How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

[DumbAss Tanker]

I love how you guys are all for small government, except when it's to deny people basic human rights or to shove your fairy tales...I mean religion...down people's throats.

Basic human right?  Religion?  EVERY society on Earth has regarded marriage as involving at least one man on one side, and at least one woman on the other side, since the concept of 'Marriage' has existed, regardless of whatever religion if any was in vogue at the time.  Until the last decade or so, when as vesta correctly (Shockingly, I admit) notes it became all about the Benjamins.  You, sir, are a victim of your own bullshit propaganda.

You can pass a law that any cat that thinks it is really a dog is a dog legally, but that doesn't make it factually true, just a stupid legalism and a symbol of the intellectual corruption of any system that would do that.    

[Wineslob]

I love how you guys are all for small government, except when it's to deny people basic human rights or to shove your fairy tales...I mean religion...down people's throats.

 Where is it said that gay marriage is a right? (sounds like a fairy tale, Oh, wait that's right, I can't say "fairy")

And here I was going to be nice. You assholes just CAN'T help but denigrate Christians.

[dutch508]

Really? Gay people asking for a simple right to marry each other is shoving their sexuality down your throat? Please, explain this logic of yours to me in greater detail, I am intrigued. Are you saying that if gay people are allowed to marry you will have no choice but to become gay yourself?

By marry, do you mean a licence from the Government which says, Oh, these two people are together legally?
Well, then, by all means get such a licence from Caeser. BUT- you mean force someone to say fairy tale language (your term) in their make believe house of "sky angel" to someone they don't want to? AND- force the government, who should stay out of religion (your view) to get hip deep into it? Wonder why we call you ****ing stupid?

How does one group of 'rights' trump another?

[Wineslob]

Really? Gay people asking for a simple right to marry each other is shoving their sexuality down your throat?

Folsom Street Fair.  Nuff said.

[No Limit]

Basic human right?  Religion?  EVERY society one Earth has regarded marriage as involving at least one man on one side, and at least one woman on the other side, since the concept of 'Marriage' has existed, regardless of whatever religion if any was in vogue at the time.  Until the last decade or so, when as vesta correctly (Shockingly, I admit) notes it became all about the Benjamins.  You, sir, are a victim of your own bullshit propaganda.

You can pass a law that any cat that thinks it is really a dog is a dog legally, but that doesn't make it factually true, just a stupid legalism and a symbol of the intellectual corruption of any system that would do that.     

How very nice of you to take on the liberty of defining marriage. Again, there goes that whole freedom thing you guys love so much. Sure, you love freedom, until a church decides to excercise that freedom by allowing gay marriage, then freedom is no longer okay.

I also have a feeling you have absolutely no sense of history when it comes to marriage, if you are worried about marriage and tradition why are none of you out and about fighting for arranaged marriages. Is that part of "traditional marriage" not convenient for you? How about going out there an fighting for making adultury by the women illegal which has been part of tradition throughout history? again, that part of history not convenient enough for you?

[No Limit]

By marry, do you mean a licence from the Government which says, Oh, these two people are together legally?
Well, then, by all means get such a licence from Caeser. BUT- you mean force someone to say fairy tale language (your term) in their make believe house of "sky angel" to someone they don't want to? AND- force the government, who should stay out of religion (your view) to get hip deep into it? Wonder why we call you ****ing stupid?

How does one group of 'rights' trump another?

How many people here are for civil unions? How many people here are okay with government giving gay people marriage licenses? Raise your hands

[dutch508]

How many people here are okay with government giving gay people marriage licenses? Raise your hands

[raises hand] Not only that, but I never saw why sexual preference would destroy the military. Sure, some issues at the start, but who you **** doesn't have much with combat effectiveness. No more that race does.

You may find the issue isn't with 'unions' per se, but with the seeminly jihadist push to force homosexual acceptance into places it is not, by tradition, accepted. AND, if I may add, selective outrage at this non acceptance. Christians are loathed, Muslims ignored. Republicans are called racists, homophobic murders, Obama...

well, you see my point, I am sure.

And will ignore it.

[No Limit]

So just to be clear, you are okay with government treating gay marraige EXACTLY the same as non-gay marriage, correct? You are simply not okay with government forcing churches that don't want to perform gay marriages to do so?

If that is your position I can't really argue with you, and you seem to agree with the graphic in the OP. But I wonder how many here actually share your view. You know the people here better than I do, what do you think?

[dutch508]

Which makes one happy and relieved that our President, when asked in a questionnaire fifteen years ago, while running for the Illinois State Senate, whether he was for gay marriage, checked the box marked “yes.” Which meant that he was both right and early on the issue.

Unfortunately, Obama readily reversed himself in subsequent campaigns, backtracking to the politically safer ground of favoring civil unions. His rationale, presumably, was that he was no longer trying to win over liberal Hyde Park; in 2004, he had to win the state of Illinois and, in 2008, the country.

The mystery is why Obama chose to make gay marriage the subject of the worst, least sincere, and most mealy-mouthed moment of his 2008 Presidential campaign. Obama, an intelligent man steeped in civil-rights history, was never so disappointing as when he sat with Pastor Rick Warren, at a televised appearance in front of twenty-eight hundred evangelicals, and won applause for his declaration “that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”


Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/06/obama-and-gay-marriage.html#ixzz1gWtezDDV


OOOooo... Obama is either a homophob, a lier, or just does whatever he can to gain more power...

Your call.

[No Limit]

There was a person once that said something like "intelligent people discuss issues, idiots discuss people". I know I am not quoting it word for word but that was the gist of it.

I asked you a very specific question about your position, just to verify I have your position correct since if I do I actually agree with you. You didn't answer my question, instead you went on to Obama.

If you think I am here to defend Obama you haven't bothered to check my site out and are making some rather premature assumptions. I have no interest in defending the guy. Gay rights is just one issue out of a whole handful he has reversed himself on once people like me fought to elect him. I will not be voting for him in 2012, so if you are looking for someone to defend the guy you will need to look elsewhere.

So if you could answer my question to you I would greatly appreciate it, I am interested in your position on this since you seem to be completely different on this issue from most here.

[DumbAss Tanker]

How very nice of you to take on the liberty of defining marriage. Again, there goes that whole freedom thing you guys love so much. Sure, you love freedom, until a church decides to excercise that freedom by allowing gay marriage, then freedom is no longer okay.

I also have a feeling you have absolutely no sense of history when it comes to marriage, if you are worried about marriage and tradition why are none of you out and about fighting for arranaged marriages. Is that part of "traditional marriage" not convenient for you? How about going out there an fighting for making adultury by the women illegal which has been part of tradition throughout history? again, that part of history not convenient enough for you?

You revel in your obtuseness, and putting words in the mouths of all you oppose, so discussion with you is essentially pointless since you lack any basic intellectual honesty. 

Is it I who am defining marriage, or you?  I speak only from all of human history prior to the last decade, which itself inductively defines the term, it is you who seeks to rewrite it.

Arranged marriage?  It is a feature of some traditions, not all, and so is not relevant to the essence of marriage.  Again, your logical shortcomings are on display, like a monkey's ass when he climbs a pole.

Relligion?  I have not invoked any such thing, you are creating a straw man, and an irrelevant one.  I am not in fact a religious person, which you have failed to note in the argument so far since it doesn't fit your preconceptions of Conservatives, a body which includes many Agnostics, Atheists, Theists, and non-Christian believers.

You lack the honesty to conduct a legitimate discussion, and are therefore not worth my time.   

[dutch508]

So just to be clear, you are okay with government treating gay marraige EXACTLY the same as non-gay marriage, correct? You are simply not okay with government forcing churches that don't want to perform gay marriages to do so?

If that is your position I can't really argue with you, and you seem to agree with the graphic in the OP. But I wonder how many here actually share your view. You know the people here better than I do, what do you think?

Well, just to be clear, if you want to buy a Bee licence from the government, for your pet bee, Eric, and there is a law for it, feel free. What do you mean by EXACTLY? I could assume that since the civil union law is written EXACTLY like the marrage law of the US Government...

Oh, wait. Is there a marrage law of the US Government?

§ 7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
How Current is This? In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Hmmm. puts a hold on 'marrying' your brother, fred, doesn't it.

As used in the United States, beginning with the state of Vermont in 2000, the term civil union has connoted a status equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples; domestic partnership, offered by some states, counties, cities, and employers since as early as 1985, has generally connoted a lesser status with fewer benefits.However, the legislatures of the West Coast states of California, Oregon and Washington have preferred the term domestic partnership for enactments similar or equivalent to civil union laws in East Coast states.

So, it's state laws that allow civil unions.

What's that law about things not given over to Federal law is the...what is it again?

[VelvetElvis]

So just to be clear, you are okay with government treating gay marriage EXACTLY the same as non-gay marriage, correct? You are simply not okay with government forcing churches that don't want to perform gay marriages to do so?

If that is your position I can't really argue with you, and you seem to agree with the graphic in the OP. But I wonder how many here actually share your view. You know the people here better than I do, what do you think?

Dutch petty much nailed it.
 
I have homosexual siblings and coworkers, and treat them no differently that anyone else.  Unlike the Folsom Street Freaks, they don't lead with "I'm Homosexual!!!" at every encounter and wave their genitals in my face, just as proclaiming "I'm Heterosexual" to someone I'm meeting for the first time and pantomiming sex with my wife would never occur to me.  I have no problems with civil unions and with extending the same rights of survivorship benefits and medical consent to homosexuals that are in deeply committed relationships.
 
Just don't ask me to condone that lifestyle, because that isn't going to happen.

[dutch508]

There was a person once that said something like "intelligent people discuss issues, idiots discuss people". I know I am not quoting it word for word but that was the gist of it.

I asked you a very specific question about your position, just to verify I have your position correct since if I do I actually agree with you. You didn't answer my question, instead you went on to Obama.

If you think I am here to defend Obama you haven't bothered to check my site out and are making some rather premature assumptions. I have no interest in defending the guy. Gay rights is just one issue out of a whole handful he has reversed himself on once people like me fought to elect him. I will not be voting for him in 2012, so if you are looking for someone to defend the guy you will need to look elsewhere.

So if you could answer my question to you I would greatly appreciate it, I am interested in your position on this since you seem to be completely different on this issue from most here.

Like I said, you ignore it.

[No Limit]

Why are you guys for government calling gay marriage one thing and "traditional" marriage another?

Why can't the government simply issue marriage licenses no matter what kind of marriage between 2 consenting adults it is?

[No Limit]

Like I said, you ignore it.

I didn't ignore anything. You responded with something about Obama before you finally answered my question. I only saw your Obama response when I made that post, your answer didn't come until later.

[wasp69]

Why are you guys for government calling gay marriage one thing and "traditional" marriage another?

Why can't the government simply issue marriage licenses no matter what kind of marriage between 2 consenting adults it is?

How about you muster up some actual law and case precedence as to this "basic human right" of homosexual marriage?

[No Limit]

How about you muster up some actual law and case precedence as to this "basic human right" of homosexual marriage?

Are you aware of the equal protection clause of the United States constitution?

[wasp69]

Are you aware of the equal protection clause of the United States constitution?

I repeat:  How about you muster up some actual law and case precedence as to this "basic human right" of homosexual marriage?

I am not interested in your obtuse musings, I want concrete evidence.

[No Limit]

What does the equal protection clause mean to you? Or will you not answer this question because the constitution in this case is too inconvenient for you?

If you want a federal court case pay close attention to Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which will eventually end up in the supreme court. A number of federal courts have already ruled on this case saying discrimination in the form California has done is unconstitutional. Which has also been the case with DOMA which should also end up in the supreme court.

[Wineslob]

You may as well give up Wasp, he's far too nuanced for us plebs.

[DumbAss Tanker]

You may as well give up Wasp, he's far too nuanced for us plebs.

Yeah.  He's writing from an alternate reality that has no relationship to the rule of law known in this one.  It's a waste of digits to even engage.   

[wasp69]

What does the equal protection clause mean to you? Or will you not answer this question because the constitution in this case is too inconvenient for you?

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Do you see what I just did?  I just quoted and posted a link to the Equal Protection Clause so there is no doubt in anyone's mind what it says and what it means.  

No where, and I mean no where, will you find the "basic human right" of homosexual "marriage" in the text of that.  What I want is actual law and case precedence, not my nor your interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

If you want a federal court case pay close attention to Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which will eventually end up in the supreme court. A number of federal courts have already ruled on this case saying discrimination in the form California has done is unconstitutional. Which has also been the case with DOMA which should also end up in the supreme court.

Interesting.  Looks like you are going to have a hard time finding actual law and case precedence, huh?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

How very nice of you to take on the liberty of defining marriage. Again, there goes that whole freedom thing you guys love so much. Sure, you love freedom, until a church decides to excercise that freedom by allowing gay marriage, then freedom is no longer okay.

Ever hear of "consent of the governed"? You should look into it because it is considered an integral part of freedom.

And marriage is not a right, it's legislated and varies from one government to the next, i.e. age of consent laws vary by state.

I would also note that the purpose of marriage isn't to be inclusive, just the opposite its intent is wholly exclusionary.

[No Limit]

What it does say is that no state can treat individuals any different, that means if a state gives marriage licenses out to straight people it must also do so to gay people. Unless you believe that gay people aren't protected by the constitution. Let me know if you disagree with this.

If you want to argue marriage isn't a basic human right that's fine, that is your opinion and has little to do with this discussion.