Homosexual Marriage

[Protostar]

Quote by: sergeant The gov. stepped in so that companies would be reasonable... and as you suggest.... 2 to 3 weeks is not....if companies are allowed to abuse this.... they will abuse illness and death as well.....just wondering are you a female do you have children....if not..... have you spoken with a doctor before assuming 2 to 3 weeks is enough time...like I said you are not looking at what the employee offers the company long-term...

Then that is their choice. It would be an incredibly stupid choice considering illness and death are not a choice, but it's their business, their rules. And no, I am not a female and I will NEVER have children. The employee offers the companies his/her services long term IF the company chooses to accept them. However the company should terminate the employee due to prolonged absence due to a decision on their part and especially if it is a low end employee and can easily be replaced.

[Protostar]

BTW, this thread has become way off topic( I know I'm guilty of this as well). If you want to debate about maternity leave then start a thread about it. Back to Homosexual marriage.

[sergeant]

Quote by: Protostar BTW, this thread has become way off topic( I know I'm guilty of this as well). If you want to debate about maternity leave then start a thread about it. Back to Homosexual marriage.

I understand...but I think it was you that started it. Maybe not! One last thing.... you are still missing my point about what the employee brings to the company over their career.
You are young and have some maturing to go through (I mean life stages not that you are immature) maybe as you grow wiser in your years...you grow to understand this issue from a different prospective. Thanks for the debate this is my last post here on the subject

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

[italiangm]

Quote by: General.Gorilla God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Where in the Constitution does it say that again?

[PatrickHenry]

Damn. Is this thread still going?

[tinybear]

Looks like it.

Quote by: italiangm Where in the Constitution does it say that again?

Fuck the Constitution, this law is understood by all normal people, and doesnt even need to be spoken of, yet alone written.
Homos cant help being what they are, but that doesnt change that they are essentially wired up wrong.

[italiangm]

Quote by: General.Gorilla Fuck the Constitution, this law is understood by all normal people, and doesnt even need to be spoken of, yet alone written. Homos cant help being what they are, but that doesnt change that they are essentially wired up wrong.

Fortunately, the Constitution is still the law of the land, which supercedes whatever imaginary "law" you seem to think applies here.

[Jack]

Fuck the Constitution

Proud supporter of the Bush world peace tour.

Boy, I bet he's so pleased to have someone with your sentiments in his camp.

[Dirty Name]

Fortunately, the Constitution is still the law of the land, which supercedes whatever imaginary "law" you seem to think applies here.

Haw haw.

And yet, the Constitutional argument is an empty one. Where does it say all "couples" must be treated equally? It does not. And thus far, no one has been able to articulate what possible illegal reason is used to disallow same-sex marriages.

I challenge someone to list the basis for illegal discrimination - is it based on sexual orientation? Nope. Is it based on gender? Hardly.

To those that would attempt to try say it's no different from the old state ban on interracial marriage, I would argue that in that case, the discriminating factor was in fact "race." The state didn't want blacks marrying whites. So the state discriminated based on the racial component of the couple.

In the case of same-sex marriage, there a some fundamental differences:

1) The state only has a handful of requirements - blood, age and gender composition.

2) The old same-race requirement was targeted towards a specific race - blacks.

3) The old same-race requirement had no practical application in marriage. In other words, the racial component has zero bearing on the institution itself.

4) The current gender requirement isn't in place to discriminate against people of a particular gender, nor sexual orientation.

5) The current gender requirement does have some bearing within a marriage - opposite sex couples have the potential to produce offspring. Offspring, inside or outside of a legal marriage, represent a compelling interest of the state.

The indefensible ban on interracial marriage is clearly quite different from the ban on same-sex marriage. And in order for anyone to bring a successful lawsuit on the basis of illegal discrimination, you must be able to articulate the basis you are discriminated against - and it must be an illegal reason.

Generally, we are free to discriminate for a number of reasons, except for illegal reasons.
In this case, the state chooses to discriminate based on the fact that same-sex couples obviously cannot produce offspring within their relationship, and opposite sex couples can produce offspring within their relationship. I highlight the word "obviously" in the previous statement because it's important. Some smart guy always tries to bring up the fact that we allow infertile couples to marry. The point is, it's not obvious who is infertile and who is not. That would require a test of every couple prior to marriage, and for what? To save the state some money? Hardly. Testing everyone would cost far more than just granting the benefits to everyone except where they are obviously infertile.

Since the state has a number of compelling interests in the area of human reproduction and child-rearing, including but not limited to the enormous costs of dealing with children raised in sub-optimal environments, the state has chosen to offer specific incentives to opposite sex couples who commit to long-term relationships, which, in turn, leads to fewer broken homes, better child-rearing, and lower costs to the state.

These are not the only issues - the only compelling interests - that are embedded in the heterosexual marriage relationship for the state. Among others, there is the issue of the sacrifices made by the female in a heterosexual marriage - generally the offspring, as well as the state (i.e. society) benefits more when one parent is a stay-at-home parent. This is typically the female. Females (and sometimes the male) also often make career sacrifices in order to become pregnant and raise a family. There are other issues as well.

The point is that this issue is far more complex than what gay-marriage advocates want us to believe. They typically just scream for "Equality!" even though they have no legal basis for it. The fact is, same sex couples just ARE NOT EQUAL to opposite couples, and gay individuals are treated EXACTLY the same as straight individuals when they present themselves for marriage.

Therefore, I hereby reject italiangm's retort which attempted to claim that the Constitution provides some legal basis for same sex marriage. I don't find it.

I look forward to reading the twisted and convoluted responses from all my gay friends on this board.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Therefore, I hereby reject italiangm's retort which attempted to claim that the Constitution provides some legal basis for same sex marriage. I don't find it.

Big deal. You've already been dealt with and dismissed.

[Dirty Name]

Big deal. You've already been dealt with and dismissed.

In your mind, the above quote is what you consider "dealing with and dismissing." Unfortunately, "dealing with" my position requires a bit more than that.

I challenge you to show me anywhere in the 203 preceding pages where you have EVER answered this question:

What ILLEGAL BASIS do you claim same-sex couples are discriminated against?

The FACT is, you have NEVER "dealt with it." You merely try to compare my argument with that of interracial marriage opponents. But as I just explained, that comparison doesn't hold any water.

[belverron]

Quote by: General.Gorilla Its a constitution that can be twisted around to suit hate filled agendas, like NOW or the Gay lobby unfortunately. Therer also seems to be agrowing number of people who support my laws you think are imaginary. You pc freaks will be running for the hills one day, trust me, and guys like me will be chasing your sickminded people with guns.

Good, then. I can claim self-defense.

[italiangm]

Quote by: General.Gorilla You pc freaks will be running for the hills one day, trust me, and guys like me will be chasing your sickminded people with guns.

Heh. Not likely. People stupid enough to threaten me with a weapon are in for a big surprise.

[Merlov01]

It's a civil right, there is no excuse for persecution!

[lcswoosh]

Quote by: Dirty Name In your mind, the above quote is what you consider "dealing with and dismissing." Unfortunately, "dealing with" my position requires a bit more than that. I challenge you to show me anywhere in the 203 preceding pages where you have EVER answered this question: What ILLEGAL BASIS do you claim same-sex couples are discriminated against? The FACT is, you have NEVER "dealt with it." You merely try to compare my argument with that of interracial marriage opponents. But as I just explained, that comparison doesn't hold any water.

What are you talking about? Sexual orientation has been ruled to be a protected class - ever seen the ruling of Lawrence V. Texas? Part of that ruling can easily imply a right to marriage. The Equal Protection Clause has been ruled as to pertain a civil right to marriage. Homosexuals are guaranteed the right to it. Gay couples constitutionally have to be given the same rights as heterosexuals - and that can ONLY be done through civil marriage. Legislators can ignore constitutionality all they want, as they did with segregation, slavery, women's rights....

It's kind of pointless to debate on some internet forum, though. As soon as the 40-100 year olds die off, people will be scratching their heads because of this. It's an inevitability.

[Protostar]

Quote by: Dirty Name Generally, we are free to discriminate for a number of reasons, except for illegal reasons. In this case, the state chooses to discriminate based on the fact that same-sex couples obviously cannot produce offspring within their relationship, and opposite sex couples can produce offspring within their relationship. I highlight the word "obviously" in the previous statement because it's important. Some smart guy always tries to bring up the fact that we allow infertile couples to marry. The point is, it's not obvious who is infertile and who is not. That would require a test of every couple prior to marriage, and for what? To save the state some money? Hardly. Testing everyone would cost far more than just granting the benefits to everyone except where they are obviously infertile.

Marriage is not required for reproduction, only sex is. Gays are tax paying citizens just like everybody else. I would like to end all government recognition of marriages altogether, but if you are going to recognize it do it fairly. Recognize everyone's marriage so long as it's between two consenting adults.

[Merlov01]

"Recognize everyone's marriage so long as it's between two consenting adults."

Hear, hear!

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Protostar Recognize everyone's marriage so long as it's between two consenting adults.

Why should we? Give me one good legal reason. That is the challenge I posed to this forum. Your argument is that gays pay taxes too. But so what. We all pay taxes, but do we all get the exact same benefits? Can an employed person claim unemployment benefits? No. Because he doesn't qualify. What on earth makes you think two men qualify for marriage benefits? Give me a REASON to treat two men the same as a man and a woman.

What are you talking about? Sexual orientation has been ruled to be a protected class...

You continue to miss the point. Show me when "sexual orientation" is ever used as a criterion to prevent a same-sex couple from marrying. The answer is, it's never considered. The law ONLY consider gender pairs. If gay people were prevented from marrying, and straight people COULD marry, then we would have illegal discrimination. But as it stands, we don't allow two straight men to marry, and we do allow a gay man and a lesbian to marry if they wish.

Therefore, "sexual orientation" isn't a factor in marriage discrimination, no laws are broken, and I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why two men or two women should be considered legally equal to a man and a woman in a marriage relationship. The fact that you people keep glossing over is that there is a substantial difference between same sex couples and opposite sex couples, and our laws recognize that, even if you don't want to.