Page 53 of 53 FirstFirst ...
3
43
51
52
53
  1. #1041
    Quote Originally Posted by Izzabella View Post
    You also have more privileges than single men, a man that is engaged, a man in a relationship where his significant other and him decided they don't need to marry, a man in a non monogamous relationship, etc... Government should have no part in marriage and attaching privileges to it. Including same sex couples to become married is a band aid on a bigger problem. There is still a lot of people left out.
    Sure, I guess. The difference is that single man can change that status and take part in those privileged. Gay men can not. A lot of single men are single because they choose to be.

    I choose not to vote. Thus it is unfair that those that choose to vote have a say int he government. So I don't think anyone should be able to vote. That is essentially your argument.
    Get a grip man! It's CHEESE!

  2. #1042
    I'm sorry, why is this yet again blown out of proportions? Hurray USA found out excluding same sex marriage is discrimination. Welcome to the rest of the world.

  3. #1043
    Quote Originally Posted by Izzabella View Post
    You also have more privileges than single men, a man that is engaged, a man in a relationship where his significant other and him decided they don't need to marry, a man in a non monogamous relationship, etc... Government should have no part in marriage and attaching privileges to it. Including same sex couples to become married is a band aid on a bigger problem. There is still a lot of people left out.
    It's fine to want the system changed. But as long as there are benefits attached to marriage, excluding people from taking advantage of them simply because you (the royal "you," not you specifically) don't like them is nothing more that bigotry.

  4. #1044
    Quote Originally Posted by tombstoner139 View Post
    I don't think the equal protection element of the 14th amendment is valid in this case. i think its more of a 1st amendment issue. We can't recognize one religions concept of marriage preferential over other religions.
    First amendment would not work as an argument because the government is allowed to enact legislation that "just happens" to coincide with a major religion's views.

    However this particular law has been foul of equal protection from the very beginning, at least in my opinion, and if not, then at least a massive power grab by the Federal government on state's rights of regulating marriage.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 12:38 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiing View Post
    But doesent Civil partnership have legal benefits? afaik it does, so i don't understand why it needs to be called "marriage" or am i missing something
    Separate but equal, hmm wonder where I've heard that before.

    And anyway the benefits are not equal right now.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 12:40 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Izzabella View Post
    You also have more privileges than single men, a man that is engaged, a man in a relationship where his significant other and him decided they don't need to marry, a man in a non monogamous relationship, etc... Government should have no part in marriage and attaching privileges to it. Including same sex couples to become married is a band aid on a bigger problem. There is still a lot of people left out.
    Government attach benefits to marriage because it serves an important public policy goal. For as long as they are encoruaging people to start a family with someone they love, the exact same benefits must be extended to gays and lesbians. A straight person have the choice of becoming married and reap the benefits; homosexual couples do not.

  5. #1045
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    First amendment would not work as an argument because the government is allowed to enact legislation that "just happens" to coincide with a major religion's views.

    However this particular law has been foul of equal protection from the very beginning, at least in my opinion, and if not, then at least a massive power grab by the Federal government on state's rights of regulating marriage.
    While I stand firmly convinced that it is unconstitutional, if it did happen to be a power grab for federal regulation of marriage (So long as it made marriage equal/available for everyone), I'd be perfectly happy with it, I don't believe states have the right to regulate something like marriage, if they are going to discriminate against certain groups.
    "Then we have found, as it seems, that the many beliefs of the many about what's fair and about the other things roll around somewhere between not-being and being purely and simply." - Plato: Republic

  6. #1046
    Quote Originally Posted by Hastings95 View Post
    While I stand firmly convinced that it is unconstitutional, if it did happen to be a power grab for federal regulation of marriage (So long as it made marriage equal/available for everyone), I'd be perfectly happy with it, I don't believe states have the right to regulate something like marriage, if they are going to discriminate against certain groups.
    Well, marriage is supposed to be equally available for everyone under the equal protection clause in the first place. The problem of course is the strong support for unconstitutional measures such as this one amongst certain factions of the country.

  7. #1047
    Herald of the Titans Hargalaten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,592
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    First amendment would not work as an argument because the government is allowed to enact legislation that "just happens" to coincide with a major religion's views.

    However this particular law has been foul of equal protection from the very beginning, at least in my opinion, and if not, then at least a massive power grab by the Federal government on state's rights of regulating marriage
    Separate but equal, hmm wonder where I've heard that before.

    And anyway the benefits are not equal right now
    So do you feel like when it is exactly equal, except the name isnt the same, The gay people should still complain because of it or suck it up and move on?

    When you look long enough, Diglett's nose turns into a mouth with 1 tooth!

  8. #1048
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiing View Post
    So do you feel like when it is exactly equal, except the name isnt the same, The gay people should still complain because of it or suck it up and move on?
    You didn't read half my post. "Separate but equal" is not acceptable.

    It is not complaining to fight for equal treatment under the law. No one should be told to "suck it up" in the face of inequality.

  9. #1049
    This wouldn't even be an issue if the government never gave special benifits for being married. They should of left marriage as it was defined by the churches. Then the gay community wouldn't even have an issue with this since there is no benifits to being a "married couple".

  10. #1050
    Quote Originally Posted by Zavri View Post
    This wouldn't even be an issue if the government never gave special benifits for being married. They should of left marriage as it was defined by the churches. Then the gay community wouldn't even have an issue with this since there is no benifits to being a "married couple".
    There are plenty of reasons to want a government to recognize marriage. Property. Next of kin. It goes on and on. Marriage is a contract and contracts are the government's sphere.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  11. #1051
    Quote Originally Posted by Zavri View Post
    This wouldn't even be an issue if the government never gave special benifits for being married. They should of left marriage as it was defined by the churches. Then the gay community wouldn't even have an issue with this since there is no benifits to being a "married couple".
    You mean marriage the "business contract"? That same marriage that was co-opted by religion?

    Which churches are we using for the definition anyway? Are any marriages performed by other types of churches invalid (because they don't agree with the "true" church)?

    Personally I vote that if you get married through a religious organisation it is called a "religious union", all others can be called marriage. It's practically the same right?

  12. #1052
    Quote Originally Posted by Zavri View Post
    They should of left marriage as it was defined by the churches.
    Churches do not define marriage. They merely tried to take control of it at some point during the High Middle Ages.

    And what, you think the rest of the non-Abrahamic world doesn't marry?

  13. #1053
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Government attach benefits to marriage because it serves an important public policy goal. For as long as they are encoruaging people to start a family with someone they love, the exact same benefits must be extended to gays and lesbians. A straight person have the choice of becoming married and reap the benefits; homosexual couples do not.
    Yeah I think you can not discriminate against anyone wanting a marriage since it does come with benefits and I am one of those people that can not marry under current laws in my state. I just don't think there should be government involvement in marriage. People should not have to become married to get the benefits other citizens have. Marriage is a social or religious union so I don't see why the government is still involved in it.

  14. #1054
    Quote Originally Posted by Izzabella View Post
    Yeah I think you can not discriminate against anyone wanting a marriage since it does come with benefits and I am one of those people that can not marry under current laws in my state. I just don't think there should be government involvement in marriage. People should not have to become married to get the benefits other citizens have.
    That's not really a logical objection. I mean, by that logic, people shouldn't have to be poor in order to receive foodstamps? The fact is, the government provides benefits to specific groups in order to foster important public policy goals. Marriage isn't particularly special in that regard, except that bigotry have prevented the government from providing equal access to certain minorities.

    Besides, the benefits associated with marriage are family in nature. Stuff like transfer of property between spouses are very much an issue between, well, spouses. So is things like hospital visitation rights. Why shouldn't the government be the one to provide and ensure that?

    The goal shouldn't be to remove government from marriage altogether, regardless of whether it has benefits or not. The government is completely entitled to decide that couples are good for the nation and encourage them with financial benefits. It is also completely entitled to recognise that a marriage contract creates a special relationship between couples that deserve special rights and responsibilities.

    The important part is to ensure that all groups have equal access to this status.


    Marriage is a social or religious union so I don't see why the government is still involved in it.
    Marriage is a contract, it is not a religious union in any way. The government is involved because it is the government's responsibility to oversee contracts and manage our society.

  15. #1055
    Scarab Lord Satan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Medellín, Colombia
    Posts
    4,704
    It stills bothers me how powerful that paper is even today, but I like the result.
    pro-gun liberal

  16. #1056
    Field Marshal Ycarene's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sioux City, IA
    Posts
    95
    The 14th amendment does apply here, the equal protection clause basically says that in certain matters, the state can not set a preferrance as to the parties who can participate. Since DOMA does that by specifiying what genders are allowed to participate, it fails this test. DOMA also violates the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the constitution by allowing states to ignore the public records of other states, in regards to states that issue same-sex marriage certificates where they are not considered valid in states that do not allow the issuance of same-sex marriage certificates.

  17. #1057
    Quote Originally Posted by koudbiertje View Post
    I'm sorry, why is this yet again blown out of proportions? Hurray USA found out excluding same sex marriage is discrimination. Welcome to the rest of the world.
    Nice veiled attempt at nation bashing. But it fails, as only Western societies won't stone you to death, or at least arrest you, for merely being gay. And even in western society the right for homosexuals to marry has been around for what... 15 years or so at most? Something like that. (Sure someone out there in mmo-champ space knows.)

    edit

    Looked it up myself:

    In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.[77] Same-sex marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[78] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[79] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010) and Denmark (2012). In Mexico, same-sex marriage is recognized in all 31 states but only performed in Mexico City and in Quintana Roo State. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[80] Nine states in the United States, as well as the District of Columbia permit same sex marriage, beginning with Massachusetts in 2004 and Connecticut in 2008.[81] As of January 2013, approximately 291 million people (or 4.2% of the world population) live in areas that recognize and perform same-sex marriages.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage (Bolded for emphasis.)

    So anywho... you're not just wrong... but really really wrong. Keep on hatin tho' bro.
    Last edited by ovm33; 2012-12-01 at 02:33 PM.
    I sat alone in the dark one night, tuning in by remote.
    I found a preacher who spoke of the light, but there was Brimstone in his throat.
    He'd show me the way, according to him, in return for my personal check.
    I flipped my channel back to CNN and lit another cigarette.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •