Homosexual Marriage

[Slightly]

This is a about Tolerance Acceptance and Love, if we have all three the discussion becomes a non issue, a process of semantics or intellectual tiddlywinks.

This is a predominantly an issue for the Christian Right, who in the future will be among the sole propagators of “Homosexuality”

What! You might say. Well you see homosexuality is genetic and in the not too distant future this gene will be identified in utero, and who will be aborting these foetus’s? You guessed, Mr. and Ms. pro Choice, pro Queer rights. And who will be left holding the baby?
You got it, Mr. And Ms. Christian Right.

Cheers.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy You seem to think that homos in unrecognized marriages do not already pay taxes that support programs for hetero families. And yet they cannot get similar benefits. What is fair about that?

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but I don't see why you want my opinion on fairness. Considering that you probably wouldn't like my definition, what standard of fairness should I use to answer your question?.

What does this have to do with gay marriage? Gays are already married. They already have life long commitments. They already pay taxes. Giving them equal treatment under the law is not going to stop any other group in our society from doing anything that they can't already do. Starboy

They are treated equally by the law.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Slightly This is a about Tolerance Acceptance and Love, if we have all three the discussion becomes a non issue, a process of semantics or intellectual tiddlywinks. This is a predominantly an issue for the Christian Right, who in the future will be among the sole propagators of “Homosexuality” What! You might say. Well you see homosexuality is genetic and in the not too distant future this gene will be identified in utero, and who will be aborting these foetus’s? You guessed, Mr. and Ms. pro Choice, pro Queer rights. And who will be left holding the baby? You got it, Mr. And Ms. Christian Right. Cheers.

Ahhhh, so all those priests have been making more homos, is that your drift? That homosexuality is a Christian disease?

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but I don't see why you want my opinion on fairness. Considering that you probably wouldn't like my definition, what standard of fairness should I use to answer your question?.

Let me see. The same standard of fairness for blacks as opposed to whites from 1828?

They are treated equally by the law.

Not exactly. They are not allowed to get that marriage licence down at city hall because somehow the religious right thinks that god doesn't want a county clerk to give it to them.

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy Let me see. The same standard of fairness for blacks as opposed to whites from 1828? Not exactly. They are not allowed to get that marriage licence down at city hall because somehow the religious right thinks that god doesn't want a county clerk to give it to them. Starboy

And not giving them one is done strictly by the law.

As I don't understand your standard of fairness, I can only say that I don't know whether it is fair or not.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto And not giving them one is done strictly by the law.

But if the law is unconstititional such as slavery laws, should the law be overturned?

As I don't understand your standard of fairness, I can only say that I don't know whether it is fair or not.

Would it be fair if heteros were not allowed to get a marriage license because they preferred partners of a different sex?

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy But if the law is unconstititional such as slavery laws, should the law be overturned? Would it be fair if heteros were not allowed to get a marriage license because they preferred partners of a different sex? Starboy

If the law is unconstitutional, it should be overturned. Is it unconstitutional? I assume that you believe it is, but why?

For the record, discrimination based on sexual preference is not unconstitutional, but that is not the case with marriage. The question isn't asked.

I see no reason why I should have to apply your subjective standard of fairness to any situation--much less a hypothetical one. We are drifting into an area dominated by mysticism and superstition. Let's stick to the facts shall we.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto If the law is unconstitutional, it should be overturned. Is it unconstitutional? I assume that you believe it is, but why?

Fourteenth amendment. The equal protection clause:

Quote by: Fourteenth Amendment 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.

For the record, discrimination based on sexual preference is not unconstitutional, but that is not the case with marriage. The question isn't asked.

This doesn't make any sense. Can you clarify your points/observations?

I see no reason why I should have to apply your subjective standard of fairness to any situation--much less a hypothetical one. We are drifting into an area dominated by mysticism and superstition. Let's stick to the facts shall we.

This is not about my subjective standard of fairness since it is inclusive; this is about your subjective standard of fairness since it is exclusive. To exclude is not fair unless there is a good reason for it. You have failed to present any god reasons other than you or god doesn't like it. This is the antithesis of fairness by anyone’s definition.

Starboy

[Slightly]

StarBoy you are taking me too seriously.

First “homosexuality” is not a disease. It’s all part of god’s plan If you believe in that, or if you are like me and don’t, you could say that it’s part of the evolutionary process much of which we have yet to understand

What ever impression one may get from some of the posts on this board, christians do not have a monopoly on “Homosexuality” when god created homosexuals he distributed them equally throughout all mankind, and religions.
It’s just ironic that in the west, christian philosophy combined with science, may be the salvation of the Queer, and save them from extinction by liberal philosophy and modern science.

As far as priests making homos, well they say that they can make blood out of wine and do other odd things, but making homos! What would they make them out of?
Some kind of “Fruit”

Cheers

FACT: The average fart travels at ten feet per second. Assuming that G. Bush is average it would take him Slightly over eight years to travel from the Whitehouse to Castro St. SF. By then his two terms will have run out and he will have dissipated.

[mr.perfecto]

[quote=Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto If the law is unconstitutional, it should be overturned. Is it unconstitutional? I assume that you believe it is, but why?

Fourteenth amendment. The equal protection clause: Quote by: Fourteenth Amendment 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.

What privilege or immunity has been abridged? What protection has been denied? It is easy to say that these things are happening, but you have to prove that it is the case.

For the record, discrimination based on sexual preference is not unconstitutional, but that is not the case with marriage. The question isn't asked. This doesn't make any sense. Can you clarify your points/observations?

If there is no law that makes an act illegal, then it must be legal. Yes?

How does one tell the difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual? Assuming that the only way to do so is to ask, and that the question is not raised, how exactly is the alleged discrimination being accomplished?

This is not about my subjective standard of fairness since it is inclusive; this is about your subjective standard of fairness since it is exclusive. To exclude is not fair unless there is a good reason for it. You have failed to present any god reasons other than you or god doesn't like it. This is the antithesis of fairness by anyone’s definition. Starboy

So, to include is always fair, and to exclude is never fair--unless your definition of good reason has been met? Okay, what constitutes a good reason?

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto What privilege or immunity has been abridged? What protection has been denied? It is easy to say that these things are happening, but you have to prove that it is the case.

mr.perfecto are you kidding? Okay, maybe you are just unbelievably dense and tedious.

They are not allowed the equal protection of the laws relating to marriage.

If there is no law that makes an act illegal, then it must be legal. Yes?

As far as I know, yes.

How does one tell the difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual? Assuming that the only way to do so is to ask, and that the question is not raised, how exactly is the alleged discrimination being accomplished?

http://www.brantford.ca/cityclerk/marriage_license.htm

Do Both the Bride and Groom Have to be Present to Get the Licence? If one of the parties is unable to attend to get the marriage licence once the application form is signed and completed, the birth certificate, baptismal or valid passport of the missing party must be presented.

So apparently the clerks know and they are not issuing the certificate.

So, to include is always fair, and to exclude is never fair--unless your definition of good reason has been met? Okay, what constitutes a good reason?

If you can show that it causes more harm than others group that already have the same rights. And not just harming someone's sensibilities because they think it is icky or because it contradicts a particular religious teaching. Those are not considerations.

Starboy

[fogus]

Starboy:

When you make a statement do you assume that the opposite of it is false?

[Starboy]

Quote by: fogus Starboy: When you make a statement do you assume that the opposite of it is false?

It depends on the statement. Here is one for you.

Everything I say is a lie.

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy mr.perfecto are you kidding? Okay, maybe you are just unbelievably dense and tedious. They are not allowed the equal protection of the laws relating to marriage.

Quite a number of relationships are excluded from marriage. Quite a number of people are excluded from driver's licenses. Blind people, for instance. It would defeat the purpose of a driver's license to issue them out to blind people, wouldn't it?

As far as I know, yes.

Cool.

http://www.brantford.ca/cityclerk/marriage_license.htm So apparently the clerks know and they are not issuing the certificate.

The clerks aren't supposed to be issuing them, are they? A nine year old boy and girl who come in won't be issued one either. Is that fair by your standards?
If I decide to open up a Wal-mart, I won't be allowed to register as a not-for-profit. Is that fair by your standards?

If, in order to vote, a person must provide official id and either a voter registration card or birth certificate, and:
Maria comes in to vote, meets the requirements, and is allowed to vote, no illegal discrimination at all.
Maria comes in to vote, she doesn't provide either, and the clerk doesn't allow her to vote, no illegal discrimination at all.
Maria comes in to vote, and clerk demands that she provide all three, that is illegal discrimination.

The requirements are the same for all individuals.

If you can show that it causes more harm than others group that already have the same rights. And not just harming someone's sensibilities because they think it is icky or because it contradicts a particular religious teaching. Those are not considerations. Starboy

Same rights?
A group can't have rights that the individuals that comprise the group don't have. The rights of the group have to be granted by the members of it.

You still haven't shown how any individual's rights are being violated.

[Dmkjr]

I'm not for the gay marriage issue. However, I'm not against "gay" people in general. I say, you can do what you want to. I just ask for none of you to ever hit on me, I think I couldn't take that.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto Quite a number of relationships are excluded from marriage. Quite a number of people are excluded from driver's licenses. Blind people, for instance. It would defeat the purpose of a driver's license to issue them out to blind people, wouldn't it?

But in those cases they are excluded because they are minors or are not citizens or granting the privaledge would be a hazard to society. I have repeated this at least a dozen times to you. Giving gays their equal rights will not stop them from any acts, public or private that they are not already allowed to do. Where is the public hazard?

The clerks aren't supposed to be issuing them, are they? A nine year old boy and girl who come in won't be issued one either. Is that fair by your standards?

Fariness doesn't apply because minors are not given the rights of adults because they are not fully able to make rational decisions for themselves. I would say that the gays want the minor gay people to have the same treatment under the law as the minor hetero people. They would not want them to be allowed to be married.

If I decide to open up a Wal-mart, I won't be allowed to register as a not-for-profit. Is that fair by your standards?

There is nothing stopping you from opening a Wal-Mart and operating it as a non-profit. It happens all the time.

http://www.lifewaystores.com/lwstore/special.asp

If, in order to vote, a person must provide official id and either a voter registration card or birth certificate, and: Maria comes in to vote, meets the requirements, and is allowed to vote, no illegal discrimination at all. Maria comes in to vote, she doesn't provide either, and the clerk doesn't allow her to vote, no illegal discrimination at all. Maria comes in to vote, and clerk demands that she provide all three, that is illegal discrimination. The requirements are the same for all individuals.

I don't know. It could very well be different from county to county, state to state. It is not as if they all have identical voting laws. But this is not an issue if the clerks are breaking the law, but an issue of county, state and federal laws on the books that are unconstitutional. It is not as if it has never happened before.

Same rights? A group can't have rights that the individuals that comprise the group don't have. The rights of the group have to be granted by the members of it.

Yes, and those rights are granted by the Consitution and the group is "We the People of the United States."

You still haven't shown how any individual's rights are being violated.

You are getting very tiresome. I have also posted this at least a dozen times as well. Gays are not allowed to get a marriage licencse. This is not equal treatment under the law.

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy But in those cases they are excluded because they are minors or are not citizens or granting the privaledge would be a hazard to society. I have repeated this at least a dozen times to you. Giving gays their equal rights will not stop them from any acts, public or private that they are not already allowed to do. Where is the public hazard?

Or granting them one would defeat the purpose of having the license in the first place. Yes?

For instance, you can't get unemployment if you have a job.
You can't get a military id if you aren't in the military or working on a military base.
You won't get a building permit for a single family home, if you plan to build in a commercial zone.
You can't get a license plate if you don't have a car.
You can't get a student loan if you aren't enrolled, or about to enroll in college.

Two people can't get married if one of them isn't male and the other isn't female.

Quote by: Starboy Fariness doesn't apply because minors are not given the rights of adults because they are not fully able to make rational decisions for themselves. I would say that the gays want the minor gay people to have the same treatment under the law as the minor hetero people. They would not want them to be allowed to be married.

Sounds very discriminatory to me. You aren't X years old, obviously your a moron. Sorry, application denied.
Think about how the kid must feel.

Quote by: Starboy There is nothing stopping you from opening a Wal-Mart and operating it as a non-profit. It happens all the time. http://www.lifewaystores.com/lwstore/special.asp

I didn't know they were a Wal-Mart. I learn something new everyday...

Quote by: Starboy I don't know. It could very well be different from county to county, state to state. It is not as if they all have identical voting laws. But this is not an issue if the clerks are breaking the law, but an issue of county, state and federal laws on the books that are unconstitutional. It is not as if it has never happened before.

But we haven't established that yet. You haven't said how, just that the law is unconstitutional because equal protection is being denied. The requirements are the same for any two people who come who come to get married, the clerks don't ask homosexuals any questions they don't ask heterosexuals, and no rights are being violated. Since we've covered all the bases, how is equal protection being denied?

Well the requirements exclude...

The requirements always exclude something or someone, that is why they exist.

Quote by: Starboy Yes, and those rights are granted by the Consitution and the group is "We the People of the United States." You are getting very tiresome. I have also posted this at least a dozen times as well. Gays are not allowed to get a marriage licencse. This is not equal treatment under the law. Starboy

Sure they can.

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

A link that seems to fit this thread somewhat. After all why are we debating this subject at all? Is it because the gay community is forcing itself further and further into everyday society? Is it because the normalisation of the gay way of life has now reached our children? Or is it because we are no longer able to say enough'''

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comme...401764,00.html

[gizmo_hyperpunk]

You might as all wear swastikas and make all the gays were Labels saying gay, and carry out the same policies as Hitler had. But without the Jews involved just the gay people. Because stopping them doing something like marriage, which is a basic right for many people, is being denied and the views of people who think otherwise should either go and jump of a building and die, or realize there are many different types of people, and no we are not going to take over the world, being gay isn’t a decease. It’s just the way we feel, we don’t like the opposite sex we find the same sex attractive, I don’t know why this could be to hormones or something. I wouldn’t know im not a doctor but im sure if you asked one they would be able to explain why people are gay. And most homophobic people normally have gay tendencies and they are scared because they are unsure of there own sexually, but everyone no matter if they like same or opposite sex, or anything else, its just lack of education

Gays and straight people deserve the same wrights. Its basically assuming a girl can’t lift a heavy box because she’s a girl. It’s because your prejudge against gays

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: gizmo_hyperpunk You might as all wear swastikas and make all the gays were Labels saying gay, and carry out the same policies as Hitler had. But without the Jews involved just the gay people. Because stopping them doing something like marriage, which is a basic right for many people, is being denied and the views of people who think otherwise should either go and jump of a building and die, or realize there are many different types of people, and no we are not going to take over the world, being gay isn’t a decease. It’s just the way we feel, we don’t like the opposite sex we find the same sex attractive, I don’t know why this could be to hormones or something. I wouldn’t know im not a doctor but im sure if you asked one they would be able to explain why people are gay. And most homophobic people normally have gay tendencies and they are scared because they are unsure of there own sexually, but everyone no matter if they like same or opposite sex, or anything else, its just lack of education Gays and straight people deserve the same wrights. Its basically assuming a girl can’t lift a heavy box because she’s a girl. It’s because your prejudge against gays

How do you commit genocide against a behavior?

Are we going to have to bring back slavery before people will stop inventing reasons to call themselves victims?