RE: Gay marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:01:11 PM)

quote:

That is what you are saying.
no it isn't, that is what you are reading because you cannot or will not see the obvious, despite my having said it over and over.

at any rate, i am done with discussing this with you, you're a revolving door. round and round is fun on the tilt-a-whirl, but not here. if you don't get it by now, you never will.

have a good night.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:04:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou

quote:

That is what you are saying.
no it isn't, that is what you are reading because you cannot or will not see the obvious, despite my having said it over and over.

at any rate, i am done with discussing this with you, you're a revolving door. round and round is fun on the tilt-a-whirl, but not here. if you don't get it by now, you never will.

have a good night.




Good, maybe now we can get around to discussing what to do to change things.



DivineDemise -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:05:54 PM)

This is about all I have to say on this matter. I feel as long as a person is 18 years old they can date, sleep with & marry whom they want as long as the other party is 18 as well. I feel sexual orientation nor race should be a matter of importance. Love is Love period.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:07:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I have often said that it will become law once the blue hairs die off.


Basically this.

I read a poll recently that showed it to be fact. I am sorry in that, I don't remember where it was....but it was the same questions asked at two different times.....several years ago (10ish I believe) and current.

Two questions really stuck out for me....one was about faith and the other about gay marriage. The number of people that identify with any one organized religioun dropped dramatically over those 10 years and the number of people that support gays having equal marriage rights rose dramatically. Given my kids, and their friends, mind sets......and the values they are teaching their kids.....I have no reason to believe otherwise. Being gay, hanging out with gay people, accepting that they are not that different and want the same things as hetros, is becoming less of an issue.

I am very proud that I come from a backwards (in many ways) morally strong, little state that had some judges that had the courage to stand up for the constitution and the rights of ALL people........not just a few uptight bigots that feel their way is the right way. I honestly believe in my lifetime that it will be the country, not just a few states.



I think one of those polls are listed here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States_public_opinion#Polls_in_2011

And you are right, public opinion is definitely turning. But, as we all know, it takes more than that to change politicians minds when those who line their pockets dont what those laws enacted.



Clickofheels -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:13:57 PM)

I am still having fits and giggles over :

"The church would never say an elderly couple or a naturally infertile couple should never marry because "WITH GOD ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE" "

LMAO Now THAT is one crazzzzzzzy post!



GotSteel -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:32:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
The reality is, until you put enough people into government who wants to give you your rights over wanting to be re-elected and have their wallets fattened, you are only butting your head against the wall.


You're talking about marriage as though it's something that's currently unattainable, where I'm standing it's something that's already happened.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:35:44 PM)

No, Im not. But no one has to accept a gay marriage until the governments tell them they do. The government has told them they do not. See the problem?



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:38:00 PM)

the constitution says they do. which has precedence, the constitution or the government? see the problem?



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:42:24 PM)

Im not so sure the Constitution mentions marriage at all. Can you show me where?



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:50:49 PM)

don't be deliberately obtuse. it's a 14th amendment issue.



Clickofheels -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 8:59:51 PM)

I understand what Tazzy is saying. I really do.
And I believe she keeps repeating it because she is hoping that at some point there will be a lull in the shouting and someone will listen. (sighs)

As for my statement that a gay person can legally appoint another gay person in a Living Will, and someone saying they shouldn't have to do that?
EVERYONE has to do that legally in order to give someone the rights within a Living Will. Makes no difference your sexual orientation, your relationship to the person, nothing. No one is picking on anyone else because they are gay.

I always have to chuckle, albeit sadly, how many people think they are soooooo "abused" by society in this country! They are abused not only because of their sexual orientation, but because of their ancestors, or their kids tongue ring, or the kind of car they drive, or because their "neighborhood society" says they have to paint their house sky-blue pink like everyone else's. We are a country of WHINERS!!! And if there isn't enough to whine about, people are picking things out of thin air to make SURE there's something new to whine about when they've exhausted something else. It's inevitable!

As far as I'm concerned, if same-sex marriage becomes legalized, there will just be something new gays will find to shout "abuse" about. Because the citizens of our country don't know how to live any differently.

Respectfully, in full body armor, and waving a white flag,
Ms Click



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:01:28 PM)

The Equal Protection Clause?



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:03:56 PM)

quote:

As for my statement that a gay person can legally appoint another gay person in a Living Will, and someone saying they shouldn't have to do that?
EVERYONE has to do that legally in order to give someone the rights within a Living Will. Makes no difference your sexual orientation, your relationship to the person, nothing. No one is picking on anyone else because they are gay.


But a wife or husband has legal standing and rights that a gay lover, or even a straight lover, does not.



Clickofheels -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:05:43 PM)

Not when it comes to a Living Will. sorry Taz



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:13:36 PM)

yes, seeing as i am saying that it is an issue of equality before the law, i would say that the equal protection clause is the applicable one, wouldn't you?



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:17:19 PM)

A living will usually provides specific directives about the course of treatment that is to be followed by health care providers and caregivers. In some cases a living will may forbid the use of various kinds of burdensome medical treatment. It may also be used to express wishes about the use or foregoing of food and water, if supplied via tubes or other medical devices. The living will is used only if the individual has become unable to give informed consent or refusal due to incapacity. A living will can be very specific or very general. An example of a statement sometimes found in a living will is: “If I suffer an incurable, irreversible illness, disease, or condition and my attending physician determines that my condition is terminal, I direct that life-sustaining measures that would serve only to prolong my dying be withheld or discontinued.”

More specific living wills may include information regarding an individual's desire for such services such as analgesia (pain relief), antibiotics, hydration, feeding, and the use of ventilators or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. However, studies have also shown that adults are more likely to complete these documents if they are written in everyday language and less focused on technical treatments.[

Most states have laws deciding who makes that decision, absent a living will. It is almost always a family member. In a few states, the Drs can decide among those who are available.

For example, in West Virginia the patient's physician or nurse chooses from among parents, spouses, adult children and siblings the one he believes would be the best decision-maker. Similarly, in Indiana, any of those can make health-care decisions. Spouses seeking the right to speak for an incapacitated mate should take the necessary legal action as far as state law allows.



Read more: Spouses' Rights in Making Healthcare Decisions Without Advance Directives | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8448477_spouses-healthcare-decisions-advance-directives.html#ixzz1jJQGlgMz

Lovers will always be at the bottom of the totem pole. So, yes, they will need one. Not so much spouses, though it is a good idea to make sure the patient's wishes are followed. There was an incident where a hospital turned away a civil union partner because they were on vacation when the woman had an aneurysm and the state doesnt recognize gay unions. That is something they could never do with a spouse.



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:17:43 PM)

quote:

As far as I'm concerned, if same-sex marriage becomes legalized, there will just be something new gays will find to shout "abuse" about. Because the citizens of our country don't know how to live any differently.
and as far as i am concerned, if gay marriage is outright banned with a constitutional amendment, then the crazies will just start in after some other right they want to strip away or limit for those they dislike. it isn't whining to insist on your rights, it is the most fundamental right of all. that is the founding principle of our country, remember the declaration of independence?



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:23:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou

yes, seeing as i am saying that it is an issue of equality before the law, i would say that the equal protection clause is the applicable one, wouldn't you?


The Supreme Court doesnt agree.

The Supreme Court has answered that the equal protection clause itself does not forbid policies which lead to racial disparities, but that Congress may by legislation prohibit such policies.

Defenders of the rule in Arlington Heights and Washington v. Davis argue that the equal protection clause was not designed to guarantee equal outcomes, but rather equal opportunities and that therefore one should not be concerned with trying to fix every racially disparate effect. One should worry only about intentional discrimination. Others point out that the courts are merely enforcing the equal protection clause, and that if the legislature wants to correct racially disparate effects, it may do so through further legislation


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause#Discriminatory_intent_and_disparate_impact.3F

But I do believe you are on the right track. It should not be just equal protection under the law.

The problem is that marriage is granted to everyone who wants one. The laws just say to who you can get married too.

As much as I hate that part, it is the law. Now, we just have to change that law. And it gets harder when you realize gay marriage is banned in some states' Constitutions.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:24:35 PM)

quote:

and as far as i am concerned, if gay marriage is outright banned with a constitutional amendment, then the crazies will just start in after some other right they want to strip away or limit for those they dislike. it isn't whining to insist on your rights, it is the most fundamental right of all. that is the founding principle of our country, remember the declaration of independence?


I completely agree, the religious right certainly will. But they also realize its much harder to take away a right than it is to deny one.



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:29:52 PM)

i'm afraid you're really reaching there. that quoted ruling reaffirms my position.
it says the 14th guarantees equal opportunities, and i have the opportunity to marry a man, yet a man doesn't. that is not equal.

and state constitutions that ban same sex marriage are also in contravention of the 14th, which specifically applies to state governments, it is only applicable to the federal level through interpretation of the due process clause of the 5th.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875