup: To CAD the cunning bigot, the wily weasel of the well turned wriggle, who has spent the last several days and paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph trying to put a nice lawerly and legalistic face on his dead nuts desire to deny gay people the same simple access to the rights and priveleges ALL Americans should enjoy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This is because Caddy and people like him live a life of sin. They misapply the mind that God gave them. They use it for cunning and devious thinking instead of direct perception of emotional truth. It is because as bigots, they feel their moral truth is more important that other people. They would rather preserve in law a bigotry toward homosexuals as somehow unworthy of marriage than allow them the right to the self expression of marital love toward a same sex partner as they do in their own lives with their own spouses. They use their minds to pretend in fancy legalistic ways that they are not evil. A simple thing like marrying the person you love escapes them. Gays have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex so there is no bigotry in the law, but watch what would happen if marriage was arranged by government lottery and every couple was pared by a computer program. "Tyranny that I can't marry the person I love." For them it's just that homosexuals aren't worth their consideration as fellow humans. God looks down on them so it's OK for bigots to stiff them too.

:thumbsup: To CAD the cunning bigot, the wily weasel of the well turned wriggle, who has spent the last several days and paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph trying to put a nice lawerly and legalistic face on his dead nuts desire to deny gay people the same simple access to the rights and priveleges ALL Americans should enjoy.

ALL Americans(in legal standing) do enjoy the "right" to marry a "spouse" and be "married". Sorry you are all blinded by this "bigot" argument to see that. Oh well, lets see the legislation and let the people(Society) decide if "marriage" and/or "spouse" should be changed.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,

Pass Legislation then, the Feds did in 1996.

That is the point! No legislation is needed if it is a Protected Right. It is law. It is the Constitution if they hold it to be so.

No, but you see it isn't a "right" nor is is "protected". The LAW states that a spouce is someone of the opposite sex. The courts can't change that. Well...they could try but it'd consist of making tons of legislation/regulation irrelevant(which could speed the removal of the IRS and SS...so maybe it's OK )

CkG

Let me try this way..

Along with all the Constitutionally explict rights that the people have like 'Free Speech', and etc., are some not so explict rights that have been determined to be rights by the opinions of the USSC or by their not overturning a Court below where they agree (not granting cert) and etc. These 'rights' don't need being codified in the US Code or where ever because they are law already and when there is codification and the Supremes don't agree then that law is null and void. All the rights we enjoy flow from the Constitution. No law that is determined to be in conflict with the Constitution is valid. Now.. I know you know all this and would agree with it.
So, where in the Constitution is the right for anyone to marry anyone? It is not explicit in there. But, it does fall under the Articles giving the Congress the power to make laws. Congress made a recent law to clarify the Marriage issue. However, my argument is that the clarification is unconstitutional because it violates the 'equal' clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the 'FF&C' clause as a result. It would be like creating a law that clarifies 'Free Speech' to mean that only folks with certain criteria can exersize it on tuesdays. Having said that, I can only opine as well that they (USSC) will hold that homosexual marriage is a right under the 'equal' clause. They may not. But, the major body of legal opinion says they must to be consistent with other findings they have rendered. If they do affirm my opinion then there needs being a modification to all existing law to compy with this determination.
This is why no additional law need being enacted to provide for homosexual marriage. It already exists, in my opinion...

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Perknose
:thumbsup: To CAD the cunning bigot, the wily weasel of the well turned wriggle, who has spent the last several days and paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph trying to put a nice lawerly and legalistic face on his dead nuts desire to deny gay people the same simple access to the rights and priveleges ALL Americans should enjoy.

Actually, as I see it, he's trying to present arguments to the one-sided populus of this board. Rather that accept his gesture for what it is and actually think about the opposing points and present valid counter-arguments, you, and almost every other poster here, have chosen instead to hop up on an imaginary pedestal and, in a close-minded fashion resembling the greatest of bigots, spew nothing but insults and derogatory labels. It may make you feel "better" about yourself to erect villains and stone them, but it's unhealthy for your personal growth as well as the debate of the underlying issues at hand.

 

[LunarRay]

Moonster,

This is because Caddy and people like him live a life of sin. They misapply the mind that God gave them. They use it for cunning and devious thinking instead of direct perception of emotional truth. It is because as bigots, they feel their moral truth is more important that other people. They would rather preserve in law a bigotry toward homosexuals as somehow unworthy of marriage than allow them the right to the self expression of marital love toward a same sex partner as they do in their own lives with their own spouses. They use their minds to pretend in fancy legalistic ways that they are not evil. A simple thing like marrying the person you love escapes them. Gays have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex so there is no bigotry in the law, but watch what would happen if marriage was arranged by government lottery and every couple was pared by a computer program. "Tyranny that I can't marry the person I love." For them it's just that homosexuals aren't worth their consideration as fellow humans. God looks down on them so it's OK for bigots to stiff them too

The folks who came here had reasons to leave their homeland and among those reasons was religious bigotry practiced against them. The Irish came because the bigotry of the protestant English was so strong that it was death by starvation or flee to 'America'. It is natural for them to remain stead fast in their belief system and fight tooth and nail to never again let anyone try to alter what they hold to be self evident truth. The environment one still afflicted seeks is always consistent with that desire.
To the phenomonolgist looking into the fish tank he sees lots of little swimming bigots but, to the swimmers looking out is seen some idiot looking in and pointing a finger. The only way to edify the swimmer is to take him out of his environment and let him look in from the outside... but, he can't survive very well out of his watery home. Well, some can but, they must evolve and be able to function in a different world.
What you are doing is trying to hold the little fishy by the tail and make him look but, he can't think of anything but his comfortable environment. To succeed you must toss in a few incentives... a few gobble gobble types that make it as easy to be out of the tank as in... You do it slowly by putting in baby gobbles and they grow and make more and before you know it you may even have a mixed marriage of former gobbles and former... its... little its and big its... Fishy are that way, I think.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Then using your argument -there is no "bigotry" here because a homosexual is allowed to have a "spouse" as I said in my other post. You are lying when you say gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry. They most certainly can "marry" and if they want the LAW to recognize that "marriage" they must have a "spouse"(which again for those who are slow is someone of the opposite sex). So no, there is no "inequality" here -both sexual oreintations have access to "marriage".

Oh and I wish to revisit this comment you made: "The limit is set at two persons in a marriage because of social and political factors... "
Ah so that is OK for society and politics to decide but for some reason defending the definition of "spouse" and/or "marriage" is "intolerant"/"bigotry"/or whatever else you want to claim.

Again, get some legislation passed that changes "spouse" and/or "marriage" if you think the gov't should give legal status to homosexual "marriage".

CkG

This is not an argument about legal semantics. Neither is it an argument about definitions and/or legal meanings of words. Those are completely irrelevant to the argument, yet you persist in using them. The words used in laws can be modified in meaning and the laws changed to fit them. We are discussing the moral issue of gay marriage, and semantics or unrelated discussions about polygamy are about as far from that as you can get. Please, for the love of god, stick to the topic, and try not to diverge from it. Your attempts to feign that you are not are absolutely pathetic.

I have no idea where you got the idea, but gays and lesbians are currently NOT allowed to marry. With the exception of the state of Mass., if a gay couple shows up to obtain a marriage license they will be turned away because they do not fit the bill - they are not a heterosexual couple. Your sophomoric argument that they can "marry" but not be legally recognized in that "marriage" is quite possibly the biggest waste of bandwidth I've ever seen. That's like trying to say that both Bill Gates and a guy in a cardboard house live in "houses" and have equal access to "houses." Give me a break. Without legal recognition, there is no marriage, PERIOD. Gays cannot apply for and recieve marriage licenses, and therefore are NOT able to marry. Heterosexuals can apply for and receive a marriage license. The two couples do not recieve the same protections under the law and therefore, (big surprise) we have inequality and a pretty hot issue.

Incidentally, beautifully done. You have managed to exercise standard political practice and not only deliberately cut out the second segment of the passage ". It does NOT, however, grant the same protections of marriage for both homosexual/heterosexual couples, and that is where the problem arises." and subsequently used it to assume that I a.) have no problem with social pressures and/or political forces determining legislation, and moreover, assume that your 'defense' of 'spouse' and 'marriage' is 'intolerance.' Note that I have barely, if ever at all, brushed on the definitions of spouse and marriage. I am arguing on a moral front and/or equality, you are arguing legal semantics. The result is that this argument is as productive as the Senate during a filibuster. Perhaps that is why this country fails to progress ethically - every corner you turn, every time some changes try to occur you have people caught up over the definitions of "life," "spouse," or "marriage," without actually realizing that there is a larger more pragmatic solution to the problem.

Ah, but that is where you are wrong. It is a legal issue - hence people whining about "rights" and using the courts to get their way.
I think it's you who doesn't want to follow the discussion, thus ignoring the legal aspects. Sure the moral question is important, as society is the determiner of what is allowed based on society's morals. So what is it? Is it a legal decision or is it a societal decision? ...or both? Either way it seems marriage is defined as one man and one woman.
Buahahahaha - I'm not sure who you've been talking to but a homosexual male is more than able to "marry" and likewise so is a homosexual female. They are not given legal standing if they choose someone of the same sex though because that doesn't fit the definition of "spouse" as per the Law. Now again, because you don't seem to understand, A man(homosexual or hetero) is more than able to marry a "spouse" to gain legal standing as "married". But since don't seem to be able to comprehend the issue, this is the last time I'm going to repeat it to you. I said a homosexual is allowed to marry -which you assumed was talking about marriage to someone of the same sex. That is not the case and is the whole point. No one(with legal status) is prevented from "marriage" because of their sexual preference. A homosexual man is more than able to marry a woman, just as a homosexual female can marry a male. No one is denied due to their "orientation".

Sorry but it is the side you fight for that is trying to redefine what the meaning of words are. I will fight to preserve the existing meaning of the words. You can argue "morality" or "equality" all you want but do you really think you can win that fight? "Equality" is already in place as I've been pointing out(but you don't seem to want to understand). And you'd be better off fighting for legislation to change how the gov't defines marriage than try to fight on the basis of "morality" or "society". But let me ask you this - where do you get your morals from? You base them on?

Anyway - you can try obfuscate the issue here but the law is quite clear on this issue so if you wish to see that changed - you better get some support for a change in legislation(the most pragmatic and realistic solution ).

CkG

Yes, once society fully (or, at least, to a greater extent) accepts homosexual relationships, we will need to clarify legal jargin for tax-purposes and other legal things. There will be some cases where laws may need to be stricken, others where language can be reinterpreted. I don't believe this is any reason to not pursue it.

Pardon me for saying, but your insistence to claim "equality" already exists is just "neener-neener" flamebait. It's arguing semantics.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Perknose
:thumbsup: To CAD the cunning bigot, the wily weasel of the well turned wriggle, who has spent the last several days and paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph trying to put a nice lawerly and legalistic face on his dead nuts desire to deny gay people the same simple access to the rights and priveleges ALL Americans should enjoy.

Actually, as I see it, he's trying to present arguments to the one-sided populus of this board. Rather that accept his gesture for what it is and actually think about the opposing points and present valid counter-arguments, you, and almost every other poster here, have chosen instead to hop up on an imaginary pedestal and, in a close-minded fashion resembling the greatest of bigots, spew nothing but insults and derogatory labels. It may make you feel "better" about yourself to erect villains and stone them, but it's unhealthy for your personal growth as well as the debate of the underlying issues at hand.

That's great Hero, but I have asked a thousand times why you all want to deny gays the same rights as you have. I have asked you why you nit pick the law looking for some shed of hope to pin your motives on. What drives you to want to deny gays the right to marry. Look hard and you will see it's bigotry. You have no reason at all to do so but that you feel it's bad. If you can't provide a rational reason for why you feel the way you do except that you 'just know' that you are right you are motivated by bigotry, an irrational preexisting bias. Why do you want to keep holding gays back from the rights you enjoy, the right to commit before some supposed spiritual power their undying love. Are you really so small and selfish that you can't share. You practice a belief that selfishly denies some what you enjoy. What you think makes you holy makes you look to me like a pig. It's a funny religion that makes people look like pigs. It kind of tells me it's not a real religion.

The thing about Caddy's arguments is that they are not valid. Why won't he restate his argument using interracial marriage as his case. What business did the courts have in that, for example. Why shouldn't a majority of racists be able to pass laws to keep the races separate. Why should there not be a constitutional amendment to keep blacks and whites from marrying. There is a simple reason I think. He and you know that racism is bad, but you don't believe that about your bias toward gays. You tolerate your own bigotry cause you think you know and are God.

 

[Moonbeam]

LR comma I believe in pucturated equilibrium period semicolon D

And gay people waht to also swim in the tank.

 

[NeoHC421]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Todd33
Religious people are bigots. They always fight civil rights. God wanted women to be barefoot and pregnant, God wanted blacks to be slaves, God loves the white man, God hates Muslems, now God hates gays. They love to use God to hate. Times change and religious type always fight it. We'll all look back in twenty years and laugh at them.

They do the same thing to science.

Actually, any person of religion that I personally know, who uses their religion as a reason to be against gay marriage, does not hate gays. They just disagree with the life style and seek to teach them the wrong of their ways. A true Christian wouldn't hate you for sinning but would instead seek to lead you to redemption and salvation.

i agree... homosexuality is just like any other sin. God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.
You will always find extremists for any group of people, but you can't generalize the whole group based on the actions or views of those extremists.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: NeoHC421

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Todd33
Religious people are bigots. They always fight civil rights. God wanted women to be barefoot and pregnant, God wanted blacks to be slaves, God loves the white man, God hates Muslems, now God hates gays. They love to use God to hate. Times change and religious type always fight it. We'll all look back in twenty years and laugh at them.

They do the same thing to science.

Actually, any person of religion that I personally know, who uses their religion as a reason to be against gay marriage, does not hate gays. They just disagree with the life style and seek to teach them the wrong of their ways. A true Christian wouldn't hate you for sinning but would instead seek to lead you to redemption and salvation.

i agree... homosexuality is just like any other sin. God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.
You will always find extremists for any group of people, but you can't generalize the whole group based on the actions or views of those extremists.

Yes but you see but the real problem is that fundie Christians are sick and a danger to society. I love them but they need to be exterminated for the good of the whole. It's a means justifies the ends thing and a matter of common sense. The way to deal with bigotry is to exterminate the bigot, not because you hate him but because he carries a disease he will try with all his might to pass to his kids. And of course God agrees because they have made a mockery of His religion.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Perknose
:thumbsup: To CAD the cunning bigot, the wily weasel of the well turned wriggle, who has spent the last several days and paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph trying to put a nice lawerly and legalistic face on his dead nuts desire to deny gay people the same simple access to the rights and priveleges ALL Americans should enjoy.

Actually, as I see it, he's trying to present arguments to the one-sided populus of this board. Rather that accept his gesture for what it is and actually think about the opposing points and present valid counter-arguments, you, and almost every other poster here, have chosen instead to hop up on an imaginary pedestal and, in a close-minded fashion resembling the greatest of bigots, spew nothing but insults and derogatory labels. It may make you feel "better" about yourself to erect villains and stone them, but it's unhealthy for your personal growth as well as the debate of the underlying issues at hand.

That's great Hero, but I have asked a thousand times why you all want to deny gays the same rights as you have.

And I've told you a thousand times. This isn't about gays. This is about changing the definition of marriage. They aren't denied any rights...they can still marry someone from the opposite sex just like I can. You can argue that we need a NEW right to marry members of the same sex, but you need to argue why it's a necessary right...and there's NO way you'll be able to come up with an argument that won't also apply to any and every other type of deviant relationship.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
LR comma I believe in pucturated equilibrium period semicolon D

And gay people waht to also swim in the tank.

Heheheh No doubt it is an observation... you phenomonologist, you.. rather than some theory.. tis what the graspee don't graspate. Colon )