Bill to revoke and replace the Defense of Marriage Act introduced in Congress

reply to post by VintageEnvy


Polygamy shouldn't be restricted to Mormons- that would be discriminatory. Gays and polygamists live alternative lifestyles. Why would it be Ok to discriminate against polygamists, while granting 'rights' to gays?

reply to post by maus80


The same can be said about homosexuals. Why don't the gay couples simply get power of attorney over each other?

reply to post by maus80


If by bigot you meant that my being a roommate of a gay guy when I lived in Germany means I hate gay people, then yes I am a bigot.

I applaude you for proving the assume analogy correct.

I don't mind homosexuals getting married. What I do mind is the Federal Government forcing the hand of the State.

Originally posted by stevegmu
Polygamy shouldn't be restricted to Mormons- that would be discriminatory. Gays and polygamists live alternative lifestyles. Why would it be Ok to discriminate against polygamists, while granting 'rights' to gays?

Strawman arguments, as I said.

These are two very separate issues, and can't be mixed together. Polygamists have every right to fight for their rights, but it has nothing to do with equal rights under the current laws requiring exclusivity of these particular legal contracts.

If I go to get a car, and they won't sell me one because I have a blue shirt, not a green one, that is in no way related to or comparable to them selling me plus five other people that same car.

reply to post by maus80


Really? I thought both were about equal rights? The argument is about equality in marriage. If the bill were really about equal rights, polygamists wouldn't be excluded.
Crying straw-man is like crying racism...

Originally posted by maus80

How is this "extra rights"? Please explain what extra rights are granted.

How is increasing the number of people who can have a "nuclear family" a destruction of that model?

Could you be clearer? You make zero sense here...

Technically it is not more rights, but homosexuals have always had the same rights to marriage that heterosexuals have. Bisexuals and heterosexuals were not allowed to marry members of the same sex before either. So how has there been discrimination against gays? Both have always had the right and freedom to marry members of the opposite sex, because this is how marriage has been defined.

The definition of a nuclear family is a family that has a father, a mother and a child or children. Encouraging same sex couples to marry means that the traditional concept of a nuclear family (where there is a balance between masculine and feminine qualities from the parents) is under threat.

To be clear, I agree that anyone has the right to be with and love who they choose (keeping in mind both are consenting adults). I just do not agree with Gay Marriage. I do not believe taxpayers should be paying benefits to fund two people who cannot naturally reproduce their own children. My opinion, sorry if you don't like it.

Maybe it used to be, but marriage these days is not always about love. It is a legal and social contract that has implications for the political and social elements of society.

Originally posted by jd140
If by bigot you meant that my being a roommate of a gay guy when I lived in Germany means I hate gay people, then yes I am a bigot.

I applaude you for proving the assume analogy correct.

I don't mind homosexuals getting married. What I do mind is the Federal Government forcing the hand of the State.

And that is where we split. When states start passing laws denying rights to minorities, that is when I WANT the FG to step and and say "No way guys, this is a republic, not mob rule."

Originally posted by stevegmu

Really? I thought both were about equal rights? The argument is about equality in marriage. If the bill were really about equal rights, polygamists wouldn't be excluded.
Crying straw-man is like crying racism...

Yes, equal rights, to put it crudely; someone with a hole having the same rights as someone with a pole, and vice-versa.

Exclusivity of a legal contract and requirements for entering into said contract are two separate issues, I don't see you explaining how they are not.

Straw-man arguments exist. Racism exists. Therefor it is possible to be a racist, and it is possible to present a straw-man argument. I guess in that way they are similar.

reply to post by maus80


Ah I see.

Small government until it suits our agenda, then its okay for them to expand a little.

Might as well get rid of the middle man and have the Federal Government take control of State matters.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I do not believe taxpayers should be paying benefits to fund two people who cannot naturally reproduce their own children. My opinion, sorry if you don't like it.

I know tons of lesbian couples who have children who were produced quite naturally.

You would grant them rights that you would deny to people who are sterile or do not wish to reproduce?

Originally posted by jd140

Small government until it suits our agenda, then its okay for them to expand a little.

Seems to make perfect sense to me.

That sounds great, small government when it suits the agenda of the American people, only expanding when it also suits our agenda. Sounds good to me!

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Technically it is not more rights, but homosexuals have always had the same rights to marriage that heterosexuals have. Bisexuals and heterosexuals were not allowed to marry members of the same sex before either. So how has there been discrimination against gays? Both have always had the right and freedom to marry members of the opposite sex, because this is how marriage has been defined.

Nobody has equal rights under law that discriminate based on sexual organs.

I can marry a woman because I have a penis, my friend Sara can't because she does not. This is not equal rights.

If sexual organs are removed from the equation, then everyone truly has equal marriage rights.

Originally posted by maus80

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I do not believe taxpayers should be paying benefits to fund two people who cannot naturally reproduce their own children. My opinion, sorry if you don't like it.

I know tons of lesbian couples who have children who were produced quite naturally.

You would grant them rights that you would deny to people who are sterile or do not wish to reproduce?

Well actually, I believe any couples that can provide proof that they are raising children deserve benefits. Heterosexuals or Homosexual or Bisexuals. Being a couple should not grant two people state benefits because they are together. If allowed to occur, isn't this discrimination against singles?

Nobody has equal rights under law that discriminate based on sexual organs.

I can marry a woman because I have a penis, my friend Sara can't because she does not. This is not equal rights.

If sexual organs are removed from the equation, then everyone truly has equal marriage rights.

What about single people who work just as hard or harder than a couple? Why should they not receive benefits? After all, this would need to be the case for true equality to occur as you suggested.

[edit on 23/9/2009 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Being a couple should not grant two people state benefits because they are together. If allowed to occur, isn't this discrimination against singles?
[edit on 23/9/2009 by Dark Ghost]

Yes it is, in the same way that any government regulation/cut/allowance etc that only applies to homeowners is discrimination against renters. I can agree with you.

But how do you give rights involving the ownership of a home to someone who doesn't own a home?

How do you grant someone rights based on a legal contract, if they have not entered into one?

[edit on 23-9-2009 by maus80]

Originally posted by maus80

Yes it is, in the same way that any government regulation/cut/allowance etc that only applies to homeowners is discrimination against renters. I can agree with you.

But how do you give rights involving the ownership of a home to someone who doesn't own a home?

How do you grant someone rights based on a legal contract, if they have not entered into one?

By changing the definition of what constitutes a home and the definition of what constitutes a legal contract. This is what is being done.


[edit on 23/9/2009 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by Dark Ghost


How is redefining the terms of a specific type of legal contract redefining what a legal contract is?

Please explain.

Good

IT's nobodies business -

Bout time

Worry about your own spouse and family!

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by VintageEnvy

 

Polygamy shouldn't be restricted to Mormons- that would be discriminatory. Gays and polygamists live alternative lifestyles. Why would it be Ok to discriminate against polygamists, while granting 'rights' to gays?

What are you talking about, I never said it should be restricted to mormons, I stated the problems in that those who for religious purposes practice it discriminate against women. I really dont care if people want to do that, but as it stand now, it is discriminating against the women in that culture that dont have rights. If you wanted to marry your house, I'd send you a toaster, it wouldnt offend me or make me think less of my marriage (im not married nor do I want to be btw) but if you wanted to marry a dog I would picket that, the dog doesnt have a choice in the matter thus, someone has to stand up for them. Much like the women in that society. I honeslty think you should be able to marry whomever you love, even if its more then one person as long as they have a choice in the matter, a choice that isnt made because of fear of repercussions of their religious policy. Having said that, every wedding that I go to Im still going to be so happy for that couple, it wouldn't diminish my value in it at all.

Originally posted by maus80
reply to post by Dark Ghost

 

How is redefining the terms of a specific type of legal contract redefining what a legal contract is?

Please explain.

Well, let's not get confused. Marriage is not the only form of legal contract. (Business contracts, sports contracts, affidavits etc.). So I did not mean to use "legal contract" in its general form. The fact of the matter is that for thousands of years, the concept of marriage represented the social, legal, religious or ceremonial (whatever you want to call it) union between a man and a woman. The whole idea of "family" and "relatives" are based off of this notion.

You can continue to use the Socratic method against me, but you will not succeed in convincing me otherwise on this issue. At the end of the day I am not here to spread hate nor encourage discrimination against others.

Most people who come to this thread will say things like "great news!" "about time!" "equality for all!" - basically giving the OP a standing ovation without wanting to discuss the implications on why this might be a bad direction for society as a whole. But I get it now. We all know the labels one gets when suggesting what's best for the majority if they are from that majority.

[edit on 23/9/2009 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Just one more step towards true equal rights for all citizens.

This is great! One step at a time. I will be calling my reps to voice my support for this bill.

I think this thread deteriorated in record time to the usual fear-based rhetoric. Pretty soon, someone will mention marrying their goat. I would encourage people not to participate in the BS.