DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Honestly, what's the big deal about Gay Marriage?
Pages:   ... ... [52]
Showing posts 1126 - 1150 of 1298, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/09/2008 06:59:34 PM · #1126
Originally posted by GeneralE:
--snip
The state says two (and only two) can enter into a specific contract, granting each other certain rights and responsibilities, and gaining certain rights and privileges from the state as a consequence. The issue -- the ONLY issue -- before us nor, is whether the state can discriminate as to which particular two citizens can enter into that contract on the basis of race, religion, or gender; the California Supreme Court has ruled that it may not.

It is strictly a matter of "equal protection under the law" for citizens of the same class, i.e. a pair of competent and consenting adults. Any attempts to extend the issue to sex with minors or other non-consenting fauna, plural marriage, or anything else are purely diversionary and specious arguments. Advocates for those positions with have to speak up for themselves, and then you can argue the merits (or, more likely, the lack thereof) in those proposals.


In light of my post above, asking why plural marriages shouldn't also be allowed, it did not occur to me that my question was purely diversionary or specious. If that is how it was viewed, well then my bad.

I was just wondering where all of this would end up going. There have been rulings that, in light of the fact that a man and a woman can get married, have a civil union, whatever it is called in those states, then it would be discriminatory to bar same sex unions.

At the risk of continuing to be diversionary and specious, I'm actually wondering why it wouldn't similarily be discriminatory to allow a union of more than 2 people? Why the magic number 2? Just because that's the way it's always been? Legal precedent?

There have been law's passed in all of the states barring polygamous marriage. Are these laws in danger of being overturned or are these laws somehow different?

Is it possible that some of us are just looking for answers to questions that we've wondered about for a while?
 07/09/2008 07:04:25 PM · #1127
Originally posted by coronamv:
Is there a reason you keep calling me coranmv instead of coronamv?


typo - apologies.
 07/09/2008 07:08:52 PM · #1128
Originally posted by dponlyme:
The underlying problem of gay marriage is that it confers a religious connotation to it.


Putting aside whether marriage is a civil or religious matter, does it matter that other people get married in a different manner outside your religious beliefs? You don't, I presume, object to Hindu wedding ceremonies being recognised because they don't conform to your religious beliefs? So why would you object to a gay wedding?
 07/09/2008 07:17:29 PM · #1129
Originally posted by shanksware:
I'm actually wondering why it wouldn't similarily be discriminatory to allow a union of more than 2 people? Why the magic number 2? Just because that's the way it's always been? Legal precedent?

There have been law's passed in all of the states barring polygamous marriage. Are these laws in danger of being overturned or are these laws somehow different?


There are good reasons. The modern western taxation system, pensions systems, and other legal systems are predicated upon two person marriages. There is nothing against someone taking another wife in a religious sense, but it would cause problems in a civil sense. So you can call someone your second wife, but don't expect her to be able to claim married person's tax allowances, or for her to gain rights to your pension or property in the event of your death, or to be involved in other next of kin decisions, or be taken into account in a division of assets when divorcing your first wife(!).
 07/09/2008 09:03:10 PM · #1130
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It is strictly a matter of "equal protection under the law" for citizens of the same class, i.e. a pair of competent and consenting adults. Any attempts to extend the issue to sex with minors or other non-consenting fauna, plural marriage, or anything else are purely diversionary and specious arguments. Advocates for those positions with have to speak up for themselves, and then you can argue the merits (or, more likely, the lack thereof) in those proposals.


I gotta agree with shank. Why is plural marriage specious? We have 3 (or more) consenting adults willing to enter this civil union. Why shouldn't they be allowed? If the state can limit this, why can't it limit gay marriage?
 07/09/2008 09:14:47 PM · #1131
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It is strictly a matter of "equal protection under the law" for citizens of the same class, i.e. a pair of competent and consenting adults. Any attempts to extend the issue to sex with minors or other non-consenting fauna, plural marriage, or anything else are purely diversionary and specious arguments. Advocates for those positions with have to speak up for themselves, and then you can argue the merits (or, more likely, the lack thereof) in those proposals.


I gotta agree with shank. Why is plural marriage specious? We have 3 (or more) consenting adults willing to enter this civil union. Why shouldn't they be allowed? If the state can limit this, why can't it limit gay marriage?

It is, shall we say, not germane to the issue at hand. There is no current conflict over whether or not three or more persons can enter into a contract similar to marriage; whether that prohibition is logical or not is another question. That ban is not discriminatory: no group of three can enter into such a contract. Now, if the IRS allowed Muslims to take four spusal deductions and you only one, then you might have an issue of this nature to discuss, but as it is, this issue is irrelevant to the one being discussed.

The state has recognized a specific type of contractual relationship between two consenting adults, and is not allowed to determine that only certain pairs of consenting adults may enter into such a contract in a manner which arbitrarily discriminates against a subset of all citizens, and denies them benefits accorded other pairs.
 07/09/2008 09:15:20 PM · #1132
Originally posted by coronamv:
Jeb My mistake I went back and looked and you did not directly call me evil. So I will appologise for that.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Well, thanks!

I don't think anyone in this whole debate is evil.

I may think that some others are clueless, staid & stodgy, stuck in the past, annoying, hard-headed, or insensitive to the feelings and issues of a large group of perfectly wonderful people, but not evil.

Originally posted by coronamv:
Well we will agree to disagree on many subjects and it is due to the places we have been and where we are headed in life. I still am trying to figure out where you got it that I disliked homosexuals? I actually agreed with you on most of these things. Just not on welfare.

I didn't necessarily think that you disliked homosexuals; I do have the impression that you don't necessarily think that they should be allowed to marry.

I do think you're hard-headed and annoying, whereas, I am NOT!!!.......8>)

I really don't think that we're too far apart on the welfare thing as far as able-bodied individuals shouldn't get ity, period.

What we had a real head-butting on was that you seemed to feel that you control your own destingy, whereas I see too many variables and unexpoected happenstance for that to be true for me.

I advocate doing everything in your power to make your life come out as planned, it just doesn't always work out that way.

And I firmly believe that many people are born gay......I truly and wholly believe that there is no such thing as choosing to be gay.
 07/09/2008 09:19:31 PM · #1133
Originally posted by Mousie:
our most beloved founding fathers weren't much closer to today's idea of Christianity than contemporary Jews.

Unitarians, drunks, womanizers, slave owners.....
 07/09/2008 09:25:07 PM · #1134
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

And I firmly believe that many people are born gay......I truly and wholly believe that there is no such thing as choosing to be gay.


You are certainly right about that, because no one that I know would choose to be treated as a second class citizen.

ETA: And being denied the same rights, such as marriage and being able to call it a marriage, is being treated as a second class citizen.

Message edited by author 2008-07-09 21:27:12.
 07/09/2008 09:29:03 PM · #1135
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, if the state doesn't recognize the rights of seventeen-year-olds to do certain things, then it may also not recognize the right of adults to do certain things.

Oh, please! That's a specious argument and you know it.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Gay marriage is really not that high on my priority list. I think it's reasonable to ensure some sort of legal rights to couples, but why this insistance to put the term "marriage" on it? OTOH why are we monkeying with constitutions to prevent it? I'm not sure I get either side.

One issue I have is that whole, "Take this little bit and go away with it.".

It's not a matter of degrees.....there are ways around it; you can get married some places, and engage in legal agreements, but it is NOT the same thing.

I married my wife because I love her and wanted to make the ultimate commitment, with all the rights and responsibilities that went with it.

Why can't Mousie and his partner do the same?

A marriage is between two PEOPLE......it's not going to happen without them standing up and saying that they will make the commitment for life.

Basically, the church aspect is a ritual, the guv'mint part is recording it, but if the two people are consenting adults who have worked out the terms of the relationship, who is ANYONE to tell them they cannot be married?
 07/09/2008 09:44:05 PM · #1136
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The state has recognized a specific type of contractual relationship between two consenting adults, and is not allowed to determine that only certain pairs of consenting adults may enter into such a contract in a manner which arbitrarily discriminates against a subset of all citizens, and denies them benefits accorded other pairs.

Though sometimes this guy goes right by me with his analyses, this is without question as I understand it, the real trouble.

It's discrimination, pure and simple.

I wonder how many of you realize just exactly how tough it is to be a gay couple in these "Modern & Enlightened" times.

You cannot get group medical coverage from your employer for your partner....

You cannot file joint tax returns.....

You cannot make medical decisions for your partner laying unconscious in the ER....

The list of things is really, really long, completely wrong, and really disappointing IMNSHO for what is supposed to be an open, progressive society.

And it just pisses me off!
 07/09/2008 10:03:34 PM · #1137
I am very curious about what DrAchoo thinks of the four rationales I listed for not accepting civil unions over marriages.

I'm also curious why most of the arguments and positions I have made over the last few days have not been directly responded to by the 'opposition', apart from insisting that I am a sinner even if I'm not a Christian. As much as I value my critical thinking, it can't possibly be unassailable, can it?

I'm feeling neglected! (I suppose this comes with the territory.) Do I need more invective? :)

It's nice to see the debate back up and running after an early 2008 slowdown, however.

Message edited by author 2008-07-09 22:11:07.
 07/09/2008 10:25:31 PM · #1138
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the state wants to determine that two men cannot "marry" each other but rather can have some sort of "civil union", then why can't this be? I do not see a distinction except that you agree with one and do not with the other (and I'm not even sure where you stand on either, but I'll assume you differ on them).


- Legal precedent has determined that separate is not equal
- Civil unions are not transferrable across state lines like marriage is, by law
- The constitution forbids the establishment (official supoport) of any religion over the others, and therefore no religion (even Christianity) should be able to claim ownership of what is, TODAY, a secular contract granted by the government, by writing this ownership into LAW
- We live in a climate of ongoing, active attempts to not only ban gay marriage, but ANY same-sex relationship that is "marriage-like", so I don't buy the argument that conservatives will accept civil unions any more than they will marriage

There's four right off the top of my head, but I keep up on these things.


Dangit, I hate when you hit "back" by accident. Let me try again. I will remind people that I have already stated that I am neither staunchly for or against gay marriage. I will, for the fun of it, play devil's advocate and speak to these arguments.

- Legal precedent has determined that separate is not equal
It is not clear whether this precedent (I'm assuming you are talking about rulings coming out of segregated schools) has a narrow or broad application. It doesn't, for example, reach into the private sector. We still allow men's only clubs (Augusta National Golf Club) or women's only clubs (Curves). We also discriminate based on gender and even sexual orientation in the military. These practices are currently accepted.

- Civil unions are not transferrable across state lines like marriage is, by law
So push for civil unions to be recognized across state lines. Just because civil unions are not currently recognized across state lines, it does not logically follow that allowing gay marriage is the only possible answer to that problem.

- The constitution forbids the establishment (official supoport) of any religion over the others, and therefore no religion (even Christianity) should be able to claim ownership of what is, TODAY, a secular contract granted by the government, by writing this ownership into LAW
I am unaware of any LAW that is claiming Christianity owns marriage. I am aware of Laws that attempt to define marriage as per judeo-christian conventions. These are far from equal. Many laws are based on moral traditions rooted in religious beliefs. Some localities do not allow businesses to be open on Sunday. Should this be considered unconstitutional?

- We live in a climate of ongoing, active attempts to not only ban gay marriage, but ANY same-sex relationship that is "marriage-like", so I don't buy the argument that conservatives will accept civil unions any more than they will marriage.
I can't speak to this since I'm not strongly for or against. It sounds like an NRA type argument that prey's on fear. "If they ban assault weapons today they will certainly ban your hunting rifle tomorrow!"
 07/09/2008 10:32:23 PM · #1139
No problem I make typos all the time Just as Jeb....Jeb I'm now poking fun at you....
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Is there a reason you keep calling me coranmv instead of coronamv?


typo - apologies.
07/09/2008 10:33:55 PM · #1140
Society is all talk. They beg for water for they are thirsty yet given water they will not raise their glass to drink yet will lap at the dirty ground in vain. They crawl upon the ground eating the foulness left by others so that every word they say is also foul. Their breath stinks of false judgment and hate and they spew it at others as truth until the smell is too much for any sane man to bear.
 07/09/2008 10:45:17 PM · #1141
Quite simply, I cannot understand WHY (many, not all) christians think THEIR religion is SO absolute, that they cannot peaceably allow others to follow a different path. Plain and simple, it is not against the law to fall in love with someone of the same gender (ok, a few archaic laws have not been wiped from the slate, but don't split hairs; they haven't been enforced in some time, and are essentially useless)

Living in the bible belt, I hear lots of conjecture as to why 'this or that' shouldn't be allowed in the community. Having spent many hours debating such issues, it ALWAYS comes down to "The bible says..." It becomes impossible to get a response that does not involve preaching or proselytizing. I am SO sick & tired of hearing the same stories over & over & over (like I didn't hear them the first 100 times). Even when asked to STOP referencing the bible & to STOP preaching (so that they MIGHT be able to listen objectively), it just doesn't get through.

The 'programming' is so ingrained, the responses are practically automatic & without personal thought or conjecture. I have spent many hours over the last few years, attempting to discuss the issue of homosexuality (and acceptance of others) with one certain person. Recently, I asked why she always put her head down while we talked. Her response? "Every time you talked, I was praying for you." This same person seems to think that I am not (and never have been) 'saved'. Funny, but she has never asked, either. I even tried to explain that her religious statements are simply her opinion, and not necessarily matters of fact. She can NOT fathom or admit such a thing, and always responds with "No, that is what the LORD says right there in the bible."

I find her rationale not very rational. I also am doing all I can to raise my daughters without such arrogance and blindness. Rather, I hope they grow to love ALL people despite their differences... instead of constantly chastising others because of them.


07/09/2008 10:48:16 PM · #1142
True I can be hard headed, As I think others may read from your post in you also, but that is neither/nor relevent in the grand scheme of life. I feel you should suround yourself with those who will accept you for who you are and it is not worth worring over those who don't take the time to get to know you. As far as the homosexuals go I could care less if they get married or not. The truth is it is all about money anyway. Think of it like this. Can anyone actually stop you from praying in public? on the flip side does it actully hurt anyone else to pray in public? My feeling is no. Can you force anyone to pray in public. Not really they may go through the motions but if they do not beleive then is it actually praying. Ok now to make that have some sense can anyone stop two people from living their lives with love for each other? Well not without violating a few laws yes but the point is what are Homosexuals asking for? Acceptance? The ability to get the economic benefits of being married? Should they get that well I will say no more than I believe two Heterosexuals should. That is fair right? Everyone should pay the same and get the same. You pay in you benefit you don't then you don't. So I guess to answer your question is I don't really care about the title if that is what they want. In a sense it all boils down to do I have to give up any of my hard earned money? And that is as you know implied to all people..
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Jeb My mistake I went back and looked and you did not directly call me evil. So I will appologise for that.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Well, thanks!

I don't think anyone in this whole debate is evil.

I may think that some others are clueless, staid & stodgy, stuck in the past, annoying, hard-headed, or insensitive to the feelings and issues of a large group of perfectly wonderful people, but not evil.

Originally posted by coronamv:
Well we will agree to disagree on many subjects and it is due to the places we have been and where we are headed in life. I still am trying to figure out where you got it that I disliked homosexuals? I actually agreed with you on most of these things. Just not on welfare.

I didn't necessarily think that you disliked homosexuals; I do have the impression that you don't necessarily think that they should be allowed to marry.

I do think you're hard-headed and annoying, whereas, I am NOT!!!.......8>)

I really don't think that we're too far apart on the welfare thing as far as able-bodied individuals shouldn't get ity, period.

What we had a real head-butting on was that you seemed to feel that you control your own destingy, whereas I see too many variables and unexpoected happenstance for that to be true for me.

I advocate doing everything in your power to make your life come out as planned, it just doesn't always work out that way.

And I firmly believe that many people are born gay......I truly and wholly believe that there is no such thing as choosing to be gay.
07/09/2008 10:53:47 PM · #1143
Originally posted by togtog:
Society is all talk. They beg for water for they are thirsty yet given water they will not raise their glass to drink yet will lap at the dirty ground in vain. They crawl upon the ground eating the foulness left by others so that every word they say is also foul. Their breath stinks of false judgment and hate and they spew it at others as truth until the smell is too much for any sane man to bear.


Quoth the raven...
 07/09/2008 10:53:47 PM · #1144
Originally posted by rossbilly:
I find her rationale not very rational. I also am doing all I can to raise my daughters without such arrogance and blindness. Rather, I hope they grow to love ALL people despite their differences... instead of constantly chastising others because of them.


Nice loaded words. So on one hand you say you are raising your daughters to love ALL people and in the sentence before you are bashing somebody for having an "arrogant" and "blind" view? I'm sensing a disconnect there. Either your "ALL" simply means "people I agree with" or you should be more careful with your adjectives...
 07/09/2008 11:04:55 PM · #1145
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
I find her rationale not very rational. I also am doing all I can to raise my daughters without such arrogance and blindness. Rather, I hope they grow to love ALL people despite their differences... instead of constantly chastising others because of them.


Nice loaded words. So on one hand you say you are raising your daughters to love ALL people and in the sentence before you are bashing somebody for having an "arrogant" and "blind" view? I'm sensing a disconnect there. Either your "ALL" simply means "people I agree with" or you should be more careful with your adjectives...


I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense Jason. You see, the woman is my mother in law, and she is in our home daily. I know (because I talk to my children) that she is constantly making remarks about others who are different. The exact point I've BEEN trying to teach her is that her comments about others are mean & nasty. Even though she claims to be a 'god fearing woman', her near-constant statements of "They shouldn't do that - the bible says so" is horribly vexing & condescending.

By your logic, am I also speaking loaded words when I claim that my kid's grandfather is a racist pig (because he refuses to stop using the N word)??? Strange, because I think that loving everyone means disregarding their skin tones. You can't have it both ways.

Also strange, because I walked away from the computer, remembered that your posts are usually well thought & well written (even if we disagree, you tend to attempt fairness). I came back to specifically point out that my generalities do not include your reasoned responses... only to return & read this.

To clarify, my calling the MIL 'arrogant and blind' is because asking her if she gives any credence to other religions, her staunch answer is that she "don't need none - the lord gimme all i needs in this here bible" Arrogance, because she thinks she has the absolute direct information from a/the supreme being. Blind, because she refuses to learn or acknowledge ANY possible credence to other religions. (Seriously, when spoken to about other ideals, she literally places her hands beside her head, like blinders on a race horse.)

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

Message edited by author 2008-07-09 23:20:13.
 07/09/2008 11:05:16 PM · #1146
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
I find her rationale not very rational. I also am doing all I can to raise my daughters without such arrogance and blindness. Rather, I hope they grow to love ALL people despite their differences... instead of constantly chastising others because of them.


Nice loaded words. So on one hand you say you are raising your daughters to love ALL people and in the sentence before you are bashing somebody for having an "arrogant" and "blind" view? I'm sensing a disconnect there. Either your "ALL" simply means "people I agree with" or you should be more careful with your adjectives...


I fear you have failed to grasp the inferences made here Doc. What the man is saying is that the person in question has a myoptic perception of what is and that this view is skewed due to a religious perspective.

There is no "disconnect", but rather an understanding that religion can and does play a role in the decision making process for some individuals.

I do hope you can appreciate the subtle difference.

Ray
 07/09/2008 11:23:25 PM · #1147
Originally posted by rossbilly:
I even tried to explain that her religious statements are simply her opinion, and not necessarily matters of fact. She can NOT fathom or admit such a thing...

You'll find that same conviction in any strong belief, religious or otherwise, for a very circular reason: they believe it to be true. Lifelong repetition reinforces whatever belief you learned, especially if it's open to interpretation (horoscopes) or can never be proven false (bigfoot). Some people have had ideas drilled into them for so long that they just "know" something is wrong, be it homosexuality or seeing a woman's ankles, for no other reason than that's what they've been told their whole life, and they will grasp at any justification available to rationalize that belief. Appeals to logic, compassion, tolerance, etc. take a back seat to preservation of the belief. Even if it's a comparatively trivial matter or can be absolutely proven (flat earth vs. sphere), few people are prepared to surrender a lifelong belief!
 07/09/2008 11:39:29 PM · #1148
I think that my point is we ALL have a line we draw when it comes to intolerance. Once that line is drawn, it's all open to debate as to where that line truly belongs. Nobody can claim a moral authority to tell me my own personal line is any better or worse than their own.

I guess I tend to find it common that people who preach tolerance tend to show intolerance to those who practice intolerance.

Personally I try to take other people's views into perspective. However, I have made some decisions about certain things and if I disagree with a personal action or belief then I disagree with it (and I realize this is a thread about homosexuality, but I might rather point to something like atheism which I am more strongly against). Situations are going to arise where this fact cannot be gotten around. I do not pretend to cloak myself in "tolerance" and ignore these truths. I disagree with those people. At times I can simply "live and let live" and at other times I cannot. This is a fact of life.

The Bible, for better or worse, claims to be the moral authority on earth. People who show intolerance to those beliefs which go against the Bible are simply living out the logical consequences of holding such a belief. What else would be expected? Is it convenient? No. I see Shannon posted just before me and I agree with him to some extent. The problem is he's couching it like it's negative when we ALL do it. His assertion is that some of these moral beliefs can be logically shown to be false, but this is not necessarily true. You cannot provide a logical argument that homosexuality is right OR wrong. Each and every argument is based on suppositions which are held a priori as important (ie. "the bible is the source of morality" or "live and let live is the highest standard"). You will note his example (flat earth) is a scientific principle. The argument does not apply to morality which uses different standards to argue by.

Message edited by author 2008-07-09 23:41:58.
 07/10/2008 12:15:28 AM · #1149
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
<---- walks by and wonders that this thread has been going since 2004!!!


<----------- wonders why it is that after all these years we still have individuals that are so vehemently opposed to something that has absolutely no bearing or impact on their own lifestyles.

Ray


Perhaps this thread is still going because there is still meaningful discussion going on. It may yet bring forth a meeting of the minds of thinking people.
I audit this thread with great interest, periodically. I rarely post because others are more eloquent than I and they are doing just fine.
Still, when I was a kid, being left handed was pretty darn radical (in Connecticut, they âchangedâ us.)
Any one who had a funny name, different religion, or, gasp, was of a different color, was beyond the pale. We wonât even go into the topic presently under discussion. Even its name was not often uttered.
Weâve come a long way, still itâs not far enough. When it comes to a just and fair resolution, which in my mind means equitable treatment for all, then, this thread will die a natural death.

Oh, I hope I get to read the last post.
07/10/2008 12:41:22 AM · #1150
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
- Legal precedent has determined that separate is not equal

It is not clear whether this precedent (I'm assuming you are talking about rulings coming out of segregated schools) has a narrow or broad application. It doesn't, for example, reach into the private sector. We still allow men's only clubs (Augusta National Golf Club) or women's only clubs (Curves). We also discriminate based on gender and even sexual orientation in the military. These practices are currently accepted.


Granted, the ruling I referred to (some info) was specific to the field of education, but the argument is sound and both I and the Supreme Court of California feel that it is a broadly applicable.

A marriage license is a secular contract granted to you by the government, not a private club, and the government has laws that forbid discrimination in this context. The underlying question at issue here is whether homosexuals are a protected class or not, but this is just an attempt by conservatives to say "It's not discrimination, they're not a protected class, and legal discrimination only applies to those!", not whether it's acceptable for the goverment to discriminate against anybody when rendering services in this context. I personaly believe we ought to be a protected class, since I feel the direct effects of anti-gay bias every day of my life.

To address your second example, it is, right now, perfectly legal for gays to serve in the military, and they do so under Don't Ask Don't Tell. The only legally acceptable discrimination is to forbid them from discussing their homosexuality, paired to the rather shaky promise of not being asked. This is completely different for heterosexuals, who are under no such obligation, hence the discrimination. It interests me that gays can do anything a heterosexual can do in the armed forces, except say certain words. This would seem to undermine the argument that gays are incompatable with military service, and provide evidence that the true source of any drop in morale or effectiveness are the actions of the people responding to those forbidden words.

I'd also like to contest your use of the word 'accepted' to characterize the issue of gays and discrimination in the military. I would posit that it is, in fact, an hotly contested issue. This very debate seems to bear that out.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
- Civil unions are not transferrable across state lines like marriage is, by law

So push for civil unions to be recognized across state lines. Just because civil unions are not currently recognized across state lines, it does not logically follow that allowing gay marriage is the only possible answer to that problem.


So you are telling me that the most efficient way to fight for and acquire a slew of legal rights (that should already be mine, based on the assumption that civil unions are acceptable) is to get the federal government... a government that actively and repeatedly tries to write discrimination targeted specifically against gays into the Constitution of the United States... get them to propose a completely parallel system of law identical to marriage, with all the overhead that entails to promulgate and guarantee those rights, when I can simply get my state to legalize marriage locally, and existing laws guarantee my rights across the nation in a legally contestable way that, in my opinion, has a very good chance of succeeding?

Should I also give you a 10 stroke handicap?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
- The constitution forbids the establishment (official supoport) of any religion over the others, and therefore no religion (even Christianity) should be able to claim ownership of what is, TODAY, a secular contract granted by the government, by writing this ownership into LAW

I am unaware of any LAW that is claiming Christianity owns marriage. I am aware of Laws that attempt to define marriage as per judeo-christian conventions. These are far from equal. Many laws are based on moral traditions rooted in religious beliefs. Some localities do not allow businesses to be open on Sunday. Should this be considered unconstitutional?


You have a point that there is a difference between defining marriage as "a union between a man and a woman" and "A Christian union between a man and a woman", but the underlying rationale given is almost always that the Bible tells us so. Furthermore I feel that it is simply selfishness for one group to claim that a word only applies to them because they don't want to be associated with another group. I don't see conservatives up in arms about the wonderful marriage of peanut butter and chocolate that are Reese's. Will it be a criminal act to repeat that sentence once such a law passes?

And yes, I think that forbidding businesses from operating on Sunday for religious reasons, or even tradition, is abjectly unacceptable and feel that the constitution supports my opinion.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
- We live in a climate of ongoing, active attempts to not only ban gay marriage, but ANY same-sex relationship that is "marriage-like", so I don't buy the argument that conservatives will accept civil unions any more than they will marriage.

I can't speak to this since I'm not strongly for or against. It sounds like an NRA type argument that prey's on fear. "If they ban assault weapons today they will certainly ban your hunting rifle tomorrow!"


Gay marriage is not a continuum. I can either get married or I can't. It is not a slippery slope scare tactic, so I don't accept your argument. People are, right now, trying to permanently ban even the semblance of marriage from my life at the federal level, and have actually, today, written this position into the constitutions of their home states. It has already happened. If you would like, I can find you at least one state where such a law is being used to deprive health benefits for the partners of gay couples because it is "marriage-like"... but I would prefer you trust me because I'm lazy.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me with civility and clarity. I hope people on any side of this issue can follow your model. :)
Pages:   ... ... [52]
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 11:55:55 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 11:55:55 AM EDT.