Discussion: Gay Rights III

[Violet Lantern]

You think the government should allow a father and daughter to marry each other? You believe you have a constitutional right to incestous relationships? At least you admit that argument underlining gay marriage will have to apply to incestous relationships, no matter how much the word "bigot" is thrown around.

.

Well I certainly feel more justified in throwing it around now, after reading this garbage.


Nothing could be explicitly more bigoted than comparing homosexual relationships to incestuous and/or pedophile relationships.

 

[SentinelMind]

Marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman for several centuries and only has been recently defined in last decade in this country. The sacred part of marriage is that you're entitled several privileges based on marriage being the foundation for raising children and next generation of Americans. Those type of standards should be decided by the general public, not by a bunch of social engineers in black cloaks.

 

[Kelly]

families used to sell their daughters into marriage for transfer of property or to form a social alliance between families

thats a lot worse than two men or two women marrying each other

Agreed....

I still think, and will always think that a "civil union" in ALL cases is the way to go....

It is a legal document, nothing "church" about it.....

 

[SentinelMind]

If you think gays being able to marry makes marriage less sacred, that says a lot about what you truly think of them. No matter how cordial you are with your gay co-workers and clients.

"I'm not racist...I have black friends"

It says what I think about their relationships, lifestyle, culture, yes, but not about the persons individually. You can love a person and not support expanding culture/activity that they engage to all corners of society.

 

[SentinelMind]

Well I certainly feel more justified in throwing it around now, after reading this garbage.


Nothing could be explicitly more bigoted than comparing homosexual relationships to incestuous and/or pedophile relationships.

Ok, Violet Lantern, even if you think its 'bigoted' (which I'll come back to later), do you disagree with the constitutional argument I just made? That your use of that equal protections clause will also have to allow incest marriage?

 

[Violet Lantern]

Agreed....

I still think, and will always think that a "civil union" in ALL cases is the way to go....

It is a legal document, nothing "church" about it.....

But what about churches and synagogues that WANT to marry gay couples? They don't get the right?

 

[wiegeabo]

I disagree. Marriage is a legal relationship/contract, so a religious organization can't dictate how legal relationships should be formed based on first amendment. They can be left alone based on first amendment, but that's it.

Because the state has bound religious marriage to legal marriage, there is no difference. Therefore churches that wish to perform the ceremony are forbidden to do so and have it considered a marriage.

And if we separate religious and legal marriages...then what's the problem? The state would be discriminating against gays by not allowing legal marriages. And they would denying the 1st amendment right of churches who wish to perform gay marriages (they also could not force churches to perform gay marriages if they didn't want to, since that would be a violation of their 1st Amendment rights).

Well, I would need to see a more detailed argument, not just implications.

Agreed. This would involve an in depth legal argument.

You think the government should allow a father and daughter to marry each other? You believe you have a constitutional right to incestous relationships? At least you admit that argument underlining gay marriage will have to apply to incestous relationships, no matter how much the word "bigot" is thrown around.

Despite my personal disgust at the thought, yes I do. I used to believe otherwise, that it should stop at gay marriage, and incestuous and polygamous marriages should not be allowed. But I have no real argument against them other than I find them 'icky'. Since I don't believe that's a valid argument against gay marriage, I can't use it as the basis of an argument against these marriages.

But it has to be between consensual adults. Adults are considered to be of legal age to make decisions about themselves and their lives. Minors are not. It also needs to be consensual between everyone involved. No coercion, no force, nothing like that. It has to be a freely made and choice. (In the father/daughter example, there's a whole host of arguments for abuse, dependance, and a ton of other psychological issues that would violate the consensual part of the deal. There are also a number of advantages, and disadvantages, to polygamous marriages.)

About the only argument I can make against incestuous marriages (which is defined by most states as first cousins or closer), is the increased odds of offspring having genetic defects/diseases. But since they may choose not to have children, and people with increased chances of passing on genetic issues are allowed to marry right now, it's a weak argument.

So you concede that using that one clause to justify gay marriage can lead to whole can of worms, undermining all type of legislation that discerns between men and women...esp to the point of absurdity. These points need to be addressed if you're going to make that argument based on Equal Protections Clause instead of running around calling everyone a bigot (not saying you specifically, just in general).

I conceded nothing except that one could make the argument. Then in the next sentence I say the argument wouldn't hold water. It's a slippery slope argument. One does not necessarily lead to the next.


Women being drafted is an issue completely separate from gay marriage. It has nothing to do with two people of the same gender being allowed to marry. It has to do with if women should be held to the same legal standards men are held to.

 

[Violet Lantern]

Marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman for several centuries and only has been recently defined in last decade in this country. The sacred part of marriage is that you're entitled several privileges based on marriage being the foundation for raising children and next generation of Americans. Those type of standards should be decided by the general public, not by a bunch of social engineers in black cloaks.

The general public in the south had no right to decide the standards for civil rights. Thank God.

 

[BlackLantern]

they can perform the ceremony, but a "civil union" makes it legal and official and all that

Im never gettin' married so I really do not care what anyone does....Im just piss the marrieds get tax breaks

 

[lixdexia]

But what about churches and synagogues that WANT to marry gay couples? They don't get the right?

they don't get the right to authorize a legal contract, but they can hold as many ceremonies as they want marrying whom and whatever they want in their faith

 

[Kelly]

But what about churches and synagogues that WANT to marry gay couples? They don't get the right?

Within "religious organizations" they can call it "marriage" or whatever the heck they want....

BUT, under the verbage of the law, I think that "civil union" should be what is used....that document is NOT a "church document" it is a "legal document" the only "church" thing on it is the signature of whomever did the service, if in fact it was a pastor, priest, or rabbi, Imam, etc...

 

[Marx]

I still think the easiest way is to do away with the term 'marriage' and grant EVERYONE civil unions. You can then split civil unions into religious and general. (Or something to that effect.)

 

[Violet Lantern]

Ok, Violet Lantern, even if you think its 'bigoted' (which I'll come back to later), do you disagree with the constitutional argument I just made? That your use of that equal protections clause will also have to allow incest marriage?

My answer?

This:

Despite my personal disgust at the thought, yes I do. I used to believe otherwise, that it should stop at gay marriage, and incestuous and polygamous marriages should not be allowed. But I have no real argument against them other than I find them 'icky'. Since I don't believe that's a valid argument against gay marriage, I can't use it as the basis of an argument against these marriages.

But it has to be between consensual adults. Adults are considered to be of legal age to make decisions about themselves and their lives. Minors are not. It also needs to be consensual between everyone involved. No coercion, no force, nothing like that. It has to be a freely made and choice. (In the father/daughter example, there's a whole host of arguments for abuse, dependance, and a ton of other psychological issues that would violate the consensual part of the deal. There are also a number of advantages, and disadvantages, to polygamous marriages.)

About the only argument I can make against incestuous marriages (which is defined by most states as first cousins or closer), is the increased odds of offspring having genetic defects/diseases. But since they may choose not to have children, and people with increased chances of passing on genetic issues are allowed to marry right now, it's a weak argument.

I think it's absolutely disgusting and no one SHOULD do it, in my personal opinion. However, if you're talking about two consenting adults...I don't see how they don't have the right, actually. THATS the standard to me. "Are they both adults?" and "Is it consensual?".

and...

It says what I think about their relationships, lifestyle, culture, yes, but not about the persons individually. You can love a person and not support expanding culture/activity that they engage to all corners of society.

Your'e coming dangerously close here to arguing that being gay is a choice, by framing it as an "activity they engage in". Gay is who they are.

 

[SentinelMind]

Despite my personal disgust at the thought, yes I do. I used to believe otherwise, that it should stop at gay marriage, and incestuous and polygamous marriages should not be allowed. But I have no real argument against them other than I find them 'icky'. Since I don't believe that's a valid argument against gay marriage, I can't use it as the basis of an argument against these marriages.


But it has to be between consensual adults. Adults are considered to be of legal age to make decisions about themselves and their lives. Minors are not. It also needs to be consensual between everyone involved. No coercion, no force, nothing like that. It has to be a freely made and choice. (In the father/daughter example, there's a whole host of arguments for abuse, dependance, and a ton of other psychological issues that would violate the consensual part of the deal. There are also a number of advantages, and disadvantages, to polygamous marriages.)

About the only argument I can make against incestuous marriages (which is defined by most states as first cousins or closer), is the increased odds of offspring having genetic defects/diseases. But since they may choose not to have children, and people with increased chances of passing on genetic issues are allowed to marry right now, it's a weak argument.

So there you have it. Gay marriage based on 14th amendment argument has to lead to polygamy, incest marriage...and in my opinion, unisex bathrooms, women serving in every squadron of the military ....and perhaps even male right to determine whether a woman gets an abortion (after all, we have to treat mother and father equally to right to fetus)...

If you take the strict argument that 14th amendment was to free slaves, make sure there is only one class of us citizens (that race, nationality, or birth doesn't dictate your status)...you don't have to worry about these issues. But if you think it means every institution must be redefined so that there is no gender distinction in society and that all other institutions not percieved as egalitarian must be demolished, you have to come to all these weird conclusions. There is no way you can draw a silver line anywhere.

 

[wiegeabo]

Your'e coming dangerously close here to arguing that being gay is a choice, by framing it as an "activity they engage in". Gay is who they are.

To be fair, that's still a hot question.

But I don't think it matters.

If it's not a choice...well, that's easy. By denying gay marriage, we're punishing tax paying citizens for something beyond their control.

If it is a choice...then it's no different than someone choosing a religion. That's the lifestyle they wish to lead. Why deny this to taxpaying citizens when it doesn't hurt anyone?

 

[lixdexia]

exactly

 

[Kelly]

To be fair, that's still a hot question.

But I don't think it matters.

If it's not a choice...well, that's easy. By denying gay marriage, we're punishing tax paying citizens for something beyond their control.

If it is a choice...then it's no different than someone choosing a religion. That's the lifestyle they wish to lead. Why deny this to taxpaying citizens when it doesn't hurt anyone?

Very well put.....it is definitely the "white elephant" in the room.....and an argument that will not be going away anytime soon. That discussion may lessen through generations, but the question will always remain until significant medical data answers the question.

 

[Marx]

I have been planning to make this post for quite a while now. I apologize if it comes off as rambling, but it is something that I need to say for my own mental well-being.

I am steadily approaching my three year anniversary here at the Hype. In my time here, I have had the pleasure and honor of getting to know quite alot of you...and calling many of you my friends. I also pride myself on being as centrist and objective as I possibly can. I have tried very hard to keep alot of my personal information private. There is nothing I hate more than being dismissed in an argument or topic because of something someone knows about me.

That being said, I've come to a point in my life where I feel like I need to completely be myself. What I have decided to tell you is what some of you have probably suspected for quite some time now...I am a gay man. As a few of you know, my older brother (who is also gay), was nearly killed in an attempted carjacking this past fall. His accident really, really shook me...and made me realize just how fragile life is.

Being gay is an incredibly difficult struggle. I never asked to be gay. I never wanted to be gay. I never chose to be gay. The only decision I have ever had is how long to hide it. This is a struggle that I have had to deal with for a very long time. I struggle with it to this day. The amount of shame and guilt I have had over this has beaten me down more than you can imagine.

I am not completely out in my real life. The majority of the ones I love do know. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to gather the courage to tell my parents or two of my siblings. My mother and youngest brother probably know and would not have a problem with it. My oldest sister, however, is a hardcore bible-thumper. My father, is one of those people who believe that 'being gay is a conscious choice you make to screw up your life'. There is not much worse than having a sister and father speak so harshly against something that you cannot change.

I am a sports nut. I love rock music. I love cars. I love hiking and being outdoors. I cannot stand Cher. I cannot stand Liza Minelli. I do not wear body glitter or talk with a lisp. I do not wear a pride flag on my sleeve. Being gay is not something that defines me. It is a part of me. I am your average, everyday guy. It just so happens that I am attracted to men.

I sincerely hope that my confession has not caused any of you call my objectivity into question. I just respect you all enough to let you know the truth.

 

[Kelly]

I am a sports nut. I love rock music. I love cars. I love hiking and being outdoors. I cannot stand Cher. I cannot stand Liza Minelli. I do not wear body glitter or talk with a lisp. I do not wear a pride flag on my sleeve. Being gay is not something that defines me. It is a part of me. I am your average, everyday guy. It just so happens that I am attracted to men.

I cannot believe this, or respect it.......*disgusted look*



BTW, I've already told you my thoughts, and my support was there before, and will continue to be there for you.

 

[SentinelMind]

To be fair, that's still a hot question.

But I don't think it matters.

If it's not a choice...well, that's easy. By denying gay marriage, we're punishing tax paying citizens for something beyond their control.

If it is a choice...then it's no different than someone choosing a religion. That's the lifestyle they wish to lead. Why deny this to taxpaying citizens when it doesn't hurt anyone?

The problem is that to legitimize gay marriage, you have to implicitly mock or degrade the institution of marriage within your rhetoric ("these two straight who don't love each other are married..........divorce rate is so high, what's so special about marriage,etc"). It's quite ironic how supporters are oblivious to their own demeaning rhetoric, that marriage ain't all that special, so let gays get married.

Your concession that incest and polygamy, two institutions notorious for child abuse, has to be allowed under this whimsy equal protections clause argument, shows that whimsy unfounded legal arguments can create a dangerous environment for our treasured institutions. Marriage is given lots privileges because of implicit understanding that its the best institution to raise children, to provide a bedrock for next generation of society. One parent households have notorious correlation towards crime, poverty, deliquency, you name it. So I think its important for our country to be able to protect our institutions and traditions so that our culture doesn't go down the toilet. When that institution is gone, nothing can really hold society together if we're having all sorts of weird legal relationships and calling them marriage...where marriage has no meaning anymore.

 

[lixdexia]

thanks for sharing that marx. i hope it brings you a little more peace and the courage to be more open in your "real" life

 

[SentinelMind]

Ok, you know what,.... I'll just leave this thread for a while since I don't want to appear disrespectful anymore.

 

[Kelly]

give your opinion sentinel...it is welcome. You haven't been disrespectful...

 

[Marx]

The problem is that to legitimize gay marriage, you have to implicitly mock or degrade the institution of marriage within your rhetoric ("these two straight who don't love each other are married..........divorce rate is so high, what's so special about marriage,etc"). It's quite ironic how supporters are oblivious to their own demeaning rhetoric, that marriage ain't all that special, so let gays get married.

Your concession that incest and polygamy, two institutions notorious for child abuse, has to be allowed under this whimsy equal protections clause argument, shows that whimsy unfounded legal arguments can create a dangerous environment for our treasured institutions. Marriage is given lots privileges because of implicit understanding that its the best institution to raise children, to provide a bedrock for next generation of society. One parent households have notorious correlation towards crime, poverty, deliquency, you name it. So I think its important for our country to be able to protect our institutions and traditions so that our culture doesn't go down the toilet. When that institution is gone, nothing can really hold society together if we're having all sorts of weird legal relationships and calling them marriage...where marriage has no meaning anymore.

To be fair, the straight community has done far more damage to the institution of marriage than any gay couple ever could.

 

[wiegeabo]

So there you have it. Gay marriage based on 14th amendment argument has to lead to polygamy, incest marriage...and in my opinion, unisex bathrooms, women serving in every squadron of the military ....and perhaps even male right to determine whether a woman gets an abortion (after all, we have to treat mother and father equally to right to fetus)...

If you take the strict argument that 14th amendment was to free slaves, make sure there is only one class of us citizens (that race, nationality, or birth doesn't dictate your status)...you don't have to worry about these issues. But if you think it means every institution must be redefined so that there is no gender distinction in society and that all other institutions not percieved as egalitarian must be demolished, you have to come to all these weird conclusions. There is no way you can draw a silver line anywhere.

So you completely ignored when I said you have an argument that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to gay marriage?

I fail to see where I once mentioned the 14th Amendment, much less using it as an argument, other than that one line where I say it might not apply, but the 1st Amendment does.


But let's look each of those 'inevitable' examples:

Unixex bathrooms: Guess what, some places have them.

Women in every squadron of the military: Is there a reason women can't serve in all part of the military because their reproductive organs are on the inside? We're not a conscripted military. We're volunteer. If a woman wants to join the military, she should be able to serve in the same capacities as a man. There are woman (and men) actively working to make this true. That's why the Navy will allow women to serve on submarines for the first time this year (might be 2012).

Male right to determine abortion: Unlike all the other situations, there's literally no physical way for this to be a genderless issue. Now, if the woman doesn't want the baby, and the guy does, then he can try to convince her to have the baby, so that, once it's born, he can take full and sole custody and responsibility for it, and she can just walk away.