Gays have just as much of a right to marry

I admit that was a throw in off topic rant. But useful to know if someone plans on a long-term relationship.

I outlined in my post what would be a non-self-serving type message. Its the ones never used by Gay Rights Agenda.

 

Its not irrelevant. The answer you're looking for is right there.

When you realise why you dont accept the 998 other ways to get married, you will realise why some oppose gay marriage.

 

Several famous court cases that protected the fundamental right among blacks/whites, and criminals, disagree with you. The right to marry is protected as a fundamental right. Exactly what rights to grant to marriage is a different question, but marriage itself is protected... and protected regardless of the fact that the couple is capable, willing, or suitable to reproduce. It's not until gays ask for the right that suddenly children take center stage in the discussion.

 

Again, strawman. I do not oppose the other 998 ways.

Start your own thread.

 

So...you are saying that our govenment MUST institute marriage? That is ridiculous. We could end it in a heart-beat.

 

Most marriages are fact committed with the long term in mind. However, the longevity of the term is irrelevant. People are not required to be married for X time.

Lots and lots of heterosexual couples get married and get divorced.

They are advocating for equal rights. I do not see how less "self-serving" they need to be.

 

No, but I'm saying that if the government wishes to get involved and grant special rights for it, it must do so carefully without inhibiting the established fundamental right. Kinda like the freedom to speech - The government doesn't have to specifically create conditions for speaking, but if they are going to be creating rules and regulations about when and how you can do things like protest, then they must do so very carefully and reasonably to not create undue restrictions on speech.

 

The only time I saw a dedicated polygamy thread it lasted about six posts and then disappeared into the wind.

 

Probably why he feels the need to spam my thread with fallacies.

 

Thanks for making our argument for us. It is the nature of law to discriminate. That said, it cannot do so without a rational basis, nor can it discriminate against a class of people for a suspect purpose. People who are similarly situated with regard to the law in question deserve its equal protection. Generally speaking, same-sex couples are similarly situated to opposite-sex couples regarding marriage. There is no rational basis for excluding the former while privileging the latter. Bans against marriage between the sexes create a class of people - those who marry persons of the same sex - and discriminate against them for a suspect purpose: expressing disapproval of gay people.

Now, because you recognize that not all behaviors have to be treated equally, you will no doubt understand that contrary to your prior statement, government has no obligation to recognize other couplings asserted to be marriages merely because we expand the law to include same-sex couples. The obligation only exists where there is no rational basis for exclusion. It does not exist when there is a relevant difference in situation.

 

Careful, your bias is showing.

Equivocation.

I seriously doubt it. Opponents are full of "helpful advice" (among other things), when in reality they would be no more likely to support our cause if we followed their "advice".

More of the same.

That's a load of crap.

You'd see it no matter what tactics we used or what arguments we offered. Such is the nature of such obvious prejudice.

 

Perri's second law: It's impossible to have a discussion about same-sex couples marrying without someone trotting out the tired red-herrings of polygamy and incest.

 

Isn't it legal for two gays of the same sex to marry in certain states? Doesn't that make this whole issue seem kinda childish to casual observers?

"Wah! Gays can't get married!"

"Yes they can. But they might have to move to another state where it's legal."

"Wahhhh, don't wanna move. Want to get married HERE!!!"

Geesh, get a grip... the world doesn't revolve around your sexual preferences.

 

Are talking about ending government recognition of marriage, or the right of people to live in marital relationships, period?

I am inclined to argue that the latter is right. Government recognition of a marriage is not a right, HOWEVER: So long as the government does provide civil recognition of marital unions, there are rights that attach to accessing this civil institution.

 

Moving is a big deal. My partner and I are nearing retirement age - we can't exactly switch jobs to move across country. Plus, it would mean abandoning our elderly parents to the care of disinterested siblings.

Framing our very real, valid concerns as whining simply reveals that your aim isn't a fair debate of the issues, but to be insulting and to stir up hate. It would seem you also support a second class status, wherein some people have to move, while others don't. I consider that un-American.

Easy for a casual observer to shoot their mouth off in ignorance, creating a burden for others that they would never tolerate for themselves.

 

I have a 54/yo gay step-brother who's in the final stages of AIDS. Don't tell me about trivial... gay marriage is trivial. IMO, you should be more concerned about stopping the spread of AIDS in the gay community, not dressing up and playing bride & bride.

 

Equal treatment, or equal treatment under the law, or equal treatment in the eyes of the Lord, or equal treatment etc.

Under the law, you can provide equal treatment, meaning that all covered under the law are treated equally by the law.

You cannot provide just equal treatment to people due to many variabilities. People and circumstances are not equal.

The law is such that you still provide equal treatment under the law for the contract of marriage since it only pertains to male/female marriages in most states. Since same sex marriage is not part of the law, it does not apply.

Now to your original point. The statement is not logical so it is folly to consider it.

Oh, and marriage is forever, at least as the contract is concerned. If you divorce, the contract stays in effect with the State but has been modified.

 

Why, under the law, should peaceful behaviors receive unequal treatment? Should someone who prefers to earn money versus do volunteer charity work receive preferential or lesser treatment because of the moral judgment of legislators and judges?

If government is to serve the people (which I will concede it no longer does, if it ever did), then it is only just if it serves people equally rather than treating some as more worthy than others. If there is a system which allows two consenting adults to engage in an association by which they gain benefits from the state, then there is no good reason why that association should be restricted in any way other than to consenting adults.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate
The countries in the world that have the lowest occurrences of AIDS are generally in the middle easy. Of course, their solution is often the death penalty, usually a good way to A: reduce the living cases, B: make gays think twice about getting diagnosed. Both good ways to deflate the statistic.

After the middle east, some of the lowest aids raids occur in places like Sweden, UK, Holland and Denmark... all places that have high tolerance for an social integration with homosexuality and their unions.

And then you have places like the USA... not the worst in the world by any stretch of the imagination, but substantially worse than European counterparts.

The spread of aids is a cultural problem, and encouraging social structures and tolerance are part of the solutions - if not the only solution. Encouraging greater visibility, integration with society and their norms, and monogamy are all parts of the solution to the problem.

Address the cultural problem of social stigma, and you help address the problem where gays are less willing and able to establish long-term monogamous relationships, you reduce their illegal drug use and risky sex behaviors, all direct causes of the AIDS epidemic.

 

Perri's Law: Any discussion of gay issues will inevitably find the opposition bringing up STDS like HIV/AIDS.

Marriage is not trivial. The assumption that I'm unconcerned about the spread of HIV/AIDS is both insulting and false.

Marriage is not some game to me. Again, you reveal your incredible bias. Having a gay step-brother doesn't win you a free pass.

 

All Sexual attraction and sexual behaviors are not equal and shouldn't be legislated as such. If yours is a "right" they all are. You think yours is special. Fine--sell it.

Sell it as a benefit to society---try that for a change.

 

So in your opinion, there is nothing wrong with Congress writing a law that creates a class of people for a suspect purpose?

 

Nonsense. Rights are not absolute. It's not an all or nothing situation; this is not how the law works.

If rights are not involved as you've argued, then the government could restrict the recognition of marriage to white Christians only. You don't see a problem with that?

Arrogance. You are not a mindreader, and are in no position to tell me what I think.

 

There is everything wrong with Congress writing a law for State issues. Marriage is a State issue, always has been.

 

What makes you think he was talking about the Federal congress? Regardless, State Congress or Federal Congress are both subject to the equal protection clause in the Federal Constitution.