Conquer Club

captain.crazy wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote: Marriage is a state's issue plain and simple. It always has been and it always will be.

Stop saying that and actually explain why it is so. Because clearly a lot of people disagree with it.

I have tried... but maybe you can read and digest this???

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/a_state_ly_march_toward_gay_marriage

This is the viewpoint that I am trying to convey.

Except the only reference it makes is that marriage has traditionally been left to the states. This is not even true, because the Federal government did "force" Mississippi to honor bi-racial marriages, etc. It definitely does not support your claim that states have the constitutional right to decide marriages.

I never made that claim.

I said the same thing that that article did. The issue belongs with the states, it always has and it always should.

Depends on what you mean. States are free to determine how to implement marriages (as long as it's Constitutional anyway), but this isn't about implementation. This is a matter of civil rights. And civil rights trump states' rights.

Also, it's more directly a federal issue because even in states that recognize gay marriage, like Massachusets, a lot of the benefits that come with marriage are federal benefits (like Social Security). So they end up not getting them.

InkL0sed wrote:This is a matter of civil rights. And civil rights trump states' rights.

And here we are back to page #3 again. Johnblue made the bold claim that homosexuality was genetic. I asked for some sort of real scientific data or study information, no one responded. You are partialy correct, in that civil rights trump state right, but only if the supreme court rules that a law passed in a state, is unconstitutional. This is where marriage laws get tricky. Marriage has historicly been defined as a union between 1 man, and 1 women. So, a state adding a clause in its constitution to more clearly define the definition of marriage to meet the historical definition, may not be a civil rights issue. There is not a prohibition of homosexuality, if that were the case (such as in Lawrence v Texas), then the court is able to make a judgement.

I am certainly much more sympothetic than I come across in this types of discussion, but if you are going to claim that this is purely a civil rights issue, you have to show how so. You also have to show that the previous supreme court rulings (Such as the ones I mentioned earlier in this thread, when we were talking about the 14th) were made in error.

Also, it's more directly a federal issue because even in states that recognize gay marriage, like Massachusets, a lot of the benefits that come with marriage are federal benefits (like Social Security). So they end up not getting them.

Do you have any more information on this? I know that there was some discussion on the Dom. Partnership laws in Cali a while ago, and I never got a good answer from anyone who knew, on what all it included. In a state where a homosexual couple has a valid marriage certific, has the Fed actualy denied them any benefits?

I ask because I have not seen any information either way, and am honestly interested.

dewey316 wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:This is a matter of civil rights. And civil rights trump states' rights.

And here we are back to page #3 again. Johnblue made the bold claim that homosexuality was genetic. I asked for some sort of real scientific data or study information, no one responded. You are partialy correct, in that civil rights trump state right, but only if the supreme court rules that a law passed in a state, is unconstitutional. This is where marriage laws get tricky. Marriage has historicly been defined as a union between 1 man, and 1 women. So, a state adding a clause in its constitution to more clearly define the definition of marriage to meet the historical definition, may not be a civil rights issue. There is not a prohibition of homosexuality, if that were the case (such as in Lawrence v Texas), then the court is able to make a judgement.

I am certainly much more sympothetic than I come across in this types of discussion, but if you are going to claim that this is purely a civil rights issue, you have to show how so. You also have to show that the previous supreme court rulings (Such as the ones I mentioned earlier in this thread, when we were talking about the 14th) were made in error.

Well, there's no hard proof (although there is some evidence) of a gay gene (which is a misnomer anyway, as if there'd be only one gene for anything), but give me a break. People don't choose to be gay. Plus, we can't just assume that people choose to be gay. They are clearly as legitimate a minority as blacks or hispanics.

Also, http://www.physorg.com/news84720662.html

Not to mention the fact that certain animals are sometimes gay, like goats and penguins.

Also, it's more directly a federal issue because even in states that recognize gay marriage, like Massachusets, a lot of the benefits that come with marriage are federal benefits (like Social Security). So they end up not getting them.

Do you have any more information on this? I know that there was some discussion on the Dom. Partnership laws in Cali a while ago, and I never got a good answer from anyone who knew, on what all it included. In a state where a homosexual couple has a valid marriage certific, has the Fed actualy denied them any benefits?

I ask because I have not seen any information either way, and am honestly interested.

Sorry, it was in a documentary and I don't remember the details. I'll try to find you an article on it though.

InkL0sed wrote:Well, there's no hard proof (although there is some evidence) of a gay gene (which is a misnomer anyway, as if there'd be only one gene for anything), but give me a break.

Yes but some evidence, in light of other evidence pointing to environmental issues, such as childhood trauma. There is lack of proof homosexuality is entirely a genetic. More on this, when we get to the article you posted....

People don't choose to be gay. Plus, we can't just assume that people choose to be gay. They are clearly as legitimate a minority as blacks or hispanics.

The big difference is, that we can with 100% certainty say that, a child born of a black father and black mother, will be black. A child born of a hispanic mother and hispanic father, will be hispanic. With homosexuality, you don't have that.

Also, http://www.physorg.com/news84720662.html

Not to mention the fact that certain animals are sometimes gay, like goats and penguins.

Even that article makes a point of bringing up the studies that show environmental causes. Just like alcoholism (I am sorry if that comparison is offensive to any gay members, it was the best I could come up with on the fly), there is certian genetic traits that cuase certain groups of people to have a genetic pre-disposition, but the genetic trait is not the only thing that defines them as such. It only means that they may have a genetic predisposition to having a higher rate of certain behavors.

To shorten that up, there is a huge difference between things that are purely genetic traits (such as race), and things that have been shown to have some genetic linking to predisposition towards certain behavors.

Sorry, it was in a documentary and I don't remember the details. I'll try to find you an article on it though.

Please do let me know, even if it is some time down the road, a PM wiht the info would be great. I am always trying to learn more, and will happily read any information you find, and do further research myself.

Even if it turns out to be just a predisposition thing, there's still the restriction of a liberty which I see no good reason not to have. Plus, we can't exactly wait for a definitive answer. I say the mere possibility of it being genetic is good enough.

InkL0sed wrote:Even if it turns out to be just a predisposition thing, there's still the restriction of a liberty which I see no good reason not to have.

But that is the thing, the liberty we are speaking of, is currently defined as a union between 1 man and 1 women. The "liberty" of marriage is not what gay marriage is about, what gay marriage is about, is re-defining the terms of what marriage is. That is why there is so much discussion about this topic, and why there is opposition to it.

That very same reason, is the exact reason that you have not seen a supreme court case about this yet. The supreme court cannot define mariage, it is out of their scope. The supreme court can only determine if a state has defined it, in a way that is unconstitutional. When it comes to the definition, the historicy use of the word has a HUGE ammount of weight, as to how the states can choose to define it.

Plus, we can't exactly wait for a definitive answer. I say the mere possibility of it being genetic is good enough.

Of course, like all of science there is never a definitive answer. But, when it comes to civil rights cases, the difference between minority groups like race, and groups like homosexuals, you have to see that at least with the current evidence there is a substantual difference. Predisposition and a purely genetic trait are miles apart when it comes to protected groups under the law.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

comic boy wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

SEAsportsfan wrote:So, correct me if I'm wrong, but basically people don't want gays to have marriage because it ruins the sacredness of marriage? Okay, so my idea is that there is the government-controlled Civil Marriage for government purposes (civil unions, benefits, rights, etc.) and this is for people who are gay, atheists (don't want to deal with the Church), etc. And then, there is Religious Marriage, which is for the "sacred" union of a man and a woman. That way gays have their rights, and religious people have their sacred marriage.

Now, I know you're asking, "But, SEA, God doesn't like gays, we can't have God angry!" My quick response, "Let God deal with it in heaven/hell, but let gays have their rights here on Earth."

Please correct me if I'm getting any part of any argument wrong.

My sentiments exactly.

Yes this makes perfect sense to me as well.

I agree with this also, but here is the problem.

The state already does recognize unions between atheists, etc. completely outside of a church. They do so by means of a Justice of the Peace. The result is a Marriage. So, this as already been defined. It is understood in multiple ways -- children are automatically recognized, inheritances automatically passed, etc. Churches recognition or not is irrelevant. The state simply honors the clergy authorized unions because its easier and cheaper than making every couple head for the Justice of the Peace.

The Federal government similarly recognizes such unions. Further, the ability to marry is generally considered a key right of free people. There is case law on this in regards to slaves and free people.

There is not such recognition of anything called a "civil union".

So, basically, those people who wish to claim that marriage is somehow limited to a church are just plain wrong. The church may dictate who gets married, what marriage entails within its congregations, but not outside. This is a blatant attempt by some people to define things in way they like to meet their desires, it is not about freedom at all. It is about limiting the freedom of a few people, a few unpopular people, because a large number of others don't like how they live.

Sorry, but the constitution is there specifically to preserve and protect the rights of individual people, NOT to oppress them.

So, do you never see a compromise on anything, or do you just argue for the sake of it? *sigh*
Anyways;
Like it or not, marriage has always been (in one form or another) religious, as well as between a man and a woman (or in certain situations, women). A civil union would allow gays to be "together" like like married couples, without the disputes. However, the only opposition I have seen to this remarkably simple situation (not to mention leaving things up to the states, as the constitution really says nothing on these issues for the federal government), is either from far right-wing nut jobs, or stubborn liberals who refuse to meet half way.

That kind of thinking could cost us our civil rights, which includes Habeas Corpus. There should be no compromise on civil rights for everyone.

Religions can do what they want, approve or disapprove of marriages, so long as the state recognizes the marriage of adults, regardless their sex.

mpjh wrote:That kind of thinking could cost us our civil rights, which includes Habeas Corpus. There should be no compromise on civil rights for everyone.

Religions can do what they want, approve or disapprove of marriages, so long as the state recognizes the marriage of adults, regardless their sex.

Over react much? It is a compromise on a single issue that, believe it or not, might just work.

Also, I believe you mean "sexual orientation."

No I mean sex.

There can be no compromise on civil rights -- that road leads to fascism.

mpjh wrote:No I mean sex.

Male? Female? Not exactly specific, are you.

There can be no compromise on civil rights -- that road leads to fascism.

Wait, what? How does allowing gays to get civil unions and straight people marriages (about the same, except for the name, like the mountain lion is also called a puma or a cougar) lead to fascism?

Besides, after the articles of confederation were thrown out, there was a compromise between the state and central government, which ended up being Federalism, which is in the constitution, which is the constitution. I'm not saying a compromise on every little thing, as there are certain things which I (personally) refuse to go half way on. However, in this case, wouldn't this satisfy both sides?

muy_thaiguy wrote:

mpjh wrote:No I mean sex.

Male? Female? Not exactly specific, are you.

The point is that we already recognize marriages of gay/lesbian people, just not to people of the same sex. You can marry, have sex with you partner, then have sex with people of the same sex outside marriage. That is a valid marriage under the law. It is not illegal anymore to have sex with someone of the same sex, even if you are married to someone else. So what is the facade for? Let them marry any other adult, regardless their sex.

There can be no compromise on civil rights -- that road leads to fascism.

Wait, what? How does allowing gays to get civil unions and straight people marriages (about the same, except for the name, like the mountain lion is also called a puma or a cougar) lead to fascism?

Besides, after the articles of confederation were thrown out, there was a compromise between the state and central government, which ended up being Federalism, which is in the constitution, which is the constitution. I'm not saying a compromise on every little thing, as there are certain things which I (personally) refuse to go half way on. However, in this case, wouldn't this satisfy both sides?[/quote]

No, obviously doesn't satisfy gay and lesbian people, any more than continued slavery or jim crow satisfied African American people.

Yes because we force gays to take written tests when they are illiterate and force them to sit in the back of buses.

The point is that we already recognize marriages of gay/lesbian people, just not to people of the same sex. You can marry, have sex with you partner, then have sex with people of the same sex outside marriage. That is a valid marriage under the law. It is not illegal anymore to have sex with someone of the same sex, even if you are married to someone else. So what is the facade for? Let them marry any other adult, regardless their sex.

What are you even arguing? Did you not (once again) read what I wrote? I'm saying that they can have state sanctioned civil unions, which would guarantee them the same rights as religiously married heterosexual couples. And why bring up adultery? Please stay on topic.

You don't get it. They want the same equal protection under the law as everyone else. They want marriage. You cannot deny them that. They will get it, because there is no good reason for them to accept any less.

mpjh wrote:You don't get it. They want the same equal protection under the law as everyone else. They want marriage. You cannot deny them that. They will get it, because there is no good reason for them to accept any less.

And this post here proves you have not read a single thing I wrote.

They want to be equal. If it's one thing for straight people and another for gays, it isn't equal. If gays can only have civil unions, then that should be the case for straight people as well. Since that won't happen, the only other route is granting gays the right to marry.

InkL0sed wrote:They want to be equal. If it's one thing for straight people and another for gays, it isn't equal. If gays can only have civil unions, then that should be the case for straight people as well. Since that won't happen, the only other route is granting gays the right to marry.

Indeed. Seperate but equal doesn't work.

Snorri1234 wrote:Indeed. Seperate but equal doesn't work.

Hey we agree on something Snorri. That is why those practices and laws were abolished years ago.

I don't think that is what he was saying though. I think he was saying to do away with marriage as a civil term, and any couple (gay or straight) would enter a civil union. The term marriage would be reserved only for religous groups to use.

That is definitely not what he is saying. He is saying gays, atheist, etc. get civil union from the government, and straights get marriage from the church. However, the marriage and the civil union are not the same under the law. Besides it is ridiculous, does he really believe that "religions" would not immediately begin to "marry" same sex people? Just remove all distinction, and let there be same sex marriage.

Muy_thaiguy wrote:Wait, what? How does allowing gays to get civil unions and straight people marriages (about the same, except for the name, like the mountain lion is also called a puma or a cougar) lead to fascism?

That's seperate but equal.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Muy_thaiguy wrote:Wait, what? How does allowing gays to get civil unions and straight people marriages (about the same, except for the name, like the mountain lion is also called a puma or a cougar) lead to fascism?

That's seperate but equal.

Not if the state gets out of the business of marriage altogether. Marriage is a religious union that governments recognize and put special laws in place to support. Change it! Change it so that everyone is recognized as a civil union in the eyes of the state and be done with it. Stop wasting time and money on this issue.

captain.crazy wrote:Not if the state gets out of the business of marriage altogether.

Yes, try to pass that in court. it's probably far easier to legalize gay-marriage than outlawing regular marriage.

OK, If everyone has to get a civil union from the state, and a "marriage" from a religion, fine. There are religions that will "marry" same sex couples. So how is that different from letting the state marry same sex couples?

mpjh wrote:OK, If everyone has to get a civil union from the state, and a "marriage" from a religion, fine. There are religions that will "marry" same sex couples. So how is that different from letting the state marry same sex couples?

Now you are catching on!