Supreme Court Gay Rights Rulings: A Slippery Downhill Slope Toward What's Next?

reply to post by DonVoigt


Well, I did say I was just messing with you. Seriously, I respect your right to your opinion.

I don't define the word. I define MY relationship and marriage and that's IT. I believe each person/couple defines their own marriage. Because I guarantee that my marriage is hell and gone from yours and others I've seen. They don't all fit under one umbrella.

I don't understand the urgent NEED to define something for everyone... Does love mean the same thing to us all? No. Why must "marriage" fit some predetermined and structured definition for everyone?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

There you go, that's the response I was looking for, as you imply that each individual has to define it to themselves,, but on that same note we as a collective society we have to come to an accepted definition for the difference in relationships so as we speak to each other about the subject we can communicate with each other with understandable definitions of words that we choose to describe it so as not to confuse one with the other

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


Now, when I read your thread title I figured you would get to this in your argument:

What's to stop someone from saying "I am hopelessly in love with my (fill in the blank), and therefore should acquire the right to call this relationship with it/him/her a marriage...oh and hey while I'm at it enjoy the societal benefits that come with this title."

That if someone wanted to marry his or her pet snake/goldfish/coffee pot/etc.

And I'll tell you why it's absurd:

There is NO legal or societal benefit that could come with such a "marriage" to a non-human.

The union of gays of between PEOPLE. There are TWO kinds of people, male and female (occasionally a hermaphrodite). PEOPLE are afforded a very different set of rights and privileges simply because they are people, than say animals (cats, dogs, squirrels). They are able to be work, have jobs/work, grocery shop, etc. Animals cannot work independently to bring home money, they cannot drive, get licenses, go to the Doctor themselves, vote, etc. They cannot get health insurance to get treated at the local (human) hospital. They cannot file taxes.

And this is one of the reasons why gay people want equality under the law.

That's where it stops, with people.

Any other argument of a slippery slope to marry _______ is just absurd and irrational by people who have no other way to argue against gay marriage.

"But I want to marry my cat. I love it." All right, propose to it, and see if it accepts. Get it on tape, because I want to see it myself (which won't happen because it can't talk or even likely comprehend the concept of "marriage"). We'll go from there.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As a proponent of freedom, I support polygamy, as long as all parties are adult and willing. And polygamy has historical roots in this country, WAY before gay marriage was legal.

So, those who think polygamy is the "next step" (as Donald Rumsfeld claims), need to study history for just a minute.

Polygamy is A-OK with God in the Bible so I'm not sure why those ultra Christian types should be oppossed to it.

Unless they oppose their own God's wishes?

How about Lot having sex with his own daughters? A-OK with God. He was even told to by God.

Christians really don't have ANY moral high ground to stand on.........

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
The ONLY problem with the whole Gay Marriage issue is the Prop8 reversal. That sets a dangerous precedent for SCOTUS to overturn the people's will based on morality, not law.

~Tenth

I'd like to debate you on this but it would be off topic. Prop 8 was unconstitutional to begin with so, therefore your arguement that it will cut the will of the people (like we should really vote for other people's rights anyway...) is way off. Rights are inellienable.......not to be voted on.

I'm ashamed to call you one of my gay breathern at the moment.

reply to post by DonVoigt

but as soon as I see two men of two women successfully blend their DNA I will grant them the title of being married, but until then the most I'll give them its the title of wedded bliss.

You mean like this?

Britain may allow a controversial technique to create babies using DNA from three people, a move that would help couples avoid passing on rare genetic diseases, the country's top medical officer says.

www.foxnews.com...

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Ok that's three people not two gay men, or two lesbian women your argument is not valid by way of genetic engineering.try again

Wow, looks like I have my work cut out for me.

I can't say I am at all surprised at the response this thread has garnered in a short amount of time both in quantity and tone. It may be slow-going as I have a good amount on my place in the realm we call real life, but I promise to do everything I can to provide replies to those who have addressed me.

Sadly, I don't have the time to respond to everyone, but in further discussion on this topic I hope to clarify some things that may have been misunderstood, or communicated poorly on my part.

So...thank you all who have contributed to this thread, and please bear with me as we continue forward!

Originally posted by Sovaka
Marriage is just a recognition of a union between two people with a piece of paper.

That may be how you have chosen to define marriage, but as stated, that is not the classical definition.

reply to post by HandyDandy

I'd like to debate you on this but it would be off topic. Prop 8 was unconstitutional to begin with so, therefore your arguement that it will cut the will of the people (like we should really vote for other people's rights anyway...) is way off.

Nope, you don't quite understand what I mean, so i'll explain it to you this way.

DOMA was a good thing to have struck down. The Prop 8 fiasco creates a situation where a federal court is dictating state policy that's already been decided by millions of people who live in that state, and then confirmed by courts within that state.

Rights are inellienable.......not to be voted on.

You confuse rights with privileges. There's no law, be it the Consitution or the bill of rights that dictates marriage as a right. The only reason the gay community had a leg in this fight is because the government was offering benefits to people based on sexual orientation, which is in itself discrimination.

The illegal part of the law was that part, not the the fact that you have the right to 'marriage'.

I'm ashamed to call you one of my gay breathern at the moment.

I don't identify myself by my sexual orientation, since labels of that sort are stupid and mostly the reason we have any of these dumb social policy arguments anyway.

I dislike, the vast majority of gay movements, programs and the people who run them. I'm against hate crime legislation and any kind of special interest legislation or privileges being given to those who don't' actually deserve them, other than wanting to be special snow flakes.

I'm sorry, gay isn't a lifestyle, it's not a defining piece of your character nor is it an IMPORTANT fact about you, in any sense of the word. I suggest that the gay community stop pretending like their gayness matters, as it really, does not.

Mind you this is coming from a gay man in his mid 40s whose been fighting this fight since before most of the membership who frequent this place were born.

~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Nope, you don't quite understand what I mean, so i'll explain it to you this way.

The Prop 8 fiasco creates a situation where a federal court is dictating state policy that's already been decided by millions of people who live in that state, and then confirmed by courts within that state.

You don't understand that the SCOTUS didn't strike anything down regarding Prop 8. They left it to the state. The state is the one who struck it down. As it is unconstitutional to vote on other people's rights and/or privaleges.

You confuse rights with privileges. There's no law, be it the Consitution or the bill of rights that dictates marriage as a right. The only reason the gay community had a leg in this fight is because the government was offering benefits to people based on sexual orientation, which is in itself discrimination.

The illegal part of the law was that part, not the the fact that you have the right to 'marriage'.

I never said I have the right to marriage. But I DO have the right to be treated equally. The equal protection clause of our constitution gives me this right.

This IS NOT a privalege.

Mind you this is coming from a gay man in his mid 40s whose been fighting this fight since before most of the membership who frequent this place were born.

~Tenth

Mind you I am a gay man in his 40's also. I have been fighting this fight a lot longer than you though. By almost a decade.

Originally posted by DonVoigt
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Ok that's three people not two gay men, or two lesbian women your argument is not valid by way of genetic engineering.try again

It involves the DNA of two women, which is what you stated. Nothing invalid about it. This can be done just the same with lesbians as it can with straight people. The point being, combining the DNA of two same sex people is quite possible.

Im afraid its YOUR argument, bud, that is invalid.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews

Originally posted by Sovaka
Marriage is just a recognition of a union between two people with a piece of paper.

That may be how you have chosen to define marriage, but as stated, that is not the classical definition.

Classical definition is irrelevant. The legal definition is the only relevant definition, when speaking on the legality of such things.

Originally posted by evc1shop
I think Reeses was using the marriage thing a while back when they called their Peanut Butter Cup a Perfect Marriage of chocolate and peanut butter...

Granted folks did not raise a stink about it and I still even got some in my Easter basket and Christmas stocking. Seems those who hold marriage to a religious or moral standard did not complain because they liked their chocolates.

I guess the term only raises one's fear when used with homosexuals. I wonder why that is.

Why not use it every where else, too!

ETA: I know of a few lesbian couples who actually don't care about the gov't handouts they simply want to be recognized for their commitment and in the case of hospital visitation rights and things of that nature, they want the rights afforded to straight married couples.

edit on 28-6-2013 by evc1shop because: eta

Firstly, the Reese's analogy is cute, but really does nothing to speak to my case (as I'm sure you're well aware).

If you had carefully read the OP, my fear is not necessarily the idea of granting homosexual marriage rights. It is the fact that in expanding the definition of marriage, we are setting a precedent...one that will likely have consequences say 20 years down the road.

I understand the desire to be "recognized for their commitment", but why do they have to inaccurately adopt the term marriage in order to do so? If the govmnt benefits are not important to some, what difference does it make whether or not their relationship is defined a marriage? I don't know anyone who is saying "you are a homosexual, therefore you can't possibly be in a committed relationship". Do you?

Now, how does this affect anybody except the two requesting such a union? And what then should anyone else care?

Again, I think you would benefit from going back and reading the original post. I make what I believe to be a clear case as to why granting the rights previously reserved for a definitive relationship between a man and a woman to another group will prove dangerous to society .

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Next thing you know people will be marrying their cars, I-phones, I-pods, dogs, cats...neighbors wives/husbands. Everyone and everything is doing everything else all for the sake of freedom. Yes, lets watch this turn into a Liberal nightmare. I want to be able to run through the streets naked, screaming thank ya Jesus, God Almighty Hallelu-Yah!

edit on 28-6-2013 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

Bet you didn't know that before the Europeans showed up gay marriage was commonplace among some Native American tribes. And seeing how the average marriage only lasts for a few years now acting like it's some sacred institution is pretty much a joke. And in no way would gays getting married have an effect on anyone but themselves.

reply to post by Sovaka

Marriage should NOT be regulated in ANY shape, way or form.
The only reason why it is, is because there are Government benefits associated with the status of marriage.
Take those benefits away or be happy to apply them to any union.

Fair enough. Our government does not need to regulate marriage. That still wouldn't change its definition.

I have to differ with your assessment on the reason it is regulated. The primary reason government grants rights and protections for the institution of marriage is because that institution, and sequentially the family unit is what our society & future is built on. In other words, the government benefits from classical marriage, and therefore protects and promotes it.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


When you brought the third person into the equation YOU stepped outside the paramaters of TWO GAY MEN OR TWO LESBIAN WOMEN, try again to make your argument where it only involves two gay men or two lesbian women and I will give your theory a chance.

reply to post by HandyDandy

You don't understand that the SCOTUS didn't strike anything down regarding Prop 8. They left it to the state. The state is the one who struck it down. As it is unconstitutional to vote on other people's rights and/or privaleges.

It is not unconstitutional to vote on people's privileges, that's why we have elections and ballot initiatives.

I never said I have the right to marriage. But I DO have the right to be treated equally. The equal protection clause of our constitution gives me this right.

This IS NOT a privalege.

marriage is a privilege, the rights afforded to you by getting into a marriage are NOT. That is why you won in court, because the Gov created an institution that discriminated against sexual orientation for a legal contract. It had nothing at all to do with the 'marriage' itself, it was the legal contract that the government makes you get into when you do want to get married.

You won the right to be treated equally under the law when it came to a Government Institution, not the actual act of marriage.

~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
You won the right to be treated equally under the law when it came to a Government Institution

Which is why Prop 8 was unconstitutional to begin with.

You said yourself.....I won the "right" ......... not the "privilege" to be treated equally under the law. THAT is the right I am talking about. The equal protection right is NOT a privilege to be squandered away by votes.

reply to post by markosity1973

What are the obvious differences in gay relationships that don't require explanation?

I see two but they do not create any inequailty

* Gender - 2 men or 2 ladies. It's different from what society has come to perceive as standard, but it's not inequal because it is still 2 consenting adults of legal age and no relation.
*Ability to bear children directly from the union i.e. 2 people of the same gender cannot procreate. We have been over this point time and time again - some straight couples are infertile or too old to reproduce, so again it's not an inequality.

I think there is a slight misunderstanding here. My point was not that you couldn't argue that on a value basis these relationships are equal.

A homosexual relationship is quite plainly by definition different from a heterosexual one, and therefore not equal. The answer to your question seems self evident, and therefore I didn't feel the need elaborate.

In fact, the difference you pointed out do a perfectly good job of proving the inequality on the basis of definition (not necessarily value).