I just had a thought, hasn't the federal government already established what marriage is. I am referring to fact that they essentally banned plural marriage in the case of Morman church.
chadk said:Please note Rich, that 5-4 and 4-5 decisions that fall along the party lines clearly show that BOTH sides have personal/political/conservative/religious biases if you are going to go there...
And again, name calling and bullying to fit your view of the world is not a good approach - there is plenty of blind and narrow minded people doing lots of stereotyping on both sides. Again, this would include Obama who has stated a few times now that he feels marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Rich, my point regarding marriage being around longer than the US constitution is simply to say you are wrong in trying to suggest this: "Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is a CIVIL institution that may only be entered into or dissolved in accordance with CIVIL law." Again, marriage spans time and borders and legal systems. Just saying your definition is a little to narrow in this context...
And again, do you still stand by this statement: "DOMA is not law"?
chadk said:Brave ones? Chains of oppression??? Rich, seriously, the drama is killing me. There is simply no comparison between the situation with blacks, their history with slavery, the burning crosses, the lynchings, systematic oppression, the terror of the KKK, vs what gays are demanding today.
Again, the concept of gay 'marriage' is relatively new. So how could this have been forbidden since the dawn of man? Again, just more drama.
I could have a gay man sitting next to me and nobody would know he was gay if he didn't tell them. Can a black person claim that? In fact, that man could have grown up with all the same rights and freedoms as me, went to the same schools, rode the same buses, went to the same college, got the same job and bought the house next door. We could both marry a person of the opposite sex. The exact same rights. But no, that guy decides he wants to 'marry' another man. Problem is, that is such a new concept that the legal system has no way to really address it. And society isn't sure how to process it. So the man demands an 'equal right' that never existed before. He seeks to redifine 'marriage' to fit his lifestyle. The point of all this is to point out how drastically different this is from the many battles blacks have had in our country (and before).
richalisoviejo said:chadk said:Brave ones? Chains of oppression??? Rich, seriously, the drama is killing me. There is simply no comparison between the situation with blacks, their history with slavery, the burning crosses, the lynchings, systematic oppression, the terror of the KKK, vs what gays are demanding today.
Again, the concept of gay 'marriage' is relatively new. So how could this have been forbidden since the dawn of man? Again, just more drama.
I could have a gay man sitting next to me and nobody would know he was gay if he didn't tell them. Can a black person claim that? In fact, that man could have grown up with all the same rights and freedoms as me, went to the same schools, rode the same buses, went to the same college, got the same job and bought the house next door. We could both marry a person of the opposite sex. The exact same rights. But no, that guy decides he wants to 'marry' another man. Problem is, that is such a new concept that the legal system has no way to really address it. And society isn't sure how to process it. So the man demands an 'equal right' that never existed before. He seeks to redifine 'marriage' to fit his lifestyle. The point of all this is to point out how drastically different this is from the many battles blacks have had in our country (and before).
That is because you don’t understand the concept of equal rights, That is a ridiculous idea and totally without merit. And your wrong, it was’t so long ago it was illegal for an interal couple to marry. I suppose you believe Matthew Wayne Shepard didn’t wear the chains of oppression? Shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die. All because he was gay, do you call that drama. I call it wearing the chains of oppression. And many others have faced the same dramatic death.
richalisoviejo said:Our government, whether it is our federal government or our state government, must serve ALL the people (not just the Christians and the heterosexuals) on an equal basis. Marriage, like freedom of speech, is a CIVIL right that the government cannot deny or disparage. That homosexuals have borne the brunt of discrimination from the "dawn of time" is not justification for continuing that discrimination. All people (including homosexuals) are entitled to equal protection under the law.
In California, however, a majority of the people voted to write STATE SANCTIONED DISCRIMINATION into their constitution. In substance and effect, it now says: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws, with the exception of a homosexual person who may be denied equal protection of the laws."
I would have hoped we Californians were more tolerant than this.
desertsss said:I don't think that anyone should be discriminated against.
chadk said:But back the quote above... I just want to see how far you'll take that. What about other consenting adult relationships? Poligamy? Bother + siter? Mother + son? Kissing cousins? Should age matter? Should relationship matter? Or should we simply not have any limits, boundaries, contraints, and so forth?
richalisoviejo said:chadk said:But back the quote above... I just want to see how far you'll take that. What about other consenting adult relationships? Poligamy? Bother + siter? Mother + son? Kissing cousins? Should age matter? Should relationship matter? Or should we simply not have any limits, boundaries, contraints, and so forth?
I missed judged you in the debate, something I don’t usually do. I expected you to bring this up just thought you would have done it towands the beginning of the thread, I also expected you to bring up Bestiality. Apples & oranges indeed.
The state, after all, protects various classes of persons (e.g. minors, persons with diminished mental capacities, etc.) in their contractual relationships. The state determines that those classes of persons, because of their inherently unequal bargaining power and the increased risk of abuse, require the special solicitude of the laws. The same is said of people in certain types of incestuous unions.
Your reverse psychology argument is completely transparent. A bit of legal advice, Bestiality is not equivalent to homosexuality. Bestiality is equivalent to rape, because the animal does not consent to anything. The same goes for pederasty. Polygamy and polyandry are illegal because they somehow cheat the tax system concerning marriage. Incest is not comparable because it puts any offspring created at a health risk incomparable to homosexuality.
Candy said:Here's the definition of discrimination for you. I'm not sure what your definition is. Discrimination.....The practice of treating one group of people differently from another in an unfair way.
Apples and oranges are both still types of fruit. The Afrircan-American struggle led the way for many other groups to seek equal rights, even though their struggles my not live up to the magnitude of the experiences of African Americans. The African-American experience is not decreased up holding it up as an example, rather it is honored as a role model, a pathway or process for others. The point in envoking a comparison is not about the experiences, but rather that pathway or process.