Gheys Want to Marry

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Gay marriage is not natural as gay couples can't reproduce on their own. If everyone was gay, the human race would cease to exist in one generation. Kinda like mules.

I will make the big sacrifice and volunteer to remain the "straight one" and propogate the species.

Moot argument, Gays are a small percentage of the population, mankind will survive. These kinds of arguments are simply preposterous. Gays are Gay, it doesn't matter the laws on marriage. They will not become hetrosexual because of a law on marriage. They never have and never will contribute to the overall population and yet it sems to keep growing! Imagine that.

there's a collective sigh of relief all across vj with that news........

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Gay marriage is not natural as gay couples can't reproduce on their own. If everyone was gay, the human race would cease to exist in one generation. Kinda like mules.

I will make the big sacrifice and volunteer to remain the "straight one" and propogate the species.

Moot argument, Gays are a small percentage of the population, mankind will survive. These kinds of arguments are simply preposterous. Gays are Gay, it doesn't matter the laws on marriage. They will not become hetrosexual because of a law on marriage. They never have and never will contribute to the overall population and yet it sems to keep growing! Imagine that.

Federal DOMA, 1996 [1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C] allows states an exemption from the Full Faith and Credit Act in the context of same sex marriage. Challenges to this provision have been launched.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Wrong quote posted. Correction:

gay marriage advocates can whine all they want. Most states have banned gay marriage in their state constitutions. Getting around that will be monumental, and the push back will be more than they can overcome. If they can't get people in Cali to approve of it, they don't have much hope in the rest of the US any time soon, thank God.

Have you heard of the "full faith and credit" clause. Gays married in Vermont are still married when they go back home to Oklahoma, but they left their honeymoon money here.

Federal DOMA, 1996 [1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C] allows states an exemption from the Full Faith and Credit Act in the context of same sex marriage. Challenges to this provision have been launched.

[100% Al Ahly Fan 53]

I think I heard the best answer on the radio so far to this. This guy suggested that the government not try to recognize any marriages at all, and that every joining between couples would turn into a civil union whether they are straight or gay. "Marriages" would be performed only in churches and would only mean what the church you go to wants it to mean.

Anyway, I liked it.

Interesting. Sounds fair enough.

[scandal 951]

Harvey Milk.

Matthew Shepard.

Just when is the intolerance of the haterz going to cease in this land of liberty? Just when will equal rights under the law apply to all?

They have paid their price in blood to be treated just the same as everyone else.

It's high time to stop discrimination of any sort based on sexual orientation.

Gay rights NOW.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gay marriage is not natural as gay couples can't reproduce on their own. If everyone was gay, the human race would cease to exist in one generation. Kinda like mules.

I will make the big sacrifice and volunteer to remain the "straight one" and propogate the species.

Moot argument, Gays are a small percentage of the population, mankind will survive. These kinds of arguments are simply preposterous. Gays are Gay, it doesn't matter the laws on marriage. They will not become hetrosexual because of a law on marriage. They never have and never will contribute to the overall population and yet it sems to keep growing! Imagine that.

Federal DOMA, 1996 [1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C] allows states an exemption from the Full Faith and Credit Act in the context of same sex marriage. Challenges to this provision have been launched.

Oh...THANK GOD!!! So now when the Gays marry in Vermont and drive back to Oklahoma they will be STRAIGHT again! Oh, I am so relieved that your laws have that one covered. I will sleep better tonight.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

gay marriage advocates can whine all they want. Most states have banned gay marriage in their state constitutions. Getting around that will be monumental, and the push back will be more than they can overcome. If they can't get people in Cali to approve of it, they don't have much hope in the rest of the US any time soon, thank God.

Evidence?

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/GayMarriageBan.htm

Your quote from Gerald Ford it is correct. You should apply it evenly. It seems Conservatives and Liberals simply want to oppress different aspects of our lives, Libertarians are Pro-Choice.........on everything!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Harvey Milk.

Matthew Shepard.

Just when is the intolerance of the haterz going to cease in this land of liberty? Just when will equal rights under the law apply to all?

They have paid their price in blood to be treated just the same as everyone else.

It's high time to stop discrimination of any sort based on sexual orientation.

Gay rights NOW.

Now see here is where the libertarian pisses off the liberal. There is no such thing as "GAY RIGHTS" There are HUMAN rights, all the same for everyone, no favoriteism shown by government to anyone.

I DO NOT agree with "hate crime" laws, quotas, affirmative action or ANY law which gives any HUMAN a priority over any other HUMAN. It is preposterous that a person could get stronger punishment for killing someone because they are Gay, than for killing me because I am not!

Everyone HUMAN should be able to be married and enjoy whatever benefits is accorded married people. OR simply end ANY government benefit to being married, no tax breaks, no estate rights, no ability to choose for a partner even life or death decisions. NONE, for anyone. It is not the government's place to discriminate, segregate, divide, or cause disputes...that has traditionally been the place of the church, let them do it if they choose.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Gay marriage is not natural as gay couples can't reproduce on their own. If everyone was gay, the human race would cease to exist in one generation. Kinda like mules.

I will make the big sacrifice and volunteer to remain the "straight one" and propogate the species.

Moot argument, Gays are a small percentage of the population, mankind will survive. These kinds of arguments are simply preposterous. Gays are Gay, it doesn't matter the laws on marriage. They will not become hetrosexual because of a law on marriage. They never have and never will contribute to the overall population and yet it sems to keep growing! Imagine that.

Federal DOMA, 1996 [1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C] allows states an exemption from the Full Faith and Credit Act in the context of same sex marriage. Challenges to this provision have been launched.

Oh...THANK GOD!!! So now when the Gays marry in Vermont and drive back to Oklahoma they will be STRAIGHT again! Oh, I am so relieved that your laws have that one covered. I will sleep better tonight.

My laws? I support DOMA. but so did ** President Clinton, who signed the federal bill, making it law. I'm not a liberal or a **. Are you?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I think I heard the best answer on the radio so far to this. This guy suggested that the government not try to recognize any marriages at all, and that every joining between couples would turn into a civil union whether they are straight or gay. "Marriages" would be performed only in churches and would only mean what the church you go to wants it to mean.

Anyway, I liked it.

Interesting. Sounds fair enough.

Fair until there is a need for divorce. Marriage is not merely a social interaction, it's a legal contract, and contract law is regulated by the state. So division of property, tax issues, child custody, and maintenance all fall under state purview. Legal in, legal out. It's hard to escape the state.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Barza Woman

[mawilson 2,133]

Now see here is where the libertarian pisses off the liberal. There is no such thing as "GAY RIGHTS" There are HUMAN rights, all the same for everyone, no favoriteism shown by government to anyone.

I DO NOT agree with "hate crime" laws, quotas, affirmative action or ANY law which gives any HUMAN a priority over any other HUMAN. It is preposterous that a person could get stronger punishment for killing someone because they are Gay, than for killing me because I am not!

Everyone HUMAN should be able to be married and enjoy whatever benefits is accorded married people. OR simply end ANY government benefit to being married, no tax breaks, no estate rights, no ability to choose for a partner even life or death decisions. NONE, for anyone. It is not the government's place to discriminate, segregate, divide, or cause disputes...that has traditionally been the place of the church, let them do it if they choose.

[scandal 951]

Now see here is where the libertarian pisses off the liberal. There is no such thing as "GAY RIGHTS" There are HUMAN rights, all the same for everyone, no favoriteism shown by government to anyone.

I DO NOT agree with "hate crime" laws, quotas, affirmative action or ANY law which gives any HUMAN a priority over any other HUMAN. It is preposterous that a person could get stronger punishment for killing someone because they are Gay, than for killing me because I am not!

Everyone HUMAN should be able to be married and enjoy whatever benefits is accorded married people. OR simply end ANY government benefit to being married, no tax breaks, no estate rights, no ability to choose for a partner even life or death decisions. NONE, for anyone. It is not the government's place to discriminate, segregate, divide, or cause disputes...that has traditionally been the place of the church, let them do it if they choose.

I don't see where what you have written "pisses off" anyone. Nothing you wrote is particularly inflammatory. I, for one, agree with your overall thrust though I diverge on certain key points (notably hate crime) as explained below.

First of all, you are absolutely right that Rights in our society belong to all, not to specific groups. I used the term "gay rights" in my post because that's the topic of this particular thread. What I mean of course is that gays should not be denied any of the rights given to others in our society, including the right to marriage. Some here have advocated taking away Government's right to sanction marriages - that's not likely to happen in our society, it's not what people are asking for. Hence the correct approach is to simply not deny that right to those who want this right.

Regarding Civil Rights in the US, the 14th Amendment, enacted in the wake of the Dred Scott decision and the aftermath of the Civil War was intended to assure African Americans the same rights as other Americans. Notably and wisely, nowhere in the text do we see the words Black, Negro, or African American. These rights belong to all:

The 14th Amendment, Section 1:

Section 1. 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 would argue that any state laws or constitutional amendment that specifically bars gay marriage is in violation of the 14th amendment Equal Protection clause. That includes California Prop 8, which Attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson are now challenging under precisely this argument (I posted this recently).

You write

"I DO NOT agree with "hate crime" laws, quotas, affirmative action or ANY law which gives any HUMAN a priority over any other HUMAN."

I tend to agree with you regarding quotas and affirmative action. I think a case for these policies may have made sense in the early days of the civil rights struggle in the 60s and 70s. At this point America is a sufficiently integrated society that I personally believe these policies to more harm than good to the minority communities they claim to help. It's high time we that America's workplaces hire and promote strictly on the basis of merit. And that America's universities and colleges admit their students on the basis of merit.

However I see hate crime differently than you do. Hate crimes do not just harm the individual targeted, they have a debilitating effect on the broader community. The words of the New York state legislature put it well.

When it enacted the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, the New York State Legislature found that:

Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity."

[jundp 191]

You had better worry about why one euro costs $1.19 rather than whether two homosexuals can get a piece of paper at the county courthouse.

Is that really the exchange rate now?!

Yeah, I wish.

Darn. Just got really excited for a minute.

I DO NOT agree with "hate crime" laws, quotas, affirmative action or ANY law which gives any HUMAN a priority over any other HUMAN. It is preposterous that a person could get stronger punishment for killing someone because they are Gay, than for killing me because I am not!

Fair until there is a need for divorce. Marriage is not merely a social interaction, it's a legal contract, and contract law is regulated by the state. So division of property, tax issues, child custody, and maintenance all fall under state purview. Legal in, legal out. It's hard to escape the state.

But isn't the idea of governments allowing civil unions (thus recognizing them legally) and churches doing the 'marriage' and one following the rules set up by the particular church the way it works in many countries? For example, in Germany you can't just get married in a church and have your marriage be legally recognized by the German government. You must first sign paperwork at the Standesamt, registering the marriage. You may choose to have a religious ceremony, but doing so without first getting legal registration of the marriage means your marriage isn't valid.

Why can't we do something like that in America? Here, anyone, literally ANYONE, can be a licensed minister. But if you have to register your marriage anyway in the US then do what Germany has done. It's not legal until it's registered and a church ceremony has no legal standing.

And yes, they do allow same-sex partnerships to be LEGALLY registered at the Standesamt.

[justashooter 430]

i think it's unamerican to deny polygamists to get married, since this is the land of the free.

my wife's sister is so cute. thanks for your support.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Now see here is where the libertarian pisses off the liberal. There is no such thing as "GAY RIGHTS" There are HUMAN rights, all the same for everyone, no favoriteism shown by government to anyone.

I DO NOT agree with "hate crime" laws, quotas, affirmative action or ANY law which gives any HUMAN a priority over any other HUMAN. It is preposterous that a person could get stronger punishment for killing someone because they are Gay, than for killing me because I am not!

Everyone HUMAN should be able to be married and enjoy whatever benefits is accorded married people. OR simply end ANY government benefit to being married, no tax breaks, no estate rights, no ability to choose for a partner even life or death decisions. NONE, for anyone. It is not the government's place to discriminate, segregate, divide, or cause disputes...that has traditionally been the place of the church, let them do it if they choose.

Neanderthals were human. They didn't have marriage, taxes, estates, or laws, ergo, no human rights. That's the problem; when you have no laws or regulations over a social interaction, no boundaries exist, therefore, no protections for status or ownership exist, therefore, no rights exist. Why would I have to consider you married if there are no rules as to what marriage is? What would I need to respect your property or rights if there are no limitations to my rights? Laws and the enforcement of them keep us from being a society where no "human rights" are recognized or even considered. Laws take the merely philosophical and create social boundaries that allow us to put the abstract into concrete tems. I doubt that a true libertarian wants no laws. If so, they would be an anarchist instead of a libertarian.

"Human rights" is only an abstract social construct until you set down legal limitations that define rights and responsibilities. What defines "human" is still an abstract social construct, when you consider the debate over when human life begins. The founding documents of this country are bound by "inalienable human rights", but the definition and extent of those rights, and their effects on the rights of others evolve as our responsibilities to each other are defined. Gay marriage being the same as hetro marriage is not a construct that can be forced on the law or the populace and be readily accepted.

The social fabric of any society is built upon the foundation of basic family kinship units, however they are defined. At this time, our basic family kinship unit is defined as a man, a woman, and child(ren). Most people are still reluctant to include same sex units in the social context of marriage because, whether you recognize it or not, dissolving that definition under the nebulous concept of "human rights" opens the door to an all inclusive definition of marriage, making marriage meaningless for everyone, in the long run.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Barza Woman