Is Banning Gay Marriage Constitutional?

[CloudStrife]

Sir, you are wrong on that point. Just look at the prostitute prevelant drug infested inner city neighborhoods. Children growing up in that environment have a slim chance at the white collar world. We are product of both our genetics and our environment.

That's the conditions the child is exposed to, which has nothing in common with what I'm saying.
On a side note, more than our environment and genetics, as adults we are a product of what we choose to be.

Back to the topic...
How does a gay couple getting married decrease the value of your marriage?

 

[CEHollier]

You are probably correct. But (no pun intended)- IMHO, I believe many people are also sick & tired of the pro-GM crowd screaming how they demand "tolerance", yet they themselves are very INTOLERANT when it comes to dealing with those who have an opposing view.

Anybody remember the Miss California fiasco with that disgusting individual (my opinion) Perez Hilton?? That girl got raked over the coals by that jerk and others because she had the courage to say what the great majority believes. Yeah- that's tolerance for ya. People are tired of all the PC crap.

PC's want to hear everyones opinion. Only when it agrees with theirs. Disagree and you are a homophobe, racist, intollerant, bible thumping, horrible person worthy of public scorn and ridicule.

 

[CEHollier]

Back to the topic...
How does a gay couple getting married decrease the value of your marriage?

If they were given legal rights only how would that diminish their love for each other? Is your point legal rights or marriage?

 

[CloudStrife]

If they were given legal rights only how would that diminish their love for each other? Is your point legal rights or marriage?

It wouldn't. That's why I don't see why either side is so passionate about the subject.
The debate is over legal rights. It's the same as marriage in the eyes of the gov't. It's not about wanting to get married in your church.

 

[Cat]

I don't think it's a question of diminishing anything. I think that homosexual partners feel left out of the social and cultural significance of marriage. When two people want to make a commitment, we do it very very publically through visiting the courthouse, declaring our intent, filing legal paperwork, throwing a huge party following a religious service.

It started as a fight for legal rights. But they haven't received the ability to easily go off and experience that white wedding whirlwind.

So really, just my two cents, it's just another battle for social acceptance.

And FWIW, I'm not making light of weddings. I feel very strongly that they serve a real purpose.

 

[charliepapa]

I wasn't justifying it. I was making the point that one person's behavior has no effect on someone else's values.

Seriously? Wow, how old are you? Obviously you either don't have kids (adult larvae) or haven't been around them much. They soak up everything they see around them. If they see their big brother smoking crack, they want to smoke crack. If they see their mother in a gay relationship, they think it's OK. You can tell kids all you want but the whole do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do doesn't work very well.

Stop and think man.

 

[CloudStrife]

Seriously? Wow, how old are you? Obviously you either don't have kids (adult larvae) or haven't been around them much. They soak up everything they see around them. If they see their big brother smoking crack, they want to smoke crack. If they see their mother in a gay relationship, they think it's OK. You can tell kids all you want but the whole do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do doesn't work very well.

Stop and think man.

And this related to legalizing gay marriage how? Being gay is already legal. Putting it on paper in a court house won't increase it's exposure to kids. And I can think of things far worse that are perfectly legal that kids are exposed to.

Allowing gay couples to adopt is something different all together.

 

[CloudStrife]

I don't think it's a question of diminishing anything. I think that homosexual partners feel left out of the social and cultural significance of marriage. When two people want to make a commitment, we do it very very publically through visiting the courthouse, declaring our intent, filing legal paperwork, throwing a huge party following a religious service.

It started as a fight for legal rights. But they haven't received the ability to easily go off and experience that white wedding whirlwind.

So really, just my two cents, it's just another battle for social acceptance.

And FWIW, I'm not making light of weddings. I feel very strongly that they serve a real purpose.

Many people that are opposed to gay marriage think that legalizing it will somehow defile their own marriage.

Gays can throw parties and have weddings if they like. They just can't have the paper work.

 

[charliepapa]

Gays can throw parties and have weddings if they like. They just can't have the paper work.

But that's just it... The paperwork is what they want. Giving them the paperwork will essentially redefine the meaning of marriage.

 

[Ockham]

No. In no way, shape or form is banning gay marriage Constitutional.

In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving vs. Virginia that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man. Allowing one group to enjoy a basic civil right, while not allowing another group to enjoy that same basic civil right is discrimination - plain and simple.

Some might argue that no rights are being taken from homosexuals, as heterosexuals cannot marry the same gender either - thus making it fair. This claim simply muddies the water. If you look at the Supreme Court's rulling on interacial marriages you'll see an important parallel between these two issues. Back before Loving vs. Virginia, no white person could marry a black person and vice versa, regardless of their taste. The same reasoning applies to homosexuals and heterosexuals. If it wasn't good enough for the Supreme Court in 1967 when it came to interacial marriage, it certainly isn't good enough for the Supreme Court in 2010.

Any other reasons, such as religion, homosexuality being a mental disorder, disgusting, or unnatrual are all totally irrelevant.

 

[CEHollier]

No. In no way, shape or form is banning gay marriage Constitutional.

In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving vs. Virginia that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man. Allowing one group to enjoy a basic civil right, while not allowing another group to enjoy that same basic civil right is discrimination - plain and simple.

Some might argue that no rights are being taken from homosexuals, as heterosexuals cannot marry the same gender either - thus making it fair. This claim simply muddies the water. If you look at the Supreme Court's rulling on interacial marriages you'll see an important parallel between these two issues. Back before Loving vs. Virginia, no white person could marry a black person and vice versa, regardless of their taste. The same reasoning applies to homosexuals and heterosexuals. If it wasn't good enough for the Supreme Court in 1967 when it came to interacial marriage, it certainly isn't good enough for the Supreme Court in 2010.

Many blacks do not appreciate gay marriage being paralleled with their civil rights struggle. You can't pick your skin color. But you can pick your partner. I'm not talking about B and W marriages but the struggle as a whole.

 

[Ockham]

Many blacks do not appreciate gay marriage being paralleled with their civil rights struggle.

I wasn't making that parallel. Loving vs. Virigina was a case that dealt with interacial marriage, which isn't a black only civil right, but a basic civil right since it allowed for everyone to marry someone of a different race. Sure, during that time period there were a lot of civil rights that blacks had to fight for - but this one isn't a black only issue. It's an issue for everyone and not a black civil rights only issue.

You can't pick your skin color. But you can pick your partner.

Yes, and according to that same thought process blacks and whites cannot pick their skin color, but they can pick their partner of the same race. It it doesn't work for interacial marriage, why do you think it would work for gay marriage?

 

[CEHollier]

Yes, and according to that same thought process blacks and whites cannot pick their skin color, but they can pick their partner of the same race. It it doesn't work for interacial marriage, why do you think it would work for gay marriage?

I see your point. With intraracial marriages you are still talking about men marrying women. Homosexuals have a big fight ahead of them because the majority of the US population oppose it and vote against it.

 

[Ockham]

I see your point. With intraracial marriages you are still talking about men marrying women.

Men - women, blacks - whites, homosexuals - heterosexuals, these are all groups of people. The Supreme Court has already ruled that marriage is a basic civil right, and I think its a hard case to agrue that basic civil rights can be denied to individuals simply because they belong to a certain group of people.

Homosexuals have a big fight ahead of them because the majority of the US population oppose it and vote against it.

Yes and no.

The younger generation is increasingly tolerant and accepting of the idea of gays marrying, so much so that its a clear majority with the 29 and under crowd. You'll probably see that mindset passed onto their children as well. As older generations die out, this ideal will become more and more accepted.

Just look at interacial marriages. Go back into the 60's and you'll see the same trends. The 40+ crowd at the time was mostly against it, but the younger crowd was more accepting. As that generation slowly died out and the younger generations grew up you saw less and less resistence to interacial marriages. Today, its virtually a non-issue. I think gay marriage will follow the same course - its happened in Europe.

 

[CEHollier]

Men - women, blacks - whites, homosexuals - heterosexuals, these are all groups of people. The Supreme Court has already ruled that marriage is a basic civil right, and I think its a hard case to agrue that basic civil rights can be denied to individuals simply because they belong to a certain group of people.



Yes and no.

The younger generation is increasingly tolerant and accepting of the idea of gays marrying, so much so that its a clear majority with the 29 and under crowd. You'll probably see that mindset passed onto their children as well. As older generations die out, this ideal will become more and more accepted.

Just look at interacial marriages. Go back into the 60's and you'll see the same trends. The 40+ crowd at the time was mostly against it, but the younger crowd was more accepting. As that generation slowly died out and the younger generations grew up you saw less and less resistence to interacial marriages. Today, its virtually a non-issue. I think gay marriage will follow the same course - its happened in Europe.

Probably will follow Europe. I only hope to be out of here as society digresses into the Abyss.

 

[Ockham]

Probably will follow Europe. I only hope to be out of here as society digresses into the Abyss.

Eh, the generation before you probably said the same thing towards interacial marriage. Times change, focus on your own life and don't worry about what other people are doing so long as no one is being harmed.

 

[CEHollier]

focus on your own life and don't worry about what other people are doing so long as no one is being harmed.

I do not need you telling me what to focus on and will oppose what I wish.

 

[D-DAY]

Men - women, blacks - whites, homosexuals - heterosexuals, these are all groups of people. The Supreme Court has already ruled that marriage is a basic civil right, and I think its a hard case to agrue that basic civil rights can be denied to individuals simply because they belong to a certain group of people.



Yes and no.

The younger generation is increasingly tolerant and accepting of the idea of gays marrying, so much so that its a clear majority with the 29 and under crowd. You'll probably see that mindset passed onto their children as well. As older generations die out, this ideal will become more and more accepted.

Just look at interacial marriages. Go back into the 60's and you'll see the same trends. The 40+ crowd at the time was mostly against it, but the younger crowd was more accepting. As that generation slowly died out and the younger generations grew up you saw less and less resistence to interacial marriages. Today, its virtually a non-issue. I think gay marriage will follow the same course - its happened in Europe.

Then prepare yourself for what's to come. If you allow homosexuals to marry, then by your own argument you cannot stop any consenting individuals from marrying. That must include incestuous relationships, polygamy, minors, etc. Anything less will constitute a violation of civil rights.

The desensitization of the homsexual world is very much real. It is an active agenda by this group. As far as the less and less resistance to interracial pairs, that was a forced issue by the government too. I am all for to each his own, but there are many, many people that still have a problem with interracial marriages. Same goes for this issue, but to an even greater degree. If acceptance happens in society for this group it will take longer than the bridging of the racial divide, which by many accounts is still a chasm.

 

[CloudStrife]

But that's just it... The paperwork is what they want. Giving them the paperwork will essentially redefine the meaning of marriage.

My idea of marriage and its meaning is defined by my faith. Is yours defined by human law?

A man and a woman can screw around for a while and decide to get married. Does this also redefine marriage and defile yours?

I do not need you telling me what to focus on and will oppose what I wish.

Why don't you focus on getting some legislation passed regarding sexual immorality and divorce? Surely these are far more prevalent and damaging than homosexuality.

 

[Woods]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woods
I had no idea you had to graduate college to collect Social Security; I guess my wife's grandma should start returning those checks.

*Facepalm* I think we all know that what I mean. You don't have to graduate college, you just have to be over 65. I was referring to the 20 year-old who's low on cash, not your grandma.

Comparing the driving age requirement to this is like comparing apples to oranges... the two really aren't analogous in anyway.

But that's an assertion. How so? How is the legal benefit given to married heterosexual couples a different thing than a legal benefit given to those over 16? It's not.

I also never said it was clear that the 14th amendment prohibits a ban on gay marriage... I merely stated that is how I would interpret the way it is written. No where in the constitution is public education guaranteed... but the Brown v Board of Education was based on the 14th amendment, saying equal protection under the law meant that everybody had to go to school together to guarantee everyone had the same access to education... so I challenge your assertion that SCOTUS has always adopted a conservative view of the 14th amendment's protections, as that seems pretty broad.

"No where in the constitution is public education guaranteed..." But it wasn't about public education, it was about guaranteeing equal access to an institution. It could have been a case involving two Wal-marts segregated on the basis of race. The point was that segregation is prohibited under the privileges and immunities clause. I'd have to go back and read Brown, but I think the Court will more willingly follow Slaughter-House than Brown in dealing with Prop 8.

How on Earth was I supposed to know you meant broke 20-somethings from that statement... you don't have to be in your 20's to be a college dropout. After all the ridiculousness I've seen posted on the internet, and not knowing you from Adam, I had every legitimate reason to think you meant that college dropouts can't collect Social Security... mostly because that's exactly what you said. You can facepalm all you want, but if you are making a mention to age requirements for various privileges, I suggest you mention specifically what you mean instead of trying to be cute.

Driving is a privilege. Getting DUI's and other actions can get your driving privileges revoked. I've yet to see someone get their right to marry revoked based on some action.... hell, even folks in prison can get married. Again, apples and oranges.

And if equal protection under the law can be applied to laws about education, I don't see any reason why they can't be applied to laws about marriage.

And to address all this nonsense about black folks not liking another minority's struggle for equality being compared to civil rights... frankly, I don't care. I don't like being lumped in with the survivalist/militia/anti-everything freaks because I own a couple guns, but tough cookies to me. There is very little about equality for one group of folks that can't be applied to equality for another group of folks.

All of this nonsense about gays being bad for the morals of society is reminiscent of anti-gunners saying that more guns in society leads to more violent crime... just making stuff up to try to bolster something you believe for no particular reason.

But again, that's just my opinion.