• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

NY Times: US, In Shift, Sees Marriage Act as Violation of Gay Rights

Happy hour starts in 5 minutes
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alaskan said:
So you admit that denying same sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples is discrimination. So you are simply talking about a word. But words and what they symbolize are extraordinarily important. Words can demean and elevate. So if you said that the government should use the term “Civil Unions” to describe the legal connection of two adults in a legally committed relationship and the word “marriage” would apply to the non-governmental real, then I would have no problem. But you seem to want it both ways.

What is so hard for you to see here?

As far as the Constitution goes. It’s the 14th Admendment.
Click to expand...

Not a word Alaskan, and institution! An institution that has been defined a certain way for thousands of years as a union between a man and a woman. It's not difficult to understand.

I am not suggesting gay couples cannot become partners affording them the same benefits as hetero couples. Civil Unions will cover that under the 14th Ammendment. But nowhere in the 14t Ammendment does it talk about Marriage being a right! Nowhere!

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I assume this is your argument that marriage is a basic right guaranteed in the Constitution. No mention of marriage being a right!

And how do I want it both ways?
 
Elephant said:
Come on Jamie, you have to have a better defense in your argument than because you say so.

Too soft!
Click to expand...

Because I say so? What are you talking about?

The discrimination came in when governments refused to give gay couples the same benefits as hetero couples. Now that Civil Union laws and even simply being considered partners gives those couples the same benefits, there is not discrimination even if you say so!
Click to expand...

Alaskan nailed it - you're admitting its discriminatory, therefore its covered under the 14th amendment.

Also, breathing is not covered in the constitution either - I guess that's not a basic human right either. TIME TO REGULATE BREATHING!!

No! Marriage as defined by humankind for more than 6000 years has always been between a man and a woman! You may find some historians who suggest there may have been unions between same sex couples, there is documented homosexuality so I am not going Ahmadinejad on you, but it was not called marriage! Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman!
Click to expand...

Ohhhh, so we're going by history? Well then, Ancient Greeks didn't have a ceremony, they just kind of agreed to be married. In ancient Rome, women were married at the ripe old age of 12. Hawaiians have practiced polyamory for a long time also - guess that one should be legal also. Oh, and polygyny has been practiced for thousands of years! Multiple wives for everyone!

EDIT: not to mention, same-sex marriages have been around for thousands of years also, but don't let facts rain on your parade. :)

What is so hard for you to see here?
Click to expand...

I see clearly, brother. You are the one who can't see the main issue here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Elephant said:
Not a word Alaskan, and institution! An institution that has been defined a certain way for thousands of years as a union between a man and a woman. It's not difficult to understand.
Click to expand...

This is just false. The basic premise of your argument is false, El!
 
Lanky Livingston said:
Hiding behind religion and calling it "morals." Which morals are being flushed down the drain, Sarge? The morality of discrimination? You can move to the middle east somewhere - they hate gay people there; you'll never have to worry about those silly guys trying to marry each other.
Click to expand...

The moral of "normality". What gays do is abnormal. That's why they are about 2% of the population, despite their claims to the contrary.

But don't worry Lanky, when I get to be president, I think I'll decide not to defend the Voting Rights Act of 1964. See how far that goes

The bottom line is we have an anarchist street agitator for president. Notice which side he comes down on on issues.

Overseas, he could "Hear the voices" of the Egyptians that were protesting, but not a peep abot the Iranian protestors. Why? And funny he can hear voices all the way from Egypt, but could n't hear Americans when it came to health care. What about the Libyian protestors? Does he hear their voices? Who knows, because he hasn't said hardly a word about the situation

In Wisconsin, he's siding against the state government

In Arizona, he sides with illegals and sues the state for enforcing Federal immigration law, something that nitwit Holder should be doing

With the military, he sided with the abnormals and allowed open gays, despite the fact that the Chiefs of Staff didn't want it

In almost every aspect of society, he comes down on the side of agitators and anarchists

Think about it
 
Elephant said:
No! Marriage as defined by humankind for more than 6000 years has always been between a man and a woman! You may find some historians who suggest there may have been unions between same sex couples, there is documented homosexuality so I am not going Ahmadinejad on you, but it was not called marriage! Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman!

What is so hard for you to see here?
Click to expand...

And for almost that entire 6,000 years there has been a tight power sharing relationship between the governmental and religious authorities going back all the way to our tribal roots (the shaman and the tribal chief, the pope and the king.) Marriage was developed to hold the fabric of those societies together and to maintain that power structure. For most of our recorded history those traditional marriages that you wax so eloquently about were (among the upper class) nothing more than family mergers designed to consolidate wealth and power. Among the lower classes marriage was a lot less popular simply because they lacked the wealth necessary for a meaningful merger although even among the middle class it was part of the dynamic, thus you have the concept of a dowry. Even among the lower classes, because the government and religious authorities literally sanctioned marriage, they could control who could and who could not marry and they charged a fee to do so. (Like most things in this world, simply follow the money.)

The democracy happened. Now the government is the servant of the people rather than the other way around (at least it’s supposed to work that way) and the religion is separate and distinct. But like some useless appendix that occasionally flares up, some connection between the religious and political power structures remains. The word marriage is one of them. So either remove the word marriage from the governmental lexicon or open it up to all consenting adults.
 
I agree with Alaskan (again) - if you want to call all marriages "civil unions," and then let religion keep the term marriage, that's fine. The Catholic church can not recognize same-sex marriages until they're blue in the face! But the government has to, simply because its discriminatory not to.
 
Alaskan said:
I’m left handed as are 8-15% of the population. So if you define “being normal” as having attributes in common with the majority of the population, then I am not normal.
Click to expand...
Talk about weak sauce.

A difference is, the left hand can do everything the right hand can. Only backwards.;)

Adam an Eve can make baby.
Adam and Steve may call each other baby, but they can't make one.

That's nature's way of trying to prevent defective organisms from reproducing, me thinks.
 
Ax said:
That's nature's way of trying to prevent defective organisms from reproducing, me thinks.
Click to expand...

So all gay people are defective? We've heard this all before, throughout history. Thankfully racism is now thought of negatively. Hopefully homophobia will eventually follow suit.

You are actually sort of close - it is due to nature, but its nature's way of controlling populations. Homosexuality has been observed all over the animal kingdom, and that is science's best-guess as to why.
 
MikeSr619 said:
Its also tiresome to see people be pissed off that they use their religious beliefs to help promote morals. If its a good idea then its a good idea. It doesnt matter if The Great Gazoo thought of it.
Click to expand...

Who is pissed? Religion has no place in this debate, as church and state are separate entities. Nobody's pissed, its just a fundamentally flawed argument.
 
Lanky Livingston said:
Homosexuality has been observed all over the animal kingdom, and that is science's best-guess as to why.
Click to expand...

Speaking of tiresome........the old "animals do it" reasoning. Animals also lick their own balls and cross the road into oncoming traffic

Humans have a higher brain for a reason
 
MikeSr619 said:
Its also tiresome to see people be pissed off that they use their religious beliefs to help promote morals. If its a good idea then its a good idea. It doesnt matter if The Great Gazoo thought of it.
Click to expand...


So I wonder who is in a better moral position, a loving same sex couple who want to commit themselves to each other or a serial fornicator from San Diego?

(Not that I object to serial fornicators. I’m actually envious of them perhaps because they remind me of a lost youth.) :)
 
Lanky Livingston said:
I agree with Alaskan (again) - if you want to call all marriages "civil unions," and then let religion keep the term marriage, that's fine. The Catholic church can not recognize same-sex marriages until they're blue in the face! But the government has to, simply because its discriminatory not to.
Click to expand...

Umm...I was the one who suggested Civil Unions be the only term used by the States.

As for the discrimination, just because you say it is discrimination does not mean it is! There is no law on the books that suggests marriage is a basic right of the Constitution! The closest you can come up with is the 14th Amendment which states equal rights under the law. Again, where in the Constitution does it state marriage is a right?

Look, during his campaign the President came out against Gay marriage saying as long as we have strong civil unions that provide equal rights to same sex couples, that is the direction this country should go!


Lanky Livingston said:
So all gay people are defective? We've heard this all before, throughout history. Thankfully racism is now thought of negatively. Hopefully homophobia will eventually follow suit.
Click to expand...

So, are you saying that since I do not think same sex couples should be permitted marriage under the law, but should have a right to all the benefits married couples do in a Civil union, that makes me afraid of homosexuals?

Jamie, that is preposterous! It is a tactic used to demonize those who may not agree with same sex marriage.
 
Lanky Livingston said:
So all gay people are defective?
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe they are. And I don't mean it in a mean way, just matter of fact. Something was either underdeveloped, overdeveloped, or not developed at all. But they still have every human and civil right everybody else does.

The word "marriage" seems to mean more to them than the actual benefits they claim only to be after.
Again, their true purpose is "in your face" acceptance of their lifestyle.


We've heard this all before, throughout history. Thankfully racism is now thought of negatively.
Click to expand...
Apples to oranges. Same tired attempt to give noble meaning to defend an unnatural act.

Hopefully homophobia will eventually follow suit.
Click to expand...
Phobia denotes fear. There's nothing I fear about homosexuality. Leaves more choices for the normal men and women.

BTW, Why isn't homosexuality actually vaginaphobia, and peniphobia?
 
Ax said:
The word "marriage" seems to mean more to them than the actual benefits they claim only to be after.
Click to expand...


Hey look at the pipes. It's the exact same water. What's the big deal?

black-and-colored-drinking-water1.jpg
 
Elephant said:
Umm...I was the one who suggested Civil Unions be the only term used by the States.

As for the discrimination, just because you say it is discrimination does not mean it is! There is no law on the books that suggests marriage is a basic right of the Constitution! The closest you can come up with is the 14th Amendment which states equal rights under the law. Again, where in the Constitution does it state marriage is a right?
Click to expand...

When you allow one group to do something, and disallow another group to do the same thing, that is discrimination, my friend. We used to not allow blacks to drink from the same water fountain that whites did. Drinking from a water fountain is not a basic right by your definition, therefore this practice should still be accepted according to you, correct?

Look, during his campaign the President came out against Gay marriage saying as long as we have strong civil unions that provide equal rights to same sex couples, that is the direction this country should go!
Click to expand...

I agree that if you want to call all state-sponsored unions "civil unions," then I'm on board with that. But to say to one group they can get married, and turn to another group and say they cannot get married, is wrong. What are you not seeing?

So, are you saying that since I do not think same sex couples should be permitted marriage under the law, but should have a right to all the benefits married couples do in a Civil union, that makes me afraid of homosexuals?

Jamie, that is preposterous! It is a tactic used to demonize those who may not agree with same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Well, I honestly don't see any other reason to deny same-sex marriages. The definition of marriage argument has been shot down already - so what other reason is there?

Ax said:
Yes, I believe they are. And I don't mean it in a mean way, just matter of fact. Something was either underdeveloped, overdeveloped, or not developed at all. But they still have every human and civil right everybody else does.

The word "marriage" seems to mean more to them than the actual benefits they claim only to be after.
Again, their true purpose is "in your face" acceptance of their lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Ummmm, or maybe their purpose is to be able to share a life with the person they choose to love? Then again, if I'm dealing with someone who looks down on gays as flawed, then there's no reasoning with you to begin with. Can't reason with a bigot.
 
MikeSr619 said:
oooooooooooooh..so you want to bring me personally in to this?
Click to expand...

Come on dude. Notice the :).

I was making the point that lots of people could make a moral judgment against you based upon their religious beliefs. They are free to do so just as you are free to make personal judgments about homosexuals. What you should not be allowed to do is to use the power of government to discriminate against those based upon purely moral grounds. There is simply no compelling state interest in preventing gay marriages. If so, tell me what it is. How does legalizing gay marriages hurt you?

What I’m making is a limited government argument. You can’t claim to be for a limited government but want an overreaching government when it morally suits you.

And Ax is wrong on Polygamy. If the law said that one man and many woman polygamy was legal but one woman and many men was not, that would be discrimination and would violate the 14th amendment. But if it was outlawed for everyone, there is no discrimination. Plus you can make a compelling argument that society has a compelling interest in outlawing polygamy because polygamy results in large numbers of males without mates (speaking of one man and women polygamy) and such a situation is not good for society.
 
Lanky Livingston said:
Well, I honestly don't see any other reason to deny same-sex marriages. The definition of marriage argument has been shot down already - so what other reason is there?
Click to expand...

In your opinion! Just because you buy into the nonsense does not make it so.

Mariage = man and woman and has for thousands of years. Alaskan did nothing to suggest marriage was not between a man and woman. Even if he is correct to suggest marriage was developed to maintain power structures, which I am not convinced is so, the churches who were working together with the governments did not arrange marriages between two men to link these structures!

As for the Democracy argument, what was his point? That because a Democracy is in place it is now all of a sudden ok for marriage to be redefined?

Civil unions Jamie! No marriage for same sex couples. Marriage is not a right and you have yet to show me in the law of the land where it says it is!

Next thing you know you will be in favor of doing away with Ladies nights at bars!
 
MikeSr619 said:
Im not mad..I hope my post didnt come across as such. BUUUUT you did say "a serial fornicator from San Diego" and thats why I said personally..but, NOT MAD. saw the :)

I dont see how Ax is wrong. I also cant see how this isnt seen as a Pandora's Box that if something this serious is allowed how we dont start allowing say "no background checks for purchasing firearms" its my constitutional right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

You are my absolutely favorite serial fornicator from San Diego. :)

I don't know exactly how you made the giant leap from gay marriage to the Second Amendment. But maybe that’s your style:

Mike: Would you like to have coffee sometime.

Girl: Sure

Mike: And then screw?

:)
 
Elephant said:
In your opinion! Just because you buy into the nonsense does not make it so.
Click to expand...

What nonsense am I buying into?

Mariage = man and woman and has for thousands of years.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating this, and its still wrong. Marriage has been defined in multiple ways for thousands of years. Same-sex marriages happened before Christianity!

Alaskan did nothing to suggest marriage was not between a man and woman. Even if he is correct to suggest marriage was developed to maintain power structures, which I am not convinced is so, the churches who were working together with the governments did not arrange marriages between two men to link these structures!
Click to expand...

What is your point? The only thing you are doing here is making the case that marriages should be for maintaining power structures still, because that's how it was done a long time ago.

Civil unions Jamie! No marriage for same sex couples. Marriage is not a right and you have yet to show me in the law of the land where it says it is!
Click to expand...

I thought you said you were for civil unions across the board, and let the churches "marry" people?

Next thing you know you will be in favor of doing away with Ladies nights at bars!
Click to expand...

Talk about nonsense...what does this have to do with anything?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top