RE: Gay marriage (Full Version)

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



Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:33:55 PM)

quote:

it says the 14th guarantees equal opportunities,


The opportunity you seek is to marry. You have that opportunity. The law specifies it must be with a man if you are a woman. And thats the part you must advocate to change. But, in the meantime, while you are pushing for that change, you need to push for all the other legal changes to strengthen your case that, eventually, what you seek is the same as what they granted, and that it IS a marruage and must be recognized as one.



Clickofheels -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:42:52 PM)

Tazzy? I would have sent you a personal comment about the Living Will topic, but apparently I can't.

So it will just have to pass without my saying more. (sighs)



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:47:08 PM)

Sure you can... just click the PM button beneath my picture on the side <-----------.



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:52:08 PM)

i disagree. i think we need to simply stand on principle and demand that the government follow the constitution. i've explained why, i am not getting back into that again.

and you overlooked my main point, again. selective quoting is cute, but generally implies a lack of validity in the argument being so supported. what i said was: 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.

furthermore, the quote from the case you cited also says that " One should worry only about intentional discrimination." by telling me that a man can marry a woman because he is a man, but i cannot marry a woman because i am a woman, they are intentionally discriminating on the basis of sex. if i cannot marry a woman, then neither can a man, anything else is a violation of the 14th and therefore unconstitutional.





tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:53:59 PM)

quote:

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.


The Constitution guarantees you the opportunity. It does not guarantee you the outcome.

quote:

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.


And that is where they prevent gay marriages.. for the moment.

quote:

if i cannot marry a woman, then neither can a man, anything else is a violation of the 14th and therefore unconstitutional.


A sound argument... but one they quickly shoot down by applying what I said above it.

Im not saying you dont have the right. I am pointing out the reality and the hows and whys behind why you dont have the right at this moment.



Clickofheels -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 9:59:35 PM)

No Miserlou...it's not whining to declare your constitutional rights. But SURELY there comes a point to where they cannot be used as an excuse every time someone cries wolf!
Why should I be given a parking ticket? Why shouldn't I be able to park wherever I choose because I have equal rights?
Why should there be speed limits? Don't those infringe on my rights to drive as I see fit?
And what about stop signs and stop lights? Who should have the right to decide which corners I have to stop at and how long I have to wait for the light to turn green?

If you want to give people equal rights...then do away with the laws. What purpose could they possibly serve? If everyone is equal under the law, then I should be able to perform brain surgery the same as a doctor, I should be able to fire a gun just like a policeman, and on and on and on. Every single law in this country will not be fully accepted by every single citizen that lives here. It is impossible. The laws are made for the masses. The traffic lights will not be made any less shorter for a person who is blonde as opposed to one with black hair. There are reasons why it is illegal to open your front door, walk across the street, and shoot your neighbor at close-range because you hate his yapping dog.

Respectfully posted,
Ms Click



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:00:37 PM)

does the law grant you the opportunity to marry a man? yes it does.

does the law grant a man the opportunity to marry a man? no it doesn't.

there is no equality of opportunity, therefore the law has violated the 14th. and it is an intentional discrimination on the basis of sex, which has been very clearly ruled as unconstitutional.

where things are muddied is that it is all tied up with gay rights, and sexual orientation is not a suspect class, but gender is, and my rights (and everybody else's) are being limited on the basis of my gender. it isn't that a lesbian should have the right to marry her female partner, it is that any woman has the right to marry a woman, regardless of their sexual orientation. we have that right because men do. equally any man has the right to marry a man because women do.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:03:38 PM)

And as long as those who expose religious virtues and the reason behind their purse strings, you are stuck with what you have, at this moment.

Yes, it shouldnt be this way...

you are right, you should be allowed to marry anyone you want.

Is that the reality?

No. So, how do you change it? So far, demanding hasnt gotten you much.



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:04:15 PM)

quote:

Why shouldn't I be able to park wherever I choose because I have equal rights?
who has the right to park where you don't on public streets? who has that right that you don't?
a doctor has no right to perform brain surgery. a policeman has no right to fire a gun in any way that you don't.
keep it within reality or there's no point even entertaining your argument.



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:09:15 PM)

quote:

So far, demanding hasnt gotten you much.
really? ask the married same sex couples in new york or vermont, etc. i'm sure they would disagree with you.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:11:10 PM)

And yet can they move to every state in the US and have their marriage recognized? If they vacation in a state that doesn recognize their union, the one not injured doesnt have the "right" to stay. And the federal government refuses to recognize their unions.

How much did you gain?



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:21:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou

if you don't want to be spoken to like a child, then don't advance childish arguments.
quote:

However, I am quite curious as to why, considering you were married to a man, you are so angry about homosexuals right to marry?
because it is their right under the constitution.



I think everyone has been quite patient so far. Please dont resort to attacks or name calling. Her argument was not childish. Nor are you forced to respond. But the mods are heavy into cleaning up the Political boards.

Just a heads up.



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:22:52 PM)

quote:

How much did you gain?
i'm sure they would say an awful lot. and it is through demanding their rights that they got them. even civil unions only came about through people demanding their rights. they are a half measure designed to shut gays up, and are not good enough. the only way to move the government is by demanding what is our birthright, why should a gay person be satisfied with a half-measure? why should they accept blatant, and blatantly illegal, discrimination from any level of government?



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:23:56 PM)

quote:

Her argument was not childish.
yes it was.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:24:51 PM)

And calling her post "childish" is an attack.



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:32:38 PM)

no its not. i didn't say anything about her, only her argument. and in any case its not germane to the discussion.



seababy -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:35:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And yet can they move to every state in the US and have their marriage recognized? If they vacation in a state that doesn recognize their union, the one not injured doesnt have the "right" to stay. And the federal government refuses to recognize their unions.

How much did you gain?


Surely something was gained Taz?  The history of any civil rights movement I can think of has had to struggle and fight for each new right won. It has to start somewhere and politicians need to see that the tide of public opinion is changing on this issue.

I haven't read the thread yet, going back now.

Cheers

Sea



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:37:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: seababy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And yet can they move to every state in the US and have their marriage recognized? If they vacation in a state that doesn recognize their union, the one not injured doesnt have the "right" to stay. And the federal government refuses to recognize their unions.

How much did you gain?


Surely something was gained Taz?  The history of any civil rights movement I can think of has had to struggle and fight for each new right won. It has to start somewhere and politicians need to see that the tide of public opinion is changing on this issue.

I haven't read the thread yet, going back now.

Cheers

Sea



I didnt say nothing was gained. I did say not much was gained. And, yes, it does have to start somewhere. And it shoudlnt stop until it ends with marriage being between two people... and maybe even more eventually. Which brings its own set of legal complications... lol

I was more arguing against the idea that the bone should be tossed back and, instead, demanding the whole steak. A few states recognizing it IS a bone. One many grabbed at, as they should, on the path to the end result.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:39:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou
because it is their right under the constitution.


I just want to be clear, here. You do realize that this statement, the way it's constructed is not correct. Right? Your 14th amendment argument is spot-on but, the constitution does not specifically name marriage as a right. I think 14th amendment, 10th amendment, and full faith and credit clause (Art. 4 Sec.1) all apply.

Taking the 10th into consideration allows the states to decide how marriage is "defined" and legislated. If the states pass at that "right", then it falls to the people. However, the states and the fed commandeered that right, long ago when they started treating married people differently than single people for purposes of taxation.

I have long held that marriage should have always remained a religious ritual and allowing government any entrée into it was a mistake.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:41:46 PM)

quote:

A few states recognizing it IS a bone.
yet a substandard lesser civil union isn't? i would love to read what convoluted logic you use to justify that argument. last i heard marriage was a state issue, so a few states recognizing it is not a bone, it is the correct procedure. i believe you used the phrase working within the system, that would be what applies here, would it not?



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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