How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

[Skul]

Just to throw a little gas on the fire.
I disagree with Dandi.
Homos do not have the right to marry.
Marriage for centuries has been the union beween male and female.
I see it as a religious ceremony, recognized by the laws of man.
I believe homos should have the right to a civil union, to suffer or benefit as the the law dictates.
I don't particularly agree with it, but, i can accept it.
It also appears the homos wish to co-opt a widely held discriptive term, and apply it towards themselves.  
Does the word "gay", come to mind?
As Bondai correctly stated, marriage is not a right.
Liberals as a whole, have for decades, tried to redefine the words of the Constitution, to fit their own agenda.
The most common practice is demanding that conservatives,  compromise.
Sorry, homos.  You can have a civil ceremony, just not a marriage.

[FreeBorn]

I am not very smart...perhaps some smart nancy boy could tell me exactly what constitutional rights gays are being denied.Just as a hint to get you started. "Marriage is not a right"....carry on.

^5 

[LC EFA]

Just myself - I really don't give a rats ass about the gays getting married, under the provision that they cannot force any private entity (for example a church) to perform or endorse the service, and so long as you don't attempt to force me (as a private citizen)  to approve of it or view it with anything other than disgust.

As has been stated in this thread before - It has nothing to do with "love" or "sex" - it's all about the benefits, which as I understand it a power of attorney would achieve equally as effectively.

I do however recognise it as the edge of a slippery slope towards polygamy and polyandry (All ten of us are consenting adults and legally responsible to make our decisions - so why can't we do what those two can - same logic).

It does amuse me somewhat that people who give the impression of being dogmatic atheists would support something so contrary to the evolutionary theory.

Personally I think there are far more important things to be concerned about than gays getting hitched.

[FlaGator]

I am still waiting for someone to show me a right that homosexuals don't have.

[Vagabond]

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.

If a state issues a marriage liscense between one man and one woman, then equal protection would tend to indicate that it must issue to another man and woman should they ask for it.  It does not logically follow that because the state issues a marriage liscense to one man and woman that it must then issue a liscense to any and all combinations of people who ask for one.

Gay people are protected by the constitution.  However the constitution does not extend them any special rights or protections not granted to anyone else.

You assert equal protection to demand special and unusual protections and rights.

[Wineslob]

Just to throw a little gas on the fire.
I disagree with Dandi.
Homos do not have the right to marry.
Marriage for centuries has been the union beween male and female.
I see it as a religious ceremony, recognized by the laws of man.
I believe homos should have the right to a civil union, to suffer or benefit as the the law dictates.
I don't particularly agree with it, but, i can accept it.
It also appears the homos wish to co-opt a widely held discriptive term, and apply it towards themselves.  
Does the word "gay", come to mind?
As Bondai correctly stated, marriage is not a right.
Liberals as a whole, have for decades, tried to redefine the words of the Constitution, to fit their own agenda.
The most common practice is demanding that conservatives,  compromise.
Sorry, homos.  You can have a civil ceremony, just not a marriage.

Don't give it any ideas about a "living document".

[wasp69]

what will you say when the appeals court stands by the prop 8 decision?

Oh, I don't know, probably the same thing I've said every other time a special interest minority decides to overrun the will of the electorate of the State of California. 

Considering that "marriage" is not a "basic human right" that is Federally and Constitutionally protected, not even by the 14th Amendment, I don't think I'll be the one whining about this when it's all said and done.

For DOMA, since you are too lazy to look it up:

Me, lazy?

I just didn't feel like looking up the name for the DOMA case, I figured you could do that yourself.

Uh, yeah.....

 

Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management
Windsor v. United States

Marriage, not a "basic human right", see above, lather, rinse, repeat.

[wasp69]

I'm so used to these dolts saying things online they wouldn't dare say to my face I don't even notice anymore.

.

Meh, I knew how this one was going to turn out, it never changes.

[wasp69]

Certainly you're not suggesting driving takes legal precedent over voting, owning a gun, protesting or the practice of religion.

Is that really all you have left?

Hell, it didn't have much before that.  As soon as its liberal ideology made first contact with reality (no actual law and case precedence showing homosexual marriage as a "basic human right") and crumbled, it went to flailing and hurling. 

How many times have all of us seen that?

Of course, No Limit could go back to his site and encourage his posters to come on over and collect their own personal forum beatdowns in an attempt to speak troof to powa or whatever the Hell they call it... 

[JohnnyReb]

How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot ...Can't be done. I offer NO Limit as a prime example.

[FlaGator]

How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot ...Can't be done. I offer NO Limit as a prime example.

This seems like more of a case of an idiot explaining gay rights...

[USA4ME]

Your argument that its not constitutional because it hasn't been practiced yet is absolutely absurd. Does that mean slavery was constitutional because it was around for 80+ years before it was banned? Was seperate but equal constitutional because that was around for close to 200 years before it was finally changed?

Slavery was Constitutional until the Constitution was amended.  Separate but equal has never changed, just the viewpoints of those who misapply the intent.

This is too easy.

If it's Constitutional, then why hasn't it been practiced since the US Constitution was ratified?

They never answer this.

If the equal protection clause gives homosexuals the right to marry, then it was that way from the time it was written.  So if one could turn back the clock to 1830, if the same arguments were to be made then concerning homosexual marriage are the ones being made today, would homosexual marriage have become law in 1830?  No Limit and all the other libs have to answer that question.  Because the Constitution hasn't changed, only the way it's viewed by some.

If homosexual marriage would not have been declared legal in 1830 based upon the same arguments being made today (and I highly doubt it would have been), then it should not be made law today.  The only argument they have is that we are a more "enlightened" society and therefore what is acceptable now was not acceptable then.  But that's an emotional argument, not one based upon what the law states.

If the US Constitution is a living, breathing document of which its meaning can be intrepreted based upon the current societial trends, then it is a worthless document.

.

[miskie]

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?

Here is my logic on this issue - I don't know if its been repeated downthread but here goes.

Marriage is a condition defined by religion, that the state recognizes and permits, as freedom of religion demands.

Civil Marriage is a condition permitted by the state, that in many ways mimics religious marriage - the state decides what may be considered a Civil Marriage.

Civil Union is a condition permitted by the state, that in many ways mimics civil marriage - the state decides what may constitute a Civil Union.

All states permit marriage - as freedom of religion dictates. The states themselves determine laws based on civil marriage and civil union, and what may or may not be permitted.

The first, marriage - is permitted nationally, as it falls under Freedom of Religion, and it is in The Constitution.
The second two, fall under States Rights, and are determined by the state in which the union and/or civil marriage is performed.

Now to answer the question..
- If you are gay, and wish to form a civil union with your partner within a state that permits it, that is your right.
- If you are straight, and wish to marry your partner in a church ceremony as is permitted federally, that is your right.

HOWEVER ::::
Thats not what the gay community wants, is it ?
What it wants is something that is not permitted via The Constitution, so what it should do is work toward an amendment.

Instead, what it has been doing is attempting to graft onto 'all men are created equal' which instead will work to REMOVE federally recognized religious marriage from The Constitution. Because, there are only two courses of action ;

A ) Amendment permitting marriage of anyone to anyone. (Hard to do)
B ) Remove language that recognizes Religious Marriage federally. (Much easier to do)

--Now, lets move onto the slams at religion...

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.

Firstly - Regardless of one's beliefs, the United States is based on laws that derive from codes that dictate good and moral behavior in the Old & New Testament. If you dislike that condition, work to change The Constitution. It can be done. It has been done.

Secondly - When your opening sentence slams Christianity, do you really expect to end up in a civil debate ?

[thundley4]

If marriage is a Constitutional right as No Limit suggests, then state laws against first cousins marrying are unconstitutional, right?

[dutch508]

If marriage is a Constitutional right as No Limit suggests, then state laws against first cousins marrying are unconstitutional, right?

If nl is correct, yes. Any law barring any type of marriage would be wrong.

[TVDOC]

Miskie, good post, however, I've made two changes:

Now to answer the question..
- If you are gay, and wish to form a civil union with your partner within a state that permits it, that is your privilege.
- If you are straight, and wish to marry your partner in a church ceremony as is permitted federally, that is your privilege.

"Marriage" is not an enumerated right in the Constitution for either religious or secular definitions.  Extending First Amendment interpretations of religious freedom to marriage is a logical fallacy if the remainder of your excellent post is correct.

doc

[miskie]

Miskie, good post, however, I've made two changes:

"Marriage" is not an enumerated right in the Constitution for either religious or secular definitions.  Extending First Amendment interpretations of religious freedom to marriage is a logical fallacy if the remainder of your excellent post is correct.

doc

Yes, true - And an excellent clarification - I meant 'privilege' when I used 'right' - which can be confused either innocently or intentionally with the BoR..

There is no defined 'right to marry' in The Constitution, the BoR, or any of the amendments - current or removed.   

[TVDOC]

Yes, true - And an excellent clarification - I meant 'privilege' when I used 'right' - which can be confused either innocently or intentionally with the BoR..

There is no defined 'right to marry' in The Constitution, the BoR, or any of the amendments - current or removed.   

Precisely....we simply cannot let liberals (or gheys) collective noses under the "Rights" tent, or we'll be forever doomed.....it will never stop, until the Constitution is totally meaningless.

doc

[thundley4]

Precisely....we simply cannot let liberals (or gheys) collective noses under the "Rights" tent, or we'll be forever doomed.....it will never stop, until the Constitution is totally meaningless.

doc

You mean like the right to health care since it is guaranteed in the Constitution?   

[MrsSmith]

Still waiting for a simple answer to a very simple question.

Do states have a constitutional right to deny gay people driving licenses. If this question seems too complicated for you guys lets simplify it.

Do states have a cosntitutional right to deny black people driving licenses?

Why not?

States have the constitutional right to deny driver's licenses to anyone.  Every state has quite a number of laws about just that subject, in fact.  They deny licenses to people under certain ages and with certain disabilities.   Just as blind people can't obtain a driver's license because they don't fulfill one of the requirements, two people of the same sex can't be married because they don't fulfill one of the requirements.

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?

Actually, this option would be perfectly acceptable to many of us.  no matter what kind of marriage between 2 consenting adults it is...siblings, parent and child, or any other 2 adults with no basis on any sexual actions between those 2 consenting adults.  Remove sex from it, and allow any 2 people to marry, but not necessarily to copulate.  This would allow parents of handicapped children more options to care for their adult kids, would allow siblings to have simpler inheritance rights and the ability to insure each other, etc.  It could well allow actual roommates the ability to save money on their taxes and insurance costs.  It's just too bad the gays are so intent on basing their special rights solely on what happens in "the privacy of their own bedrooms."  (Unless they happen to be practicing in gay bars, bath houses, public restrooms, or on Main Street.)

For a community that loves the constitution so much it's amazing to me how you guys love to ignore it when it isn't convenient for you.

Equal protection means that if a state has a set of laws (laws dealing with marriage licenses in this case) all people must be treated equally under those laws. Yes, that includes gay people.

So if a state has a law on the books which gives out marriage licenses to 2 consenting adults it has no right to discriminate which adults it will give them out to. If 2 men or 2 women want a marriage license a state has no right to deny that if it gives marrige licenses to one men and one woman.

There are no laws protecting polygamy in states, so trying to compare gay marriage to that is not accurate.

You seem to have very little understanding of the limits put on heterosexual marriage.  There are age limits, residency limits and relationship limits, just to name a few.  One other limit is the sex of the participants.  This limit has been in place for years, decades, centuries...actually, for all recorded history.  There are those working very, very hard to force their own definition of this union upon the entire country at this time, trying desperately to change an ancient and long-respected institution to benefit their own egos, and their acceptance issues.  This is truly an example of "shoving beliefs down the throats of others."  In fact, down the throats of more than 70% of the voters of every state that has put this issue on a ballot.  One side is truly abusive, egotistical, and demanding...and YOU are on it. Congrats.  or whatever.  

The way I see it, when same sex couples need to decide what type of birth control they'll use before they "take a chance on getting pregnant," they can start calling their "thing" marriage.  Until then, the best they can manage is a poor copy.

[FlaGator]

Do states have the right to deny gay people driving licenses? Why not?

Apples and oranges here, but I will play. Sure the states have the right to deny gay people driver's licenses. The right to a license is not currently regulated by the federal government. Of course this law would be overturned and by federal courts because it is aimed at denying a class of people a privilege afforded others with no valid grounds to deny the privilege to begin with.

Marriage is a different animal all together. We don't have the room here to go in to the biological/historical/cultural reasons for marriage so I will assume that you are familiar with them so I'll hit just the high lights. Men and women have the ability to make babies. Marriage originated to first protect children as they grew. The mother was busy raising the children and the father was busy fighting of wild animals and when possible turning those animals in to food for the table. Since human children grow slowly and first need protection because they can't survive on then own and then as they get older they need taming so that they can learn to behave in a manner that will allow them to fit in to the tribe/society to which the family belongs when the time comes to take their place in it. Traditionally a man his wife and their children made up a family and families group together to create societies. Family procreate and society grows and continues. This in a nutshell is the foundation of marriage. Society reserves the right to protect itself from anything that it deems threatening to the order of things in respect to its foundations.

As someone pointed out, marriage to first cousins is forbidden because the offspring of first cousins have a higher chance of being born defect and thus strain on the family and society that must protect it. Western Society has determined that and individual with multiple spouses is not a positive for the family and society so that relationship is banned. Society chooses to prohibit lots of things because of the potential negative impact those things my have on the family and society.

Homosexuals driving do not present a danger to the order of society. Homosexual marriage, however, does present a threat to the family unit and thus to society. A homosexual couple cannot naturally procreate so they cannot bear children to contribute to society's growth or it's continued existence. Also once homosexual marriage becomes the norm the other forms of marriage will start jockeying for acceptance. Polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia... where does society draw the line?
  Denying homosexuals a drivers license in no way protects the society from something it might consider harmful.

[miskie]

You mean like the right to health care since it is guaranteed in the Constitution?   

..And apparently the right to squat anywhere at anytime A-La Occupy..

[Skul]

Commenter "no limit" is just shopping for inflammitory remarks made by CC members.
Such comments will be used as an example in an upcoming post in LU.
We do this on occasion with the DUmp people, so, I really can't fault him for that.
His comments here have definately brought out some insight.
I doubt it was what he was looking for unless he takes words out of context and massages them.

Things may get rather interesting when the former hog-tied Dumpmonkeys find they may post about us freely, on LU.
The monkeys are now free! 

[BEG]

What an annoying little twat you are. I'm one of those on this site who could care less who you marry. I must say though that your hated for Christains could be compared to hatred for gays.

[Chris_]

Why is it when a liberal shows up here, the first thing they run to is the gay marriage discussions?

Boring boring boring.  Same ****ing thing every time.