[hyteckit]

Originally posted by vanillacoke:
Don't they have equal rights already? Are they being denied citizenship? Ability to vote? Ability to hold a job? Ability to own a house? Own a car? Get a credit card? Go to college? Own land? Start a business? Borrow money? Invest in the stock market? Go shopping in the same grocery store as everyone else? Do they have to sit at the back of the bus? Do they not count as a full citizen when being counted in the census?

I'm confused as to what rights are being denied here.

Marriage rights perhaps?

[vanillacoke]

Can the ability to be married be denied by the state? Can the right be taken away without due process? Was the sole purpose of the institution of marriage designed only to deny something to homosexuals? Is marriage an inalienable right that cannot be denied under any circumstances?

[fireside]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
What religion is being established? This is a loose interpretation based on a letter. The establishment clause does not mean a callous indifference to Christianity.

the first amendment does not allow the state to respect a religion. if there is a law passed (or amendment passed) that is HEAVILY influenced by a religion, i feel that it violates the first amendment.

[vanillacoke]

IMHO Congress passing a law establishing the Church of the United States with the President as His Holiness the Spritual Leader would be a violation of the First Amendment.

Encouraging citizens to be religious isn't.

[fireside]

Originally posted by vanillacoke:
I'm confused as to what rights are being denied here.

IIRC (this was awhile ago) i remember reading that your employer could fire someone based solely on if they were gay. or someone could evict you solely based on that you were gay, etc. you can't fire or evict someone based on sex, race, etc, so why is it justified that you can fire someone based on their sexual orientation?

[fireside]

Originally posted by vanillacoke:
Encouraging citizens to be religious isn't.

erm, the state can't respect any religious institution. how can the state be justified in "encouraging" you to be religious?

anyway, if they passed a law with heavy influence from the Catholic Church, that wouldn't be "encouraging" you to be religious, that would be "encouraging" you to become a Catholic.

[vanillacoke]

Originally posted by fireside:
IIRC (this was awhile ago) i remember reading that your employer could fire someone based solely on if they were gay. or someone could evict you solely based on that you were gay, etc. you can't fire or evict someone based on sex, race, etc, so why is it justified that you can fire someone based on their sexual orientation?

Why not? Sounds like to me you are forcing sexual orientation where it shouldn't be forced.

In this case I would side with the employer because I do not believe any employer should be forced to hire a person who might engage in acts which the employer might oppose.

I do believe that government should turn a blind eye towards these things as the government represents all people (meaning that sexual orientation shouldn't be used as a criteria for denial W/R to a government job). I do not believe the government should, however, force private employers to adhere to the same standard.

[fireside]

Originally posted by vanillacoke:
In this case I would side with the employer because I do not believe any employer should be forced to hire a person who might engage in acts which the employer might oppose.

that is stupid. this is America, land of the free and liberated. if people can't get jobs solely based on the color of their skin or their sexual preference, whats to stop the stores from selling things to people they don't want to? yes, we all have our rights, but those rights become void when another person's are trampled on. you can preach that you hate black people all you want, but you can't not sell to them legally just because you feel they're inferior.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by fireside:
that is stupid. this is America, land of the free and liberated. if people can't get jobs solely based on the color of their skin or their sexual preference, whats to stop the stores from selling things to people they don't want to? yes, we all have our rights, but those rights become void when another person's are trampled on. you can preach that you hate black people all you want, but you can't not sell to them legally just because you feel they're inferior.

Don't lump the 'color of your skin' argument with sexual preference. You are comparing apples to oranges.

[fireside]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Don't lump the 'color of your skin' argument with sexual preference. You are comparing apples to oranges.

no im not. they are both extremely petty ways of judging people, and it happens everyday.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by fireside:
no im not. they are both extremely petty ways of judging people, and it happens everyday.

Yes, you did. Don't compare the plight of a REAL minority with someone who chooses to be gay and always has the option to go in the closet and keep his/ her lifestyle PRIVATE the way it should be. Instead, gays want to prance around and proclaim their gayness to the world...demanding marriage for benefits...not love - just benefits.

[Turias]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Yes, you did. Don't compare the plight of a REAL minority with someone who chooses to be gay and always has the option to go in the closet and keep his/ her lifestyle PRIVATE the way it should be. Instead, gays want to prance around and proclaim their gayness to the world...demanding marriage for benefits...not love - just benefits.

Please leave your bigoted views out of this thread. You don't need to prance in here just to get it locked.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Turias:
Please leave your bigoted views out of this thread. You don't need to prance in here just to get it locked.

Describing homosexuality as a choice is biggoted?

[vanillacoke]

Originally posted by fireside:
erm, the state can't respect any religious institution. how can the state be justified in "encouraging" you to be religious?

anyway, if they passed a law with heavy influence from the Catholic Church, that wouldn't be "encouraging" you to be religious, that would be "encouraging" you to become a Catholic.

No, "respecting an establishment" -which means in effect starting a new official chuch or recogning one religion as the official religion of the United States.

[vanillacoke]

Originally posted by fireside:
that is stupid. this is America, land of the free and liberated. if people can't get jobs solely based on the color of their skin or their sexual preference, whats to stop the stores from selling things to people they don't want to? yes, we all have our rights, but those rights become void when another person's are trampled on. you can preach that you hate black people all you want, but you can't not sell to them legally just because you feel they're inferior.

No, this is America where if you don't get your way then you sue to force others to accept you.

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Yes, you did. Don't compare the plight of a REAL minority with someone who chooses to be gay and always has the option to go in the closet and keep his/ her lifestyle PRIVATE the way it should be. Instead, gays want to prance around and proclaim their gayness to the world...demanding marriage for benefits...not love - just benefits.

Don't be a dick. The rest of this thread has been very civilized, and you should keep your responses in the same tone.

Now, I don't want to prance around, but I don't want to have to hide being gay. Seriously, if you saw a straight couple making out in the park on a sunny afternoon, you would be fine with it. If you saw a gay couple doing the exact same thing, you would say we are flaunting it. It's the exact same thing, but where one would make you smile, the other would make you want to hurt someone. Seriously, get over your own insecurities, you'll be a happier person.

And the people who want to get married want to do so because they are in LOVE. No one ever said that a gay couple would want to get married if they are not in love. If anything, it's a higher standard of love and devotion that gay people have before they will commit to being with the same person for the rest of their lives. It's such an easy thing for straight couples to do, that often times they are not prepared for it. The gay couples that are trying to get married are doing so because they must really want to. Why would they go through so much trouble if they weren't in love? The benefits are a part of what they want, but it's not like they are demanding any special additional rights. They just want what every straight person has the right to do. And, they want to do it for the exact same reasons as any straight person who would decide to get married.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
Don't be a dick. The rest of this thread has been very civilized, and you should keep your responses in the same tone.

Now, I don't want to prance around, but I don't want to have to hide being gay. Seriously, if you saw a straight couple making out in the park on a sunny afternoon, you would be fine with it. If you saw a gay couple doing the exact same thing, you would say we are flaunting it. It's the exact same thing, but where one would make you smile, the other would make you want to hurt someone. Seriously, get over your own insecurities, you'll be a happier person.

And the people who want to get married want to do so because they are in LOVE. No one ever said that a gay couple would want to get married if they are not in love. If anything, it's a higher standard of love and devotion that gay people have before they will commit to being with the same person for the rest of their lives. It's such an easy thing for straight couples to do, that often times they are not prepared for it. The gay couples that are trying to get married are doing so because they must really want to. Why would they go through so much trouble if they weren't in love? The benefits are a part of what they want, but it's not like they are demanding any special additional rights. They just want what every straight person has the right to do. And, they want to do it for the exact same reasons as any straight person who would decide to get married.

1. I am not going to hurt anyone, despite their choices
2. Higher standard of love? Now gays have a higher standard of love than heteros?
3. I hear the debates. Love is never mentioned.
4. If gays are allowed to marry, then they ARE recieving special rights
5. I promise...I won't be a dick when you are around

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Describing homosexuality as a choice is biggoted?

Maybe not bigoted by the definition of the word, but ignorant, because you are clearly not informed about the subject.

I would not choose to be gay if I were given the choice. No one chooses to be a part of marginalized group and to face hatred and physical violence at any moment.

But at the same time, I would not choose to be straight and to fake my way though life any more that you would choose to be gay.

Hypotheical Situation for you:
The whole world is gay, but you are secretly attacted to the opposite sex.
Would you honestly be gay if that's what society demanded from you? Would you choose to sleep with someone of the same sex if that is not where your attractions lie and knowing that doing so would make you completely miserable, but socially acceptible?
Yeah, you could do it for a while, but hiding who you really are from friends and family would eventually tear you up inside. After a few years of hiding and being afraid you would be found out, and knowing that you could be kicked out of your apartment and fired from your job, you would build up an enormous resolve to change the way things are. To make life better for every person like yourself. To change the laws that discriminate against you, and fix the ones that don't protect you but protect everyone else. You would eventually come out to your family and friends and let them know you are straight. They would be shocked because they know that being straight isn't an easy life. They know how they have discriminated in small and large ways against straight people in the past. They will realize that it's not entirely safe for you to be public about it, but they will know that it's important that you do be public so that awareness can be raised and so the world can see that there are in fact millions of people just like you around the world.
Gay people will look at you and your opposite sex partner and sneer and make threatenig comments and sometimes even attack you. Why? Because you dared to kiss in public, or hold hands while walking down the street.
They will try and convert you back to being gay because it's what feels right to them, and therefore everyone should be exactly the same way.
But, even though you have to put up with so much bull$hit, you know that inside you are doing what is right for you. You are living the life that you want to live. You are happier and more fulfilled than pretty much everyone else you know. You have an inner strength that was built by years of abuse. That inner strength is what allows you to look beyond the petty insults and hatred and fear and gives you the self confidence to do anything you want to do, and to do it well. You will be happy your entire life because you had the strength and courage not to hide away from the bigots and do exactly what they wanted you to do. You are your own person, and no one can take that away from you.

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by dcolton:
1. I am not going to hurt anyone, despite their choices
2. Higher standard of love? Now gays have a higher standard of love than heteros?
3. I hear the debates. Love is never mentioned.
4. If gays are allowed to marry, then they ARE recieving special rights
5. I promise...I won't be a dick when you are around

1. Thank You.
2. What I am saying is that a lot of straight people jump into marriage when they shouldn't. (Would you agree with me on that point? A 50% divorce rate would seem to back that up.) Becuase gay people can't get married, those that DO get married obviously really want to be married. I'm not saying that our love is any different from straight people, just that making the choice to get married isn't as easy as it is for straights.
3. Love is inferred. Why would they want to get married if they weren't in love? Just for something to do on a saturday afternoon?
4. How is getting the same rights equal to getting special, additional rights?
5. Thanks Again.

[Turias]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
Maybe not bigoted by the definition of the word, but ignorant, because you are clearly not informed about the subject.

I wasn't the "choice" aspect of homosexuality that I thought was bigoted. It was the rest of his post.

[vanillacoke]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:

4. How is getting the same rights equal to getting special, additional rights?

Because it requires modification of the institution of marriage to include people who never have been allowed to marry before.

Equal rights = man marrying woman. A gay man isn't being stopped from marrying a woman.

But special rights = man marrying man or woman marrying woman because that isn't allowed. Thus it's a special right that doesn't exist at all currently. You simply want something conjured out of thin air to lend credibility to your relationship.

[Turias]

Originally posted by vanillacoke:
Because it requires modification of the institution of marriage to include people who never have been allowed to marry before.

Equal rights = man marrying woman. A gay man isn't being stopped from marrying a woman.

But special rights = man marrying man or woman marrying woman because that isn't allowed. Thus it's a special right that doesn't exist at all currently. You simply want something conjured out of thin air to lend credibility to your relationship.

And if the law was "Only Whites can vote"? Changing that would also give special rights to Blacks?

Or what if the law was "Only homosexuals can vote"? Would that make it any different?

[GRAFF]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
[BI would not choose to be gay if I were given the choice. No one chooses to be a part of marginalized group and to face hatred and physical violence at any moment.

But at the same time, I would not choose to be straight and to fake my way though life any more that you would choose to be gay. [...] [/B]

No use wasting your pleas on the likes of dcolton or vanillacoke (who bears a striking resemblance to netgear, btw). Their strategy is one of bigotry masquerading as piety - very much like the Republicans who wish to change the constitution. Their goal is to codify a paradigm of exclusion. Once it is in the constitution, there is no more debate. They already use a language inferring that gay relationships are not "real" no matter how long you have been together with the one you love. To them, we are not people but only a sexual act without emotion. They represent the basest of human nature - to hate and fear what is different. They want to limit marriage to heteros not because of any noble or divine reason, but because of the childish notion that "it is ours, and you can't have it". They remind me of those gulls in Finding Nemo - "mine, mine, mine..."

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by vanillacoke:
Because it requires modification of the institution of marriage to include people who never have been allowed to marry before.

Equal rights = man marrying woman. A gay man isn't being stopped from marrying a woman.

But special rights = man marrying man or woman marrying woman because that isn't allowed. Thus it's a special right that doesn't exist at all currently. You simply want something conjured out of thin air to lend credibility to your relationship.

If that is what your view of special rights is, then there is nothing here I can say what will matter.

However, for the rest of the people reading this thread, the instiution of marriage is not some concrete, unchanging thing. It's been evolving since the beginning to fit the ideals of the time. If any of you didn't read the article linked earlier by GRAFF, then you should do so now.

Would you consider it a special right that was awarded to black people when they were finally allowed to marry a white person? That right didn't exist before, and someone had to conjure it out of thin air, and then fight like hell to make it happen. Two people were in love and it just happened that one of them was black. The law said they couldn't be married. They wanted the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage, so they made it happen. Exactly the same thing as is going on now.

Now, I am not comparing the struggle of black people to obtain basic human rights to the gay rights movement. We have never been as badly discriminated against as they were, but that's because our differences aren't so visible. You can't just point to a gay face in a crowd of faces the same way you could a black face in a crowd. But if every gay person had bright blue hair or something, then you can be pretty sure that we would have been denied the right to vote and own property and would have been segregated because the basic underlying hatred of people who are different is the same.

[vanillacoke]

Originally posted by Turias:
And if the law was "Only Whites can vote"? Changing that would also give special rights to Blacks?

No, not the same.

Or what if the law was "Only homosexuals can vote"? Would that make it any different?

Not the same either.

[vanillacoke]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
However, for the rest of the people reading this thread, the instiution of marriage is not some concrete, unchanging thing.

The institution of marriage legally being between a man and a woman only has never really changed. Now gays want special rights that have never existed in the modern world.

Would you consider it a special right that was awarded to black people when they were finally allowed to marry a white person?

Not if it's a man and a woman wanting to get married.

That right didn't exist before, and someone had to conjure it out of thin air, and then fight like hell to make it happen.

Far more natural for two people of two races of opposite sexes to be married than two homosexuals of any race.

Two people were in love and it just happened that one of them was black. The law said they couldn't be married. They wanted the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage, so they made it happen. Exactly the same thing as is going on now.

Being black isn't a choice.

[vanillacoke]

Originally posted by GRAFF:
Once it is in the constitution, there is no more debate. They already use a language inferring that gay relationships are not "real" no matter how long you have been together with the one you love.

Said relationships can never ever result in children therefore such relationships are fake. Sort of like two roommates getting married or the mechanic and the tools salesman.

Love? Whatever.

[RAzaRazor]

I think everyone interested in keeping this thread intelligent and civil should take a look at this link.

[Turias]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
I think everyone interested in keeping this thread intelligent and civil should take a look at this link.

Haha!

But seriously, I agree. Let's not feed the trolls. Vanilla, you've expressed your opinions, and it is obvious they are not going to change. Fine. We disagree.

Back to the topic at hand.

[vanillacoke]

Obvious yours won't either. That leaves majority rule. And since gays make up such a tiny percentage of population...

[GRAFF]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
I think everyone interested in keeping this thread intelligent and civil should take a look at this link.

Thanks. Would that it were so simple to pull the plug on all bigotry.

[RAzaRazor]

VanillaCoke: You need some basic education in the principles of democracy. Majority Rules, Minority Rights

This applies to your comments in the Red State/Blue State thread as well.

<Edit: You can find plenty of other sources of information on this subject using google.>

[ebuddy]

There seems to be a basis or foundation for a view either negative or affirmative regarding same-sex marriage rights; is the homosexual born this way, or is the behavior developed early in childhood? Personally, I've educated myself extensively on this and believe it is developed in early childhood based on stimuli as I've mentioned before. This does not make me bigotted. I believe that word is thrown around a little too loosely and begins to lose validity. You don't know me, but if you did you'd quickly realize that I'm the least harmful individual on the face of this earth. I have a view. A view that was requested by the poster of this thread. If all debates were going to end up with one side being bigotted and the other not, why banter?

I believe the subject of homosexuality has been so dragged into the political arena that any true understanding of it's origination has become lost.

What constitutes a bigot? Some would say the presupposition that homosexuality is developed and while it may arguably stem from a propensity it can and has been successfully changed, constitutes bigotry. i.e.; one can have a geneological propensity toward alcoholism, but one also cannot deny that choices and environment play a significant, if not dominant role. An alcoholic does not choose to be an alcoholic, but at some point finds that he/she appreciates a drink more than the others. To be clear, alcoholism is a blatent and obvious detriment to society and often times leads to violence, and the accidental death of others. This is clearly NOT the case with homosexuals. I do not persecute homosexuals, I don't fear them, I do not want them to be unhappy, I am quick to befriend them, hug them, love them, console them, laugh with them etc...without their "gayness" consuming my mind and/or dominating our conversations. However, why would one (with my view) be quick to legislate concerning what he believes to be a behavioral minority? Don't be angry with this. Please accept it for what it is, a view. I do not appreciate how many of those in agreement with me choose to approach the subject and one cannot overlook that some folks are truly bigotted. Unfortunately, I share many of their views on this matter, but I am not. I know it's difficult to sieve through, but please try. Also, not to appear too sensitive, I know my name was not mentioned, but "Republicans" were. I cringe when I see generalities like that. If you think any other party is supporting you because of any high moral standing or for any other reason than to simply get your vote, you've been duped.

Now, I don't want to prance around, but I don't want to have to hide being gay. Seriously, if you saw a straight couple making out in the park on a sunny afternoon, you would be fine with it. If you saw a gay couple doing the exact same thing, you would say we are flaunting it. It's the exact same thing, but where one would make you smile, the other would make you want to hurt someone. Seriously, get over your own insecurities, you'll be a happier person.

Whomever (and I forget who it was at this point) used the word "prance" may truly be bigotted. A good friend of mine has known he was gay since early on, yet I would never had known it had he not come out last year. There was no prancing, there was no eye-makeup, there was no wrist-flicking, and gufawing, etc...I consider him a close friend and simply did not know. I may have maybe "thought" at times, but never could've known. I also want to be very honest about this; I was walking my 8 yr old daughter in the park not long ago and there was a heterosexual couple with tongues deeply entrenched in one another's throats-I found this extremely annoying and quickly walked my child in the opposite direction. My reaction to a homosexual couple would've been exactly the same.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Turias:
And if the law was "Only Whites can vote"? Changing that would also give special rights to Blacks?

Or what if the law was "Only homosexuals can vote"? Would that make it any different?

No comparison. Why do you want to exploit blacks? Do you believe that since blacks have a right, gay people (who choose their lifestyle) deserve that right? Why is that? Because you think you are better than blacks?

[Oisín]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Whomever (and I forget who it was at this point) used the word "prance" may truly be bigotted. [...] I was walking my 8 yr old daughter in the park not long ago and there was a heterosexual couple with tongues deeply entrenched in one another's throats-I found this extremely annoying and quickly walked my child in the opposite direction. My reaction to a homosexual couple would've been exactly the same.

I don't think the calls of bigotry were aimed at you; in fact, I'm quite certain they weren't. (I missed the Republican bit, but I agree that generalizations like that are pretty useless in most cases)

As I understood it, it was dcolton who was (rightfully, in my opinion) called a bigot for the following statement:

Yes, you did. Don't compare the plight of a REAL minority with someone who chooses to be gay and always has the option to go in the closet and keep his/ her lifestyle PRIVATE the way it should be. Instead, gays want to prance around and proclaim their gayness to the world...demanding marriage for benefits...not love - just benefits.

Points in that statement leading to dcolton being called a bigot:

1. That to be gay is something you choose - whether it's something you're born with, or (like you, ebuddy, think) something that develops after birth, it most certainly is not a choice to make.

2. The statement that all gays should be in the closet. (Whether or not you're out of the closet, your lifestyle is still private if you choose it to be, and public if you choose it that way - that is a choice).

3. The "prancing" part (dcolton was the one who used it).

4. Claiming that gays are only asking for marital rights for the sake of the social benefits and love has nothing to do with it. In other words, that gays are incapable of love.

And I believe vanillacoke was also included in the bigot category for statements such as, "Said relationships can never ever result in children therefore such relationships are fake. Sort of like two roommates getting married or the mechanic and the tools salesman."

It would appear that all of a sudden having children is the only point and justification for relationships, ie. love. (And setting aside the gay issue, why shouldn't two roommates be able to marry? Or why shouldn't a mechanic be able to marry a tools salesman?)

Though I don't agree with many of your points, ebuddy, I for one wouldn't call you a bigot.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by dcolton:
No comparison. Why do you want to exploit blacks? Do you believe that since blacks have a right, gay people (who choose their lifestyle) deserve that right? Why is that? Because you think you are better than blacks?

No, because we don't think we are worse than blacks.

[dcolton]

To all of you bigotted gay people who want to exploit blacks to achieve your goal:

Stop it. You are not fooling anyone. Blacks have absolutely nothing to do with your rainbow rights. Absolutely nothing. The plight of the black man in America can IN NO WAY be compared to your quest to destroy the institution of marriage or the very fabric of society. We are talking about an issue that has to do with personal choice. We are talking about an issue that has to do with the greed of a small faction, who want the rights and privileges afforded to a heterosexual couples who publically make a committment to each other and society (and to God in many cases).

There is a reason why married couples recieve benefits...it is because of their contribution to society as they raise families and future leaders. Mary and Mary or William and William can't physically (biologically) meet this simple standard. So, gay marriages...NO. There is no benefit to society with the exception of the degredation of morality.

[cpt kangarooski]

dcolton--

Blacks have absolutely nothing to do with your rainbow rights. Absolutely nothing.

Of course they do. So do women, religious minorities, the handicapped, and numerous others. The issue that's common amongst all of these groups is that all of them are being mistreated and denied equal standing under the law for no rational reason whatsoever.

It doesn't matter that some of these people have been persecuted more than others; such persecution is always bad, no matter the amount, small or large. There's nothing whatsoever good to come of telling homosexuals that they don't deserve equal treatment until they've been abused some more. Rather, we ought to nip discrimination in the bud BEFORE harm can come about, or at least so as to stop any further harm.

You are promoting the idea that people should not be able to point to terrible things that happened before and say 'this should never happen again, not even a thousandth part of it should ever happen again, not to anyone at all.'

I'm Jewish. If a religious minority is being persecuted, you expect me to ignore that until the death camps get built? Because it isn't bad enough yet? **** that, and **** you! To never let that happen again means to never let it BEGIN again; not to Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, anyone.

your quest to destroy the institution of marriage or the very fabric of society

This is, incidentally, EXACTLY the sort of thing that people said about racial integration. You're keeping good company there.

the greed of a small faction, who want the rights and privileges afforded to a heterosexual couples who publically make a committment to each other and society (and to God in many cases).

First, it is never greedy to want to be treated the same as everyone else. Second, there's nothing inherent about same sex couples that prevents them from "publicly making a commitment to each other, society, or God." The problem we're facing now is that people won't let them.

There is a reason why married couples recieve benefits...it is because of their contribution to society as they raise families and future leaders.

That future leaders bit is highly disturbing. But you're quite wrong. If you were right, then the proper way of distributing those benefits would be to only give them to people who raised families. According to you, there, married couples that do not raise families should receive nothing.

Given that same sex couples can and do raise families, it wouldn't matter anyway. Biological contributions are irrelevant; adoptive parents and stepparents are perfectly capable of raising children they don't share single gene with.

Getting back on point though, you're wrong. Benefits are often given to married couples regardless of their intent to have children, ability to have children, or the fact of whether or not they do have children. For example, let's talk marital privilege -- the evidenciary rule that prevents spouses from being compelled to testify against one another. Do you believe that that has even the first thing to do with their ability to raise children? Remember, it's not a parent/child privilege.

There is no benefit to society with the exception of the degredation of morality.

For people to be treated equally under the law is itself enormously beneficial to society and the rule of law. Furthermore, it's required by the Constitution and is an excellent principle; the burden rests on those who would discriminate to find a sufficiently important reason for their typically appalling behavior. In your case, I can't see that you'll ever satisfy it.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
I'm Jewish. If a religious minority is being persecuted, you expect me to ignore that until the death camps get built? Because it isn't bad enough yet? **** that, and **** you! To never let that happen again means to never let it BEGIN again; not to Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, anyone.

Then compare your so called 'plight' to that of the jews. Quit exploiting blacks in your effort to obtain special rights. Do you not use jews because they are mostly 'white'? As a matter of fact, I would say that the comparison would be more valid if you compared 'gay' struggles in the US (no concentration camp comparisons) to the struggles of American Jews. But even then, the gay plight doesn't even come close.

This is, incidentally, EXACTLY the sort of thing that people said about racial integration. You're keeping good company there.

Once again, exploiting blacks. Race and choice are two different scenarios and the black struggle does not even compare to that of the imaginary gay struggle.

First, it is never greedy to want to be treated the same as everyone else. Second, there's nothing inherent about same sex couples that prevents them from "publicly making a commitment to each other, society, or God." The problem we're facing now is that people won't let them.

Gays want benefits more than the right to marry.

That future leaders bit is highly disturbing. But you're quite wrong. If you were right, then the proper way of distributing those benefits would be to only give them to people who raised families. According to you, there, married couples that do not raise families should receive nothing.

How about 'potential' future leaders? And yes, married couples who do not raise families recieve FEWER benefits than a couple who does raise a family. If it were up to me, couples who do not plan to procreate should not be afforded the right to marry. But be honest, how many couples don't pro-create? If a couple cannot pro-create (hetero) and they want a family, they should be the first on the list to adopt a child.

Given that same sex couples can and do raise families, it wouldn't matter anyway. Biological contributions are irrelevant; adoptive parents and stepparents are perfectly capable of raising children they don't share single gene with.

Wouldn't you want to have your child to have your genes. To be a part of you? But yes, you are right, some gay couples have children...but it is mainly because they decieved a former hetero partner into bearing a child while they sexually satisfied themselvces witha gay lover. So, I have ZERO respect for a gay person who decieved his hetero mate and destroyed a traditional family for fleshly pleasures. That, in my opinion, makes the worst type of 'family' and creates an even worst environment to raise 'potential' leaders.

Getting back on point though, you're wrong. Benefits are often given to married couples regardless of their intent to have children, ability to have children, or the fact of whether or not they do have children. For example, let's talk marital privilege -- the evidenciary rule that prevents spouses from being compelled to testify against one another. Do you believe that that has even the first thing to do with their ability to raise children? Remember, it's not a parent/child privilege.

Couples with children recieve additinal benefits. As for marital privilege...not in every state. (I think)

For people to be treated equally under the law is itself enormously beneficial to society and the rule of law. Furthermore, it's required by the Constitution and is an excellent principle; the burden rests on those who would discriminate to find a sufficiently important reason for their typically appalling behavior. In your case, I can't see that you'll ever satisfy it. [/B]

Choice does not afford special rights.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Then compare your so called 'plight' to that of the jews. Quit exploiting blacks in your effort to obtain special rights. Do you not use jews because they are mostly 'white'? As a matter of fact, I would say that the comparison would be more valid if you compared 'gay' struggles in the US (no concentration camp comparisons) to the struggles of American Jews. But even then, the gay plight doesn't even come close.



Once again, exploiting blacks. Race and choice are two different scenarios and the black struggle does not even compare to that of the imaginary gay struggle.



Gays want benefits more than the right to marry.



How about 'potential' future leaders? And yes, married couples who do not raise families recieve FEWER benefits than a couple who does raise a family. If it were up to me, couples who do not plan to procreate should not be afforded the right to marry. But be honest, how many couples don't pro-create? If a couple cannot pro-create (hetero) and they want a family, they should be the first on the list to adopt a child.



Wouldn't you want to have your child to have your genes. To be a part of you? But yes, you are right, some gay couples have children...but it is mainly because they decieved a former hetero partner into bearing a child while they sexually satisfied themselvces witha gay lover. So, I have ZERO respect for a gay person who decieved his hetero mate and destroyed a traditional family for fleshly pleasures. That, in my opinion, makes the worst type of 'family' and creates an even worst environment to raise 'potential' leaders.



Couples with children recieve additinal benefits. As for marital privilege...not in every state. (I think)



Choice does not afford special rights.

PS I liked your post. To the point. Not insulting. Well thought. Not even a cheap shot thrown in (you are better than me in that regard). Thanks.

[cpt kangarooski]

dcolton--

Quit exploiting blacks in your effort to obtain special rights.

I'm not trying to obtain special rights. I'm trying to obtain equal rights. Though I admit, since I'm not gay I doubt I'd be entering into a same sex marriage anytime soon.

Do you not use jews because they are mostly 'white'?

No, it's more to do with there having been comparatively less governmental discrimination against Jews in the US. The 50's and 60's civil rights movement laid pretty much all the groundwork for this aspect of the struggle to ensure equal rights.

Once again, exploiting blacks. Race and choice are two different scenarios and the black struggle does not even compare to that of the imaginary gay struggle.

One's gender and one's sexual preference are completely besides the point. The issue is that people are irrationally being treated unequally. When there's no rational reason for unequal treatment it doesn't matter one bit what the rationale is. When the government doesn't treat someone equally because they're black, or because they're gay, or because they just don't like the look of their face, it's all the same in the end.

Gays want benefits more than the right to marry.

Depends on how you frame the issue. I'd say that gays want to be treated the same way that straights are treated. No better, no worse. Being able to marry their SO is an aspect of that. Being able to have consensual sex without being arrested is another, and that one's already been won.

But the overall goal, I think, is for the government to be blind to sexual preference, just as it should be blind to differences in religion, race, gender, etc.

And yes, married couples who do not raise families recieve FEWER benefits than a couple who does raise a family.

Good -- then married same sex couples should only have those benefits, and if they raise a family, then they'll get the additional benefits. Nothing special or extra is desired. Just parity.

If it were up to me, couples who do not plan to procreate should not be afforded the right to marry.

As it happens, such a thing seems to be totally unprecedented in history AFAIK. And I would really question what you intend to do to couples that have had kids and don't intend on having more -- you'd void their marriage? What about marriages where there is a family (by adoption or previous children) but where the spouses don't plan on having kids together, just raising what they've got? According to you, they can't get married. Not to mention people who are infertile due to age, medical issue, etc.

Man, good thing for the rest of the world that you're just some lone kook.

If a couple cannot pro-create (hetero) and they want a family, they should be the first on the list to adopt a child.

Of course, you conveniently forget about surrogates or previous children -- but as it happens a decent number of same sex couples want to adopt children and in fact do so. It'd be nice if they could be married.

Wouldn't you want to have your child to have your genes.

Not really. I have no plans right now to get married or have kids. I'm not even seeing anyone. But on the whole, I'd prefer adoption. My genes are no great catch.

some gay couples have children...but it is mainly because they decieved a former hetero partner into bearing a child while they sexually satisfied themselvces witha gay lover.

That is just the most bizarro statement I've seen in a while. Man, I guess you've never heard of sperm donors, surrogate mothers, adoption, divorced parents, or deaths of parents.

Couples with children recieve additinal benefits. As for marital privilege...not in every state. (I think)

AFAIK every state. It differs as to who asserts it, who can waive it, and so forth, but it's quite universal, just like attorney-client privilege, doctor-patient privilege, or priest-penitent privilege. The idea is that it's more important for people to have good, open, and trusting relationships with their spouses, lawyers, doctors, and priests than to be able to gather evidence from them (since people would just clam up if they knew what they said could be used against them).

Choice does not afford special rights.

Perhaps. But some choices demand equal rights. And many inherent characteristics do as well. If sexual preference is inherent, then it's quite like skin color or gender. If it's a choice, it seems to me to be such an utterly fundamental choice as to be in the same league with religion, which is also a choice. Equal protection prevents religious discrimination by the government; I am wholly convinced that it prevents orientation discrimination as well.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
dcolton--Man, good thing for the rest of the world that you're just some lone kook.

More than half of America is AGAINST gay marriage. I am not a lone kook. I just won't let a bunch of liberal hate mongers intimidate me by calling me a biggot or a kook.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by dcolton:
More than half of America is AGAINST gay marriage. I am not a lone kook. I just won't let a bunch of liberal hate mongers intimidate me by calling me a biggot or a kook.

But I doubt more than half of America would restrict marriage to heterosexual couples who plan on having children...

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Ois�n:
But I doubt more than half of America would restrict marriage to heterosexual couples who plan on having children...

True.

[fiction]

Originally posted by Ois�n:
But I doubt more than half of America would restrict marriage to heterosexual couples who plan on having children...

Strawman, beside the point.

It isn't the ability to have children that defines marriage. It's the union of a man and a woman that defines it.

Gays simply want special rights that do not currently exist and thank god the majority of this country and the extreme majority of the nations of the world reject that.

See, the difference between gay marriage and racial marriage is this: denying marriage on the basis of race is wrong because there are few rational ways to reject the marriage of any man with any woman (outside of incest or blood relations). However rejecting gay marriage is simple because nobody has that right regardless of race, religious background, national origin, etc. It's a simple ban much like banning someone from owning a firearm, vehicle, etc. You misbehave and you lose privileges. Simple. Thankfully the majority of America opposes this.

Gay people can get married right now, today, but they reject society's definition of marriage, thus, there are no rights being denied when someone refuses to enjoy the rights already given to them. Gay people reject that and want a special right given that no person on this earth has right now. That's why gay rights are special rights.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by fiction:
Strawman, beside the point.

It isn't the ability to have children that defines marriage. It's the union of a man and a woman that defines it.

Gays simply want special rights that do not currently exist and thank god the majority of this country and the extreme majority of the nations of the world reject that.

See, the difference between gay marriage and racial marriage is this: denying marriage on the basis of race is wrong because there are few rational ways to reject the marriage of any man with any woman (outside of incest or blood relations). However rejecting gay marriage is simple because nobody has that right regardless of race, religious background, national origin, etc. It's a simple ban much like banning someone from owning a firearm, vehicle, etc. You misbehave and you lose privileges. Simple. Thankfully the majority of America opposes this.

Gay people can get married right now, today, but they reject society's definition of marriage, thus, there are no rights being denied when someone refuses to enjoy the rights already given to them. Gay people reject that and want a special right given that no person on this earth has right now. That's why gay rights are special rights.

Very well said.

[Turias]

Originally posted by fiction:
You misbehave and you lose privileges. Simple. Thankfully the majority of America opposes this.

So being homosexual is considered "misbehaving"?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Turias:
So being homosexual is considered "misbehaving"?

Let's just call it suspect.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by fiction:
Strawman, beside the point.

I'm not sure what 'strawman' is supposed to mean here, but my comment was merely made to show that that was the point that made cpt kangarooski refer to dcolton as a kook.

See, the difference between gay marriage and racial marriage is this: denying marriage on the basis of race is wrong because there are few rational ways to reject the marriage of any man with any woman (outside of incest or blood relations). However rejecting gay marriage is simple because nobody has that right regardless of race, religious background, national origin, etc. It's a simple ban much like banning someone from owning a firearm, vehicle, etc. You misbehave and you lose privileges. Simple. Thankfully the majority of America opposes this.

You misbehave and you lose privileges? So, being gay is misbehaving? Well, that's your (and unfortunately a lot of other people's) opinion, but that doesn't mean it's the state's opinion.

Gay people can get married right now, today, but they reject society's definition of marriage, thus, there are no rights being denied when someone refuses to enjoy the rights already given to them.

Actually, they can't. Because if a gay person gets married to someone of the opposite sex (ie. a straight marriage), the marriage is obviously fraudulent, done only for the social benefits, and that too is illegal.

Gay people reject that and want a special right given that no person on this earth has right now. That's why gay rights are special rights.

So the Netherlands are not on this earth?

[fiction]

Originally posted by Turias:
So being homosexual is considered "misbehaving"?

It is certainly not normal behavior.