Utah legalizes gay marriage, December 20, 2013

reply to post by Inkyfingers


How is it contradictory? i am saying it's a Human right not a "Straight/Gay" right. as Humans we deserve equal rights, if marriage is between two consenting adults than what does it matter if it's Same Sex or not?

Darth_Prime
reply to post by Inkyfingers

 

How is it contradictory? i am saying it's a Human right not a "Straight/Gay" right. as Humans we deserve equal rights, if marriage is between two consenting adults than what does it matter if it's Same Sex or not?

The people who drafted those rights considered marriage to be two consenting persons of opposite sex. To draw upon those rights whilst opposing the definition of marriage they would have held to is contradictory.

Heterosexuals and Homosexuals both have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, which is what marriage has always been. Oh yes there have been one or two rare fantastists who have performed a ceremony for a donkey, a chair or someone of the same sex, but then there have always been people who lived a fantasy.

Its a Human right to be treated like everyone else. The thin vale of homophobic remarks over this topic are repeated over and over. Marriage has changed in the last 100 years so the idea that two people can join in partnership recognized by the state as a legal standing to show their love for each other.

How is this a bad thing? Instead of spouting "normal / not normal" or "natural / unnatural" I think people should be honest with themselves.

Are you:

1. Happy that this has happened - showing some sort of forward motion in the world being more open to change and differences in people, celebrating us all at the same level as we are all the same, or
2. Disgusted at the idea that 2 men or women can have a legal standing.

Many will now say that "disgusted" is a terrible word and they are not for it because its unnatural blah blah blah.

I for one am happy that its happened, another point that we are all equal on this big ball and only some people are small minded using their own opinion and flawed science to cover their homophobic remarks

thekaboose
Its a Human right to be treated like everyone else.

No, it's not.

Is it a human right a blind person to be treated as fully sighted?
Is it a human right for a paraplegic to be required to compete against the able-bodied rather than in the paralympics?

Don't talk such utter nonsense. We regularly differentiate between types of people without once being accused of "hate" or "abuse.

How is this a bad thing? Instead of spouting "normal / not normal" or "natural / unnatural" I think people should be honest with themselves.

I have not said "natural / unnatural", and I have pointed this out several times. If you cannot read, don't write.

If you would like to go back to your last statement and read once again. That alone was not aimed at just your small minded replies. The amount of hate on ATS is insane towards the LGBT community. My argument is for people all to be treated equally but you still attempt a stance against something you deem wrong. Dont like it? You have made your point that you do not believe it is natural / fits the natural order of life (which is wrong). Leave the thread, all your doing is pushing a homophobic stance, you have contributed hate towards it now just stop.

If you cannot except others with the way they live then fine. Again, you have made your point.

If you have ANYTHING relevant to put towards this post which is on topic and not just spouting "Its wrong".

reply to post by Gryphon66


The post I'm linking to here has the legal argument in a nutshell, if someone hasn't read it please do so. This is the backbone of what this thread is meant to do, to follow the legal discussion in the U.S. of the Utah case which may be the important ruling in the states which will lead to the nationwide legality of gay marriage. This other back and forth is fine as long as it stays near topic, for the ruling, aside from being widely discussed in the media, doesn't have its next legal hearing (before the 10th Circuit) until February 25th.

There was an article out of Colorado yesterday saying that if the 10th Circuit rules in favor of the Utah judge that will essentially make gay marriage legal in Colorado as well, as it falls within the same circuit. Does anyone know if this is legally accurate, and an affirmation by a circuit court creates the law for the entire area covered by the circuit? Thanks.

thekaboose
My argument is for people all to be treated equally

So no extra help for blind people then. And close the paralympics because all athletes should compete in the same games because "all [are] to be treated equally".

Life is exclusive. Some people get left out of some things because they simply are not suited to them. The absurd assertion that all should be included, equally, is based on an ideological fantasy that ignores reality.

Inkyfingers

thekaboose
My argument is for people all to be treated equally

So no extra help for blind people then. And close the paralympics because all athletes should compete in the same games because "all [are] to be treated equally".

Life is exclusive. Some people get left out of some things because they simply are not suited to them. The absurd assertion that all should be included, equally, is based on an ideological fantasy that ignores reality.

edit on 23-1-2014 by Inkyfingers because: (no reason given)

Please stick to the legal questions for awhile (see my post above yours). Can you fit your arguments into the legality of the situation? No, because they are the type of arguments and statements which are not admissible as evidence or as legal theories anymore, at least in the U.S., England, Canada, and other places where gay marriage has caught on as the law of the land. Australia, on the other hand, has not enacted gay marriage and is still having these type of legal discussions.

And have you thought of putting up a thread on fountain pens, etc? I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts, and other people's thoughts, on both using fountain pens and which ones you'd suggest. Older pens, collectible pens, which new ones work as well - are fountain pens being made as yet - that's a thread I'd enjoy reading. Thanks.

Inkyfingers

thekaboose
My argument is for people all to be treated equally

So no extra help for blind people then. And close the paralympics because all athletes should compete in the same games because "all [are] to be treated equally".

Life is exclusive. Some people get left out of some things because they simply are not suited to them. The absurd assertion that all should be included, equally, is based on an ideological fantasy that ignores reality.

edit on 23-1-2014 by Inkyfingers because: (no reason given)

Gays are not handicapped, and marriage is not a competition.

A homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple who cannot physically have children with each other will yield the exact same results - no children except by other means. To tell the heterosexual couple that they can get married anyway even if they can't have children with each other, but the homosexual couple cannot get married because they can't have children with each other - well, that's just flat out discrimination.

To use your olympics analogy, this would be like telling a white athlete with 4 toes on one foot that he is still allowed to compete, but telling the black athlete with 4 toes on one foot that he is not allowed to compete.

They keep going back to that so heres my answer:

1. Blind people - They should be treated with respect and help offered, treated like humans
2. Other forms of disabilities - They should be treated with respect and help offered, treated like humans
3. Able bodied people - They should be treated with respect and help offered, treated like humans
4. Heterosexual people - They should be treated with respect and help offered, treated like humans
5. Homosexual people - They should be treated with respect and help offered, treated like humans

Do you see where Im going with this? You keep throwing terrible arguments at people to support your narrow minded view on the world.

Everyone is different - We get it

Does everyone deserve equal rights? Yes
Does everyone deserve to be treated like a human? Yes
Does the current state of the world allow for peoples own opinions? Yes
Does that give people the right to openly bash gay people because of the way they were born? Yes and No

I say yes and no because I myself am not a fascist, everyone has a right to be a d*ck to each other, but spouting the same homophobic propaganda which is a throw back to times were it was ok to enslave people, kill because "god said so", treat people differently due to the colour of their skin over and over? No

So yes, I agree with your right to give an opinion but I refuse to except your gay bashing points. People need to step back and think for a second:

"Does this effect me?"

No, because you are not gay.

"Will this cause the down fall of civilization as we know it?"

No, because people who think that really need to rethink their lives

"Is it normal"

Yes, if you dont think it is just think... Many people have different kinks / fetishes in this world - does this make them not normal?

I support any country that legalizes this, I believe that it will have a positive impact.

If you dont want to look at it like that, look at it like this:

For every gay couple who want to marry - They then have to book somewhere for the service, someone to perform the service, spend money on a reception, money spent in shops.. More money back into the local community.

reply to post by Inkyfingers

I am not wrong in associating you with the concept, I am using your own words as you stated them time and time again in the different posts, throughout this thread.

You did not make a generalized statement about gay marriage in different postings, you used direct statements against homosexuals in general. Even the blog that you pointed out attacks homosexuality. Nor have you given any real valid arguments based on legal precedents as to why same sex marriages could not take place. No facts, no court cases, no legal jurisprudence.

Be it if you like it or not, same sex marriage is here, and ultimately is going to happen in the USA in all 50 states. What you fail to understand or even want to in this entire debate, is that you are framing an argument that no one really can win. Those who are against same sex marriage frames it in a theological/moral context, while those who frame it in a civil rights context. And so far the courts, every time have supported the civil rights context.

Now if you do not like such, it is your right, but at the same time, if you think you can add a legal point, then by all means please bring it up and point it out. The laws change all of the time, and there is nothing we can do to stop that. Legal definitions change, with the times, as do the laws. You do not want to go back in time to where the laws are more suitable to your desire and wants, for that can be a trap unto itself. There are laws that are no longer on the books, that would even hamper a same sex marriage, in more than one way, where the state could intervene in the bedroom in more than one way.

Would you go that far? How about the taxes you pay, would you be so willing to pay for something a right that you are not allowed to exercise all cause you are who you are? What if you had to hide who you were just to not be denied services, is that what you desire? Well if you do not like homosexuals, then I guess that there are some facets of modern life that you may not like either. Entertainment, can’t go and enjoy music, film, writing or TV. And do not go into fashion, or luxury items, and I guess getting that latest hair style done is not going to be possible, cause be it that you like it or not, such is where gay people tend to excel in, and I guess you won’t be eating out either, or eating anything that is made out in some of the 4 and 5 star resteraunts, cause it turns out that homosexuals are also good cooks, and I guess you don’t like it when the neighborhood looks real good and safe, after all it seems that same sex people are willing to purchase a home, and be members of a community, making the area look nice.

Tell me how is the economy in your state, all estimates so far is that those states that have same sex marriages, tend to have an economical advantage of providing such services and enjoy the increase in tax revenue.

Virginia's Attorney General Mark Herring - I'm guessing after discussions with, and it being approved by, newly sworn-in Governor Terry McCauliffe - has joined the case arguing for gay marriage in the state, going a long way of assuring a pro-gay marriage ruling by the court. If the case goes that way the State likely won't appeal (but would if the ruling is against the people suing), and, nobody else having standing, it might just end there with gay marriage entering the southern United States.

news.yahoo.com...

In a move that could give gay marriage its first foothold in the South, Virginia's attorney general said Thursday he concluded the state's ban on same-sex unions is unconstitutional and he will join the fight against it.

Newly-elected Democratic Attorney General Mark R. Herring said he would support gay couples who have filed lawsuits challenging the state's ban.

"After thorough legal review, I have now concluded that Virginia's ban on marriage between same sex couples violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on two grounds: marriage is a fundamental right being denied to some Virginians, and the ban unlawfully discriminates on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender," Herring said.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Good post. There are really no legal points against it in the U.S. which have validity. Now with Virginia looking like it will become a gay marriage state, even after a state constitutional amendment banning it was passed in 2006, any remaining legal arguments (and I can't think of any offhand) will be even more weakened.

Inkyfingers

Darth_Prime
reply to post by Inkyfingers

 

How is it contradictory? i am saying it's a Human right not a "Straight/Gay" right. as Humans we deserve equal rights, if marriage is between two consenting adults than what does it matter if it's Same Sex or not?

The people who drafted those rights considered marriage to be two consenting persons of opposite sex. To draw upon those rights whilst opposing the definition of marriage they would have held to is contradictory.

Heterosexuals and Homosexuals both have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, which is what marriage has always been. Oh yes there have been one or two rare fantastists who have performed a ceremony for a donkey, a chair or someone of the same sex, but then there have always been people who lived a fantasy.

Yes, the right to the pursuit of happiness.

So you are railing against the unalienable rights for the pursuit of happiness...hypocrite.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Please, no name calling. The pursuit of happiness goes a long way in America's lifestyle, and I wish the rest of the world would hurry and adopt some of their principles. England doesn't even have freedom of speech as yet, let alone other EU nations, for example.

The question is not a question of sexual orientation.

There are no special rights for any American citizen.

American citizens have certain rights established by their human existence (rights arise from personhood) and certified by a range of law beginning at the US Constitution and descending to local municipal statutes.

Marriage is a legal relationship offered at the level of State law for couples.

Discrimination by sex in law has been determined to be unconstitutional by precedent and judicial act.

Any law that differentiates by sex in the structure of a legal relationship offered is unconstitutional.

Any marriage law that differentiates by specifying male or female in the structure of a legal relationship offered is unconstitutional.

QED

reply to post by Aleister


I am not calling him a donkey butt. I am calling him a hypocrite. Most people who talk about the founding fathers or the constitution and such, know the least about them.

I dont understand why marriage has been stolen by the religious lobby.
It doesnt belong to Christians, why should they stop others from doing it. It's just plain weird.
It's plainly obvious to those that can see, that this is the right and moral thing to do.

Inkyfingers

thekaboose
My argument is for people all to be treated equally

So no extra help for blind people then. And close the paralympics because all athletes should compete in the same games because "all [are] to be treated equally".

Life is exclusive. Some people get left out of some things because they simply are not suited to them. The absurd assertion that all should be included, equally, is based on an ideological fantasy that ignores reality.

edit on 23-1-2014 by Inkyfingers because: (no reason given)

Way to project with that last remark.

Gays are capable of having a consentual relationship, as well as agreeing and signing a contract regarding said relationship, which is what marriage is. It's not the same as being handicapped, being gay doesn't inhibit one's ability to read and write (although that doesn't seem to be the case with being homophobic as evidenced by your posts).

Seriously, we've been over this already when you were talking about blind cab drivers. In fact, we've been over a lot of what you've said in this thread. At this point, you're starting to come off more as a troll rather than a stubborn individual supporting an indefensible position.

As long as nobody expects me to help along perpetuate the idea male/male or female/female love-love is the same or equal to male/female love-love I don't have much problems. I can't help the way I think or feel about the subject but I won't get in anyone's way not that I could anyway since everyone has to figure this subject out for themselves.

I do think it's too bad for the children, don't know if adoption or IVF/donation is legal yet but I'm sure it will along with marriage, such a child will never know either their father or mother, one of them will be missing. And I also believe it would be better to call it something completely different.