|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay marriage and the law | |||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
quote:Some, not including myself, would argue that homosexuals are being treated just the same as heterosexuals and that no violation of the Equal Protection Clause has been made by the prohibition of same-sex marriage. Anyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex, including homosexuals. quote:Again, some would argue that no fundamental right has been violated because anyone, reguardless if he's homosexual or heterosexual, is free to marry anyone of the opposite sex. quote:Which is why the people of Alabama decided to keep segregation laws, including their ban on interracial marriage, in their constitution in 2004. You can read about it here Alabama clings to segregationist past | World news | The Guardian quote: Obama and Keyes explained why same sex marriage ought to be illegal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG5u04Gbg0A Republicans explained why gay marriage ought to be banned at the following youtube link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG5u04Gbg0A
quote:I think people who have a problem with it have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to marry somebody of the same sex. In fact, have you visited the dumb laws website before? We have a whole nation's history of people coming up with dumb laws because they didn't know any better. The marriage protection act is just another one of these. quote:Actually, recognizing gay marriage on a national level would be interfering with don't ask don't tell. After all, Private Steve Ryan has to put down "Robert Hyman" in the spouse section for him to get benefits. quote:It would give republicans most of the evangelical votes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
quote:And yet you already have one person using this exact argument but on a bigger scale. quote:Ok, you're right, but look at the percentage of people who wanted to keep interracial marriage ban. quote:My mistake. The republican link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kyiOI3HFr0 quote:I'm not arguing against gay marriage. I'm saying that the only way for us to solve this problem is for new legislation, because the old legislations were never meant to apply to same sex marriage. In fact, I'm willing to go as far as say that the people who pushed for the equal protection clause and people like Justice Warren had never even thought about applying their rulings on same sex marriage. We didn't end slavery by applying an old amendment or law. We ended it with a new amendment. And let's not forget selective incorporation into the 14th amendment to apply many of the federally protected rights on a state level. Judges in the past have been known to interpret the law based on the context of when it was written. I think in this case the only sure way to ensure true equality for homosexuals is to start anew.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
quote:I'm not sure I agree with this. Marriage has always been a secular institution. What you are suggesting is, I believe, little better than when the southern states proposed for the states to get out of the school bussiness and privatize education to keep segregation. I'm having a hard time believing that separate could ever be equal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
quote:Ok. quote:I thought the topic of this thread was gay marriage and the law, specifically the United States of America Law. Are you saying that at some point in the history of our nation, marriage was not a secular institution and that a simple declaration of marriage by a pastor was good enough?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
quote:Again, American history tells us that marriage has always been a secular institution. Why on Earth would we want to get rid of it? I'm having trouble understanding why we should get rid of it just because a minority group of people wanted the same rights. Again, some southern states were willing to close down all their public schools rather than allow African American school children to attend the same schools as the white children. What you are proposing sounds eerily similar to what the southern states wanted to do. It's like burning your cherished book just so someone else couldn't read it. Is there a reason why you think same sex marriage would ruin your marriage?
quote:As far as I know, it's already optional for anyone. I have a friend who married his girlfriend in a court and then had a private celebration with his friends. I've also been to weddings that were held in churches. Is there a reason why you think gay people getting a secular marriage would ruin your marriage?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
quote:Because it seems like you are playing the war of attrition card. Since you don't want gay people to get married, you propose that we get rid of legal marriage all together. Since the Soviets didn't want the Nazis to have a strong foothold deep inside Russia, they destroyed everything behind them when they retreated. Since southerners didn't want black children to attend the same schools as white children, they proposed to close down the public school system. Same thought pattern. If you already have something and you don't want your enemies to get their hands on it, you'd rather destroy than let your enemies have it. I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything but war of attrition.
quote:I once attended a church meeting on this very subject. Some people were so hateful that they proposed the country rids itself of marriage overall just so gay people couldn't get married. I'm having a hard time accepting that after years of seeing "normal" people reap the rewards and social acceptance of marriage that now we have to accept a lesser form of this institution. If the government does indeed get out of the marriage bussiness all together and everyone is presented with civil union, I'm pretty sure the people will blame this on homosexuals for years to come. This is exactly what the conservatives have been accusing us of for years, that we wanted to trash marriage. By getting rid of the legal institution of marriage, we effectively "trash" marriage just as predicted by fundamentalists.
quote:How is calling it something else achieving equal rights? You are proposing that we get rid of the legal institution of marriage all together just because you don't want homosexuals to get married. War of attrition mentality. quote:I'm a conservative. Real change comes from recognizing certain inalienable human rights. Let me be a little more clear. Say that there are 2 families living side by side. One family is more economically prosperous than the other. Everyday, the kids in the rich family would go out and buy candies. The kids in the poor family couldn't afford the candies. So, for years, the poor kids have to watch the rich kids buy and eat their candies. Finally, one day the price of candies take a nose dive and it is now affordable to the poor kids. They hurrily run out to buy some candies but they find that the rich kids have burned down the candy store. Now, nobody can have any candy. The rich kids in this case might say that the candies are bad for your teeth so they're just doing the poor kids a favor. Would you believe the rich kids about the teeth? Should I believe you about your good intentions?
quote:Ok, let's burn down the candy store and erect a twizzler store in its place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
Again, how do you expect me to believe that you have good intentions if you are advocating what essentially is a scourge earth policy? Equality in the south weren't achieved by getting rid of the public school system. It was achieved by integrating everyone into the same already existing school system.
quote:Then explain to me why you are advocating a scourge earth policy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
Jaderis writes
quote:This is the point I've been trying to make, but apparently even the liberals on here think it's ok to burn down the whole place rather than let us have it. Like many people, I grew up conservative and have dreams of starting a family with a marriage contract, and yes that includes the term 'marriage'. But I guess this is a battle to be fought against both conservatives and liberals. The conservatives don't want to see gay people happy and the liberals want us to settle with something less meaningful like civil union. Is there noone left out there that thinks gay people deserve better than being bashed by both conservatives and liberals?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
RAZD, let me paraphrase your position and if I got something wrong you could come in and correct me.
You think that the government should get out of the marriage business and begin distributing "civil union" to everyone, heteros and homos. You think that this will achieve the equality we have been seeking, since everyone now is "drinking from the same drinking fountain". You think that when it comes to marriage we should leave that entirely to religion and that anyone can have a marriage ceremony in a church or whereever they wish. You think that essentially marriage is a religious institution and that it should be that way. If what I stated above is correct, read on. Consider the following analogy. Suppose for years and years and years the position of doctor or physician has always been for men only. But as time goes on women begin to go to med schools and do well enough to obtain their MD licenses. Conservatives argue that by definition you have to be a man to be a doctor or physician. The women that have worked hard for years argue that it should be open to anyone who is qualified. People like Hoot Mon comes in and suggest that we should call the women who qualified to medically treat others as person-you-go-to-when-you're-sick and the men who qualified to medically treat others as doctors or physicians. The women point out the obvious inequality in this "seperate but equal" institution. And this is where you, RAZD, come in. You suggest that we should get rid of the physician's lisence over all and start distributing the person-you-go-to-when-you're-sick lisence. So, when you go to the medical facility and speak to one of the healers, you refer to him/her as something like Person-you-go-to-when-you're-sick Berkes instead of Doctor Berkes. This, you argue, would achieve the equality the women have been seeking for years. You also argue that anyone now can call him/herself as doctor or physician. So, what's the big deal with the word doctor, you ask? There are several reasons I can think as being wrong in this scenario. The men will continue to refer to themselves as doctors, but technically the women can't. Anyone can walk right up to the woman physician and says "you're not a doctor, so shut the hell up" and she can't say a thing back because technically she's a person-you-go-to-when-you're-sick, not a physician. But on the other hand, people will still think highly of the men physicians and still refer to them as doctors. Yes, I and my future partner can call ourselves married anytime we want. I could also call myself a doctor or lawyer or engineer anytime I want. Anybody can call himself anything he wants. That's not the point. The point is marriage and family are concepts that have ingrained in our culture for a long long time, and people like myself are not immune to it. We want to get married, not civil unionized. I know some gay couples who have been together for years, all the while waiting hopefully that one day they could get married. You, RAZD, might be one of those that would walk up and ask "why don't you just get a ceremonial marriage?" Sure, they could do that, but it's not the same. Call it a delusion, if you will. Myself and quite a few others I know are conservative enough that we want to get married, not civil unionized. My experience with this is people who advocate civil union can often be placed in one of the two following groups: (1) Straight married people who have taken their marriage for granted and thus absolutely can't see what the big deal is with us gays trying to get into the institution of marriage, and that includes the word "marriage". (2) Gay people who just don't care much about this marriage issue and can't understand why some of the other gays aren't living in open relationships like so many people do nowadays. Speaking as a conservative, marriage means everything to me, and that includes the word. Again, why don't I just start calling myself and my future partner "married"? My answer to that is it's the same reason why I don't just start calling myself "pastor" or "doctor" or "physicist" or "engineer" or "dog" or "cat" or "chair". If you still think I come from an irrational point of view, I give up. You can continue to advocate your scorch earth policy rather than let some of us finally enjoy something that you straights have been enjoying for centuries. Yes, the issue is very important to me, and as far as I know it is very important to many other gay couples who have been together for years. There's a reason why we aren't just pushing for civil union. The rights and protections, while very important, are not the whole picture. It's the social value that we have placed on the institution of marriage, and that includes marriage, and the hopeful/wishful thinking that our families could finally be viewed as equal and our relationships are just as important as the traditional relationship that exists in a marriage. But I guess it's something you won't understand. It's not uncommon to find liberals who just won't understand why this marriage issue is so important to us and why we won't settle for civil union.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
quote:Did we get rid of marriage and start calling it civil union for everybody when interracial couples wanted to get married? People on here have been telling me to try to understand where others are coming from. Perhaps people should begin trying to understand where I am coming from? The rights and protections under the law, while very important, don't make up the whole picture. It's changing the whole social attitude towards gay people that's the main issue. And you don't do that by telling the conservative half of the country that they can't legally get married anymore just because gay people want to get married too. Just for a moment, try to imagine how people in the south would have reacted if the government decided back then to end the institution of legal marriage back in the 60's and 70's because interracial couples wanted to get married. Instead of changing the social attitude toward interracial couples, I think people would have hated interracial couplings even more. Now, just imagine what will happen if the government tells the conservative half of the country that they can't get a marriage lisence from the state anymore because gay people wanted to get married too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes
quote:Are you implying that gay people would want to change by sheer free will? Speaking as a conservative, I assure you that it's not that easy if at all possible. I've had it easy. A couple of my friends were sent to "straight camps" by their parents to be "cured". Yes, they were both "cured" and they are still sleeping with other guys.
quote:While race cannot be defined in any objective manner other than the place of origin, and even that is shaky ground, it can be intuitionally defined on an individual basis. A person with dark skin could have fair skin crafted throughout his body and literally change his race. I could dye my hair and become mediterranian white. Or I could bleach my hair and eye brows and become an albino scandanavian.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024