Gay marriage debate

#76
#76
I don't understand the freedom idealists sometimes. Freedom to discriminate? What if I decide I'm going to fire all mormons from by place of business? Or even deny them some benefits others' receive? Is this ok?
 
#77
#77
utvolpj said:
and what is their reason for disqualification? Because some book says it's wrong? Absolutely insane to deny people the same rights and access because of that.
Click to expand...
IT IS NOT A RIGHT TO GET A LICENSE.

In a free and democratic society... it is NOT your prerogative to judge someone else's motives on something like this. It IS your right, prerogative, and maybe even duty if you are right to convince others to change their minds.

That "some book" is important to many people. To others, they could take a very pragmatic approach and recognize the health problems associated with homosexuality and especially amongst men. You could look at the instability and transient nature of the majority of homosexual relationships and ask if the cost of the potential divorces is worth granting the license when the rights being asked for can be much more concrete if done by private contracts similar to prenuptials.
It's discrimination plain and simple
Click to expand...
Yes. It is. But we discriminate all the time with regard to licenses. If you think it is unjust then convince people with your reasoning.

and your state arguments fall apart when the feds do the same[/QUOTE]
 
#78
#78
KiffinKiller said:
I don't understand the freedom idealists sometimes. Freedom to discriminate? What if I decide I'm going to fire all mormons from by place of business? Or even deny them some benefits others' receive? Is this ok?
Click to expand...

can you also decide who your customers are or should they be assigned to you also? There are businesses doing exactly what you listed and they are doing just fine. Doesn't mean I have to associate with them though
 
#79
#79
sjt18 said:
IT IS NOT A RIGHT TO GET A LICENSE.

In a free and democratic society... it is NOT your prerogative to judge someone else's motives on something like this. It IS your right, prerogative, and maybe even duty if you are right to convince others to change their minds.

That "some book" is important to many people. To others, they could take a very pragmatic approach and recognize the health problems associated with homosexuality and especially amongst men. You could look at the instability and transient nature of the majority of homosexual relationships and ask if the cost of the potential divorces is worth granting the license when the rights being asked for can be much more concrete if done by private contracts similar to prenuptials.
Click to expand...

divorce? What's the current rate of that in the US again? Seems like heteros are real pros at that huh

also do you think your book should be used to pass more laws? After all, there's plenty of good stuff in there that I'm sure at least someone agrees with

your support of govt sponsored discrimination is disturbing
 
#80
#80
KiffinKiller said:
I don't understand the freedom idealists sometimes. Freedom to discriminate? What if I decide I'm going to fire all mormons from by place of business? Or even deny them some benefits others' receive? Is this ok?
Click to expand...

Yes. It is your property... you have a right to be as stupid as you want on it. It is "OK" for the very same reasons that Texas Rangers should not be busting down the doors of homosexuals to arrest them for sodomy. Their property. They can do what they like on it as long as it harms no one else.

My personal opinion is that the 64 Civil Rights Act was correct with regard to race or origins. I am with Colin Powell that race is benign and should not "legally" be useful for discriminating. However religion is not necessarily benign. Should you have to hire someone associated with Westboro Baptist? I don't think so.

Someone acting within their rights and freedoms should be able to discriminate based on behavior even if every other American thinks their choice is stupid, wrong, or even immoral.
 
#82
#82
utvolpj said:
divorce? What's the current rate of that in the US again? Seems like heteros are real pros at that huh
Click to expand...
So you make it worse by adding a group where something less than 10% report being truly monogomous for at least a year?

also do you think your book should be used to pass more laws? After all, there's plenty of good stuff in there that I'm sure at least someone agrees with
Click to expand...

My "book" is as good as yours in that regard. However, I am not proposing my "Book" be used to govern anything but my life. I am proposing that your "book" should not interfere with that. Not once have "I" said here that homosexuals should not be granted a marriage license because of my "Book". I have said it is the right of the people of various states to legislate license qualifications based on whatever they choose to guide them.

I have said before and will repeat. If this is truly a matter of "rights" then gov't needs to get completely out of the marriage business. Any benefits of inheritance, guardianship, children, etc can be handled with standardized private contracts customized by the people entering into them.

We are headed for a situation where Congress will get involved (ie DOMA or the converse), someone's ox will be gored, and everyone's rights will become weakened. We either let the states alone and trust the democratic process to work or get gov't completely out of marriage.
 
#85
#85
sjt18 said:
So you make it worse by adding a group where something less than 10% report being truly monogomous for at least a year?
Click to expand...

what are the numbers for married homosexuals?

sjt18 said:
I have said it is the right of the people of various states to legislate license qualifications based on whatever they choose to guide them.
Click to expand...

whatever qualification- Constitution be damned?

sjt18 said:
I have said before and will repeat. If this is truly a matter of "rights" then gov't needs to get completely out of the marriage business. Any benefits of inheritance, guardianship, children, etc can be handled with standardized private contracts customized by the people entering into them.
Click to expand...

all for it
sjt18 said:
and everyone's rights will become weakened
Click to expand...

and that's where we disagree. Everyone having the same rights actually makes us stronger
 
#87
#87
KiffinKiller said:
I'm not agreeing with you - just admitting I have the answer.
Click to expand...

Have not seen it.

The answer is NOT... everyone else sit down, shut up, and take it because you think that's the way it should be.

I do not like majority rule... but on issues like this it is probably the best we can do. I greatly prefer taking any power away from gov't that allows or demands they take sides and choose winners.
 
#88
#88
utvolpj said:
whatever qualification- Constitution be damned?
Click to expand...
Where does the USC say marriage or any other license is a right? Show where the USC says that anyone and particularly homosexuals must be accommodated in a state's license laws.
and that's where we disagree. Everyone having the same rights actually makes us stronger
Click to expand...

I agree with you often and like you as a poster but you are just wrong here. The term "right" has a definition. That definition is not fluid with regard to the USC. The ONLY definition that matters is the one used by those who wrote the USC to guarantee rights. Rights are NOT something the gov't grants much less issues a license for.

Homosexuals have the same rights. They do not have the same privileges under most states' marriage license laws. They can apply for a license. They have that right... however they do NOT have the "right" to overrule the voters of a state with regard to the qualifications.

Question for you. Under such a law, could two heterosexual men marry one another for the benefits? If they did... could they have wives that they actually lived with who drew gov't benefits for being a single mom?

Another question for you. Incest laws were designed primarily because of the risk to the children. Since homosexual relationships cannot naturally produce children... what would legally prevent two brothers marrying? What basis would you offer for denying them?
 
#89
#89
KiffinKiller said:
The right to discriminate...sigh.
Click to expand...

You discriminate. You have done it here. You have done it within the last few posts. But you feel justified in discriminating against those who disagree with you... but howl when others do the same.
 
#90
#90
sjt18 said:
Where does the USC say marriage or any other license is a right? Show where the USC says that anyone and particularly homosexuals must be accommodated in a state's license laws.
Click to expand...

never said that. Your claim was not specific and said

I have said it is the right of the people of various states to legislate license qualifications based on whatever they choose to guide them.
Click to expand...
does that not go against the USC? You are basically giving the govt a black check as long as the voters agree which is nuts

and I'm really not going to address the slippery slope any more
 
#91
#91
sjt18 said:
You discriminate. You have done it here. You have done it within the last few posts. But you feel justified in discriminating against those who disagree with you... but howl when others do the same.
Click to expand...

.
 
Last edited:
#92
#92
sjt18 said:
You discriminate. You have done it here. You have done it within the last few posts. But you feel justified in discriminating against those who disagree with you... but howl when others do the same.
Click to expand...

When do I "howl"? I've been reading your arguments and understand your viewpoint. I just think it's hilarious that we as a society - feel that "our right to discriminate" is being trampled.

Any feigned outrage on my part was accidental and I apologize. I am merely commenting on the state of our society.
 
Last edited:
#93
#93
I think churches should recognize marriages, not governments. Civil unions for errbody yo!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#94
#94
utvolpj said:
does that not go against the USC?
Click to expand...
How?

If they were denying a minority a right then it would be. However a license STILL is not a right. ALL licenses have qualifications. ALL of those qualifications are determined by the states on the authority of the voters.

Notice that I have not said that you could not change those qualifications democratically.
You are basically giving the govt a black check as long as the voters agree which is nuts
Click to expand...
No. Not in the least... although that would be the reverse image of what the left does as a matter of course on almost every issue.

If the USC guarantees a right then no one including 99.9999% of the voting populace have a "right" to pass any law that subverts it. That was my point to KK. People have an absolute right to be one voice of dissent out of 300 million. It may not be a survivable position... but it is their right.

But there is no constitutional guarantee of state endorsement of your romantic relationship. The ONLY legit interest the state has in marriage IMO is to protect women and children. ALL of the things homosexuals are being denied when it comes to estates, guardianship, etc can be dealt with via personal contract.

The real issue here seems to be a state endorsement that will enable homosexuals to impose their pov on those who disagree.

and I'm really not going to address the slippery slope any more
Click to expand...

I am not proposing a slippery slope. Why are you running from your reasoning? You have said it is the RIGHT of homosexuals to marry but have not stated a basis other than your opinion. You scoff at the notion of God... yet you want to play god here and arbitrarily decide who has rights and who doesn't.

You have a right to your opinion and even to use your free speech rights to convince your state to extend marriage to homosexuals. But if you are going to say it is a "right" then you must explain any exclusion much better than you have. If a homosexual cannot be denied a marriage license based on his choice then what gives us the moral authority to deny that "right" to some other lifestyle?

You have to avoid this because you know your position is inherently inconsistent with itself. The inconsistency is predestined the moment you assert a right where there is none.
 
#96
#96
bamacheats said:
I think churches should recognize marriages, not governments. Civil unions for errbody yo!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No to civil unions.

Something akin to a prenup that the legislature has absolutely nothing to do with is the answer if we go that route.
 
#97
#97
KiffinKiller said:
Won't happen. It would be taking the government recognized term 'marriage' away from those that have it.
Click to expand...

Oh well. Most will give the title back in a divorce anyway if it got grandfathered. I think its a bunch of idiotic semantics myself.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#98
#98
KiffinKiller said:
Won't happen. It would be taking the government recognized term 'marriage' away from those that have it.
Click to expand...

I probably agree that there would be a lot of resistance... it does look like the best answer respecting everyone's rights. Homosexuals btw would oppose it as much as heterosexuals. It would not provide a basis for them to foist their views on others.
 
#99
#99
sjt18 said:
How?

If they were denying a minority a right then it would be. However a license STILL is not a right. ALL licenses have qualifications. ALL of those qualifications are determined by the states on the authority of the voters.

Notice that I have not said that you could not change those qualifications democratically. No. Not in the least... although that would be the reverse image of what the left does as a matter of course on almost every issue.
Click to expand...

are you for or against being able to deny interracial marriages if the voters approve?


sjt18 said:
The real issue here seems to be a state endorsement that will enable homosexuals to impose their pov on those who disagree.
Click to expand...

just like you are doing now

sjt18 said:
I am not proposing a slippery slope. Why are you running from your reasoning? You have said it is the RIGHT of homosexuals to marry but have not stated a basis other than your opinion. You scoff at the notion of God... yet you want to play god here and arbitrarily decide who has rights and who doesn't.
Click to expand...

I have run from nothing while you hide behind scripture to discriminate. The irony of your last sentence is amazing. Everyone should have the same rights yet you are against that idea. Please stop claiming to be pro-freedom when it's clear you view others as inferior and lacking the same opportunities you enjoy.

sjt18 said:
You have a right to your opinion and even to use your free speech rights to convince your state to extend marriage to homosexuals. But if you are going to say it is a "right" then you must explain any exclusion much better than you have. If a homosexual cannot be denied a marriage license based on his choice then what gives us the moral authority to deny that "right" to some other lifestyle?

You have to avoid this because you know your position is inherently inconsistent with itself. The inconsistency is predestined the moment you assert a right where there is none.
Click to expand...

again with the voting and the slippery slope argument. Peter Venkman pops in my head every time I read that from the anti- gay marriage people

nothing is inconsistent. I am for everyone having equal access and you are not. It's really quite simple
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top