Same-Sex Marriage

[FreakyLocz14]

Wow, that's like... hypocrisy to the 10th degree.

I don't care how important people think the black civil rights movement was, we're talking about human beings and their right for equality on a whole. And I don't think marriage is the only thing out there. People are being murdered for being gay, they're being branded as animals and sub-human by the religious right.

I believe gays are the most discriminated on group of people in this day and age. And the fact that some people would deny them equality because of some sort of genealogical vanity is just sickening.

It's not an executable offense to be a homosexual or even a crime at all in the United States. Blacks; however, were property and slaves and had no legal rights. To compare the severity of the alledged discrimination of homosexuals to that blacks suffered is an insult to my fiance and anyother black person living in the US.

Face it, the black vote on Prop 8 was a wake-up call to homosexuals who thought these kind of comaprisons would fly.

 

[Akio123]

Wow, that's like... hypocrisy to the 10th degree.

I don't care how important people think the black civil rights movement was, we're talking about human beings and their right for equality on a whole. And I don't think marriage is the only thing out there. People are being murdered for being gay, they're being branded as animals and sub-human by the religious right.

I believe gays are the most discriminated on group of people in this day and age. And the fact that some people would deny them equality because of some sort of genealogical vanity is just sickening.

Yeah but here is the thing.

Okay, I'm black, I can freely admit that. If say we had the same ideals we did back before the civil rights movement, this thread would turn into a hate thread. People being killed for being gay is illegal and you will be tried to the fullest extend of the law. What you are implying is that gay people have no rights at all. I mean though I support gay marriage, you can't compare right to marriage to right to not being treated like a human being.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Yeah but here is the thing.

Okay, I'm black, I can freely admit that. If say we had the same ideals we did back before the civil rights movement, this thread would turn into a hate thread. People being killed for being gay is illegal and you will be tried to the fullest extend of the law. What you are implying is that gay people have no rights at all. I mean though I support gay marriage, you can't compare right to marriage to right to not being treated like a human being.

you can't compare right to marriage to right to not being treated like a human being.

That's excatly my point.

 

[Akio123]

you can't compare right to marriage to right to not being treated like a human being.

That's excatly my point.

No, but this thread everyone has different points. FreakyLoc, the one thing I agree with you on is that you can't compare marriage and basic human rights.

 

[Esper]

They don't settle for alternatives to marriages because it's not the legal rights and benefits they want, they want to send a normalcy message abut their homosexual way of life. That's what I was trying to say. Look at these groups who said "Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools" yet a month after the election a county not too far from where I live passed a gay ciricculum for grammar school children over their parent's objections. Homosexuals have a hidden agenda here.


Brown v. Board of Education speaks on racial segregation and segregated schools. Never have I seen seperate schools for homosexual children so that ruling is not being violated. On a more personal note, it's comparisons like these that cause our black brothers and sisters not support the homosexual rights movement. In California, blacks voted 70% to ban same-sex marriage. Alot of them were motivated to do so by constant comparisons to the black civil rights movemnt because such comparisons diminish the importance of that movement.

I'm not talking about schools, but the part of Brown v. BoE with the idea of "separate but equal" and how the court found that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I'm arguing that there's legal precedent, or whatever the term is, against banning same-sex marriage. I know you like to talk in legal terms. I'll add that a ban is also unlawful because it discriminates against someone's sex. If Bob wants to marry John it'll be denied because of John's sex (or Bob's) and only because of that factor. That's sex discrimination.

If we provided civil unions/domestic partnerships to everyone and allowed it to be up the different religious denominations to determine whose union counts as a "marriage" that would be a good system.

It would be a good system.

 

[Akio123]

^Civil Unions already exist...you know that right?

 

[Richard Lynch]

Yeah but here is the thing.

Okay, I'm black, I can freely admit that. If say we had the same ideals we did back before the civil rights movement, this thread would turn into a hate thread. People being killed for being gay is illegal and you will be tried to the fullest extend of the law. What you are implying is that gay people have no rights at all. I mean though I support gay marriage, you can't compare right to marriage to right to not being treated like a human being.

Oh, I agree (with all but the last sentence). Relative to the time, the black civil rights movement was more monumental. But my point is, I'm for equality in general. I feel even the most minute shred of inequality is worth fighting for, be it legal or ideological.

I feel being denied marriage is a form of discrimination, and thus is treating gays as a lesser lifeform, which is in conflict with your last sentence. Sure, it's not as extreme as a slave trade, but it still treats the victim as substandard compared to the norm. The foundation for it, as many, many people have shown, is really quite lame, and I don't feel you can justify it with the legal hoo-hah that's been thrown around.

You can't approach something like this with the notion of "degrees". You have to look past the extremeness or mundane-ness of the situation and see that everything is pointing toward the same idea: inequality.

I just can not comprehend how anyone could even think about denying someone anything based on who they are. It's ludicrous! If this kind of stuff continues, and even worse, is embraced by the people, all I have to say is:

Welcome to Nazi America, PokeCommunity.

 

[Eldrei]

My question is: Every time we talk about marriage why does it always result into a religious debate??? Why is everyone a fool?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I'm not talking about schools, but the part of Brown v. BoE with the idea of "separate but equal" and how the court found that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I'm arguing that there's legal precedent, or whatever the term is, against banning same-sex marriage. I know you like to talk in legal terms. I'll add that a ban is also unlawful because it discriminates against someone's sex. If Bob wants to marry John it'll be denied because of John's sex (or Bob's) and only because of that factor. That's sex discrimination.

It would be a good system.

It is not sex discrimination because John and/or Bob has the right to marry any person of the opposite gender they choose. There is no place on an application for a marriage license that says "You can't appy to marry if you are a man, the woman has to initiate the proceedings" or a space that asks for someone's sexual orientation. He can be as gay as the sky is blue and no one will stop him from marrying the woman of his choice.

Legally, me and you don't determine what laws are legal or constitutional, the courts do that. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't declared same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional, has not declared DOMA unconstitutional, and state courts have upheld many of the laws, including California's Prop 8. I think the Court doesn't review them because they rightly see that the regulation of marriage is a state issue.

^Civil Unions already exist...you know that right?

Not in all sttates.

Oh, I agree (with all but the last sentence). Relative to the time, the black civil rights movement was more monumental. But my point is, I'm for equality in general. I feel even the most minute shred of inequality is worth fighting for, be it legal or ideological.

I feel being denied marriage is a form of discrimination, and thus is treating gays as a lesser lifeform, which is in conflict with your last sentence. Sure, it's not as extreme as a slave trade, but it still treats the victim as substandard compared to the norm. The foundation for it, as many, many people have shown, is really quite lame, and I don't feel you can justify it with the legal hoo-hah that's been thrown around.

You can't approach something like this with the notion of "degrees". You have to look past the extremeness or mundane-ness of the situation and see that everything is pointing toward the same idea: inequality.

I just can not comprehend how anyone could even think about denying someone anything based on who they are. It's ludicrous! If this kind of stuff continues, and even worse, is embraced by the people, all I have to say is:

Welcome to Nazi America, PokeCommunity.

It's not a matter of degrees, it's a legal concept that the U.S. Supreme Court calls the Fundamental Fairness Doctrine.

Since the ratification of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, the Court has tried to perform a balancing act over what federal Constitutional law to apply to the states and what not to. The Court many times has said that the states are free to make whatever laws they wish unless they violate "fundamental fairness" and that's when the federal Constitution will step in. Black people were discriminated against so badly that the Jim Crown laws of the South and slavery before that violated the notion of "fundamental fairness". The fact that same-sex marriage is banned in some states apparently does not in the Court's eyes.

Currently the Court sees the same-sex marriage debate as a state issue. It may change its opinion in the future but until then same-sex marriage bans are not unconstitutional. Different states (like Iowa) can declare them unconstitutional based on their interpertation of their state constitutions.

My question is: Every time we talk about marriage why does it always result into a religious debate??? Why is everyone a fool?

You can't discuss marriage without discussing religion for the institution of marriage is so deeply rooted in religion.

 

[Weatherman Kiyoshi]

>.>"

You know what's interesting?
The fact that eveyone is descriminated against for one reason or another.

Why?
because it's different then what they are. And People are afraid of things they don't understand.

It's like a dog and thunder. The dog has no idea what thunder is or how it's created, so it will freak out more and wimper at the thought.

But why must everyone force their ideas onto lives of other people? Why must the general public choose which sexes can get married?

And guys, how did we get into talking about Black individuals and slaves?
But it does have a point here, I have to say. Blacks were treated horribly. They were inequal.

Now, you have to realize that in other countries (especially the middle east), Homosexual males and females are being killed under the law.

Now see the similaries? Inequality.
It's sad to see many groups, are treated the same way as this.

Society needs to get over itself.

 

[Richard Lynch]

My question is: Every time we talk about marriage why does it always result into a religious debate??? Why is everyone a fool?

Because without religion, this debate would be moot and not exist. :P

It's not a matter of degrees, it's a legal concept that the U.S. Supreme Court calls the Fundamental Fairness Doctrine.

Since the ratification of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, the Court has tried to perform a balancing act over what federal Constitutional law to apply to the states and what not to. The Court many times has said that the states are free to make whatever laws they wish unless they violate "fundamental fairness" and that's when the federal Constitution will step in. Black people were discriminated against so badly that the Jim Crown laws of the South and slavery before that violated the notion of "fundamental fairness". The fact that same-sex marriage is banned in some states apparently does not in the Court's eyes.

I'll say right now that I've never studied law. Nor do I ever intend to, really... but I think my point is that everything boils down to the inequality idea, and Weatherman summed it up well. You're right in that we have added laws to prevent slavery (although, I don't understand why we would even need a law for that; to me, it's just common sense). But anyway, if we can add and change laws to help protect the equality of someone with a different colored skin, why not someone of a different sexual orientation? I think that's just as much common sense.

Law should be altered to meet the fairness of the individual, not the other way around.

 

[Aureol]

Wow, I thought nobody would approach this topic here. This is the only topic I absolutely refuse to discuss on the internet, just because I see anyone that disagrees with me as a complete monster, and they see me that way too.

These discussions don't go anywhere except to make peiople angry as far as I have experienced...

 

[Porygon-Z]

They don't settle for alternatives to marriages because it's not the legal rights and benefits they want, they want to send a normalcy message abut their homosexual way of life. That's what I was trying to say. Look at these groups who said "Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools" yet a month after the election a county not too far from where I live passed a gay ciricculum for grammar school children over their parent's objections. Homosexuals have a hidden agenda here.
.

Damn it foiled again!!

You got me Freaky, it was us homos all along trying to turn your kids gay! Ah well you've clearly defeated us. It's time I returned to my homo lair to hatch my next evil plot!

...seriously, do you even hear yourself talk? Get real.

There you go again saying "way of life". That's like saying "I can't believe all these blacks/asians spreading their black/asian way of life". For the last time it's not a "way of life" it's part of your biology. It's like saying having blue eyes is a "way of life".

Also if you're going to make this argument whilst talking to me stop saying "they" and say "you" instead, because you are addressing my demographic. Actually if you started doing that, it kind of means your telling me what my own opinion is. Are you trying to tell me what my own opinion is freaky? If so that's really silly of you.

Anyways Homosexulaity is normal if you happen to be gay, so why shouldn't a message of normalcy be spread? To me being straight isn't normal.

Also why shouldn't kids learn about gays? So they can grow up to be ignorant of other people like you? Gays exist, and telling kids that we don't is just stupidity.

 

[trebornosliw]

Well done Locz, a very good definition of why this doesn't work from a non-religious point of view.
At those of you who are homosexual and intend to marry, one of the issues here is that marriage, by definition, is between opposite genders. Is it necessary to redefine the word? Why not just get a legal union, provided that union contained the shared property/similar benefits of marriage?
It's also important for people to understand that by the Constitution, locz is just speaking of the US Constitution, unless I'm mistaken. And, in my opinion at least, international law has no place in defining the US Constitution, so it doesn't really apply here.
Another thing that people need to understand is that homosexuality is a mental illness.
...
Now if you're done with whatever expression of outrage took place here (screaming at the computer screen, having your head explode, etcetera), I'll explain.
I don't hate homosexual people per se, no more than I hate people with Down syndrome. I recognize homesexuality as a mental illness because logically, it is. Think about it. Your mind is running contrary to your body's wiring. Now you see one of the issues with normalizing homosexuality. Because you see, homosexuality is, if you will, communicable, and it is possible to not be born homosexual but become so later in life, through excessive exploration into...bedroom territory, if you will.
Now I'm not trying to diss anyone in this discussion. I think one of the biggest problems in this sort of debate is that people tend to get far too emotional. I'm just stating my point of view, and look forward to viewing yours. Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe I'm not.
Anyway, to round things off, if the majority of Americans don't want homosexual marriage legalized, it shouldn't be. Homosexual groups should focus on swaying individuals rather than politicians, and they might garner more sympathy.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Because without religion, this debate would be moot and not exist. :P



I'll say right now that I've never studied law. Nor do I ever intend to, really... but I think my point is that everything boils down to the inequality idea, and Weatherman summed it up well. You're right in that we have added laws to prevent slavery (although, I don't understand why we would even need a law for that; to me, it's just common sense). But anyway, if we can add and change laws to help protect the equality of someone with a different colored skin, why not someone of a different sexual orientation? I think that's just as much common sense.

Law should be altered to meet the fairness of the individual, not the other way around.

The thing is, the Supreme Court and Congress dn't want to just go creating laws willy-nilly. The Civil War sentiment of states rights is still alive and well in this country believe it or not. Although the 14th Amendment does allow federal law to be applied to the states, the feds have been careful only to apply it when absoluteley neccessary to preserve "fundamental fairness". To just go about applying federal laws to the states left and right defeats the need to have a federal form of government.

Marriage is a shaky issue here. I can see how denying same-sex marriage can be seen as discriminatory but marriage has never been performed by the federal government. Ministers do not say "by the power vested in me by the United States of America", they say "by the power vested in me by the State of (insert State name here)". So the federal government is being careful on intruding on what has always been and still is a state function.

We have passed laws at the federal level to ensure "equality" for homosexuals. We have laws prohibiting non-discrimination in employement, for example. Turing someone down for a job because they are (or they employer thinks they are) a homosexual "shocks the conscious"; as the Supreme Court would put it, therefore violating the notion of fundamental fairness that goes beyond states rights.

Damn it foiled again!!

You got me Freaky, it was us homos all along trying to turn your kids gay! Ah well you've clearly defeated us. It's time I returned to my homo lair to hatch my next evil plot!

...seriously, do you even hear yourself talk? Get real.

There you go again saying "way of life". That's like saying "I can't believe all these blacks/asians spreading their black/asian way of life". For the last time it's not a "way of life" it's part of your biology. It's like saying having blue eyes is a "way of life".

Also if you're going to make this argument whilst talking to me stop saying "they" and say "you" instead, because you are addressing my demographic. Actually if you started doing that, it kind of means your telling me what my own opinion is. Are you trying to tell me what my own opinion is freaky? If so that's really silly of you.

Anyways Homosexulaity is normal if you happen to be gay, so why shouldn't a message of normalcy be spread? To me being straight isn't normal.

Also why shouldn't kids learn about gays? So they can grow up to be ignorant of other people like you? Gays exist, and telling kids that we don't is just stupidity.

Children that young don't need to be taught such mature topics. Sex is a reality of life as well but the schools wait until an age they think children are old enough before they begin sex education. If we are to teach homosexuality in schools, it shouldn't be taught before children go through sex ed.

Also, schools should not instill their moral ideals on children. School is a place to study academic subjects, not ideological indoctrination. If you want to teach the history of the homosexual movement that's fine as long as opposing viewpoints and healthy debates are encouraged whenever issues of policy are brought up but to instill the idea that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality is up to the parents to decide if they want their children to believe that or not.

 

[trebornosliw]

Oh, btw, I do believe that kids should be told gays exist. The phrase "ignorance is bliss" doesn't really work in this case. I just don't think that, for instance, they should be educated as to the meaning of "anal lubricant" (I kid you not, this has happened).
...
So why did this thread pop up when I searched for "Advance-Text?"
*sigh*

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

It's not an executable offense to be a homosexual or even a crime at all in the United States. Blacks; however, were property and slaves and had no legal rights. To compare the severity of the alledged discrimination of homosexuals to that blacks suffered is an insult to my fiance and anyother black person living in the US.

Ahem. I raise you the laws of sodomy/buggery. You're right, black people were made slaves and had no rights and yes that is terrible. However, just as terrible is the fact that until (relatively) recently if a man (note man) had intercourse with another man or committed buggery with a woman it was punishable by death from it's introduction in 1533 up until 1861. Also gross indecency was punishable by imprisonment from 1885.

 

[Porygon-Z]

Children that young don't need to be taught such mature topics. Sex is a reality of life as well but the schools wait until an age they think children are old enough before they begin sex education. If we are to teach homosexuality in schools, it shouldn't be taught before children go through sex ed.

Also, schools should not instill their moral ideals on children. School is a place to study academic subjects, not ideological indoctrination. If you want to teach the history of the homosexual movement that's fine as long as opposing viewpoints and healthy debates are encouraged whenever issues of policy are brought up but to instill the idea that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality is up to the parents to decide if they want their children to believe that or not.

First off, you never said anything about the age of the children in the first place, so naturally I assumed you meant in sex ed for teenagerss.

I agree young children shouldn't be taught sex ed in the first place, but sex ed for teenagers should be all inclusive regardless of sexual orientation, becuase some of those teenagers will be gay and they deserve and equal education about sex as a straight teenager.

And for the last time! Homosexuality has nothing to do with morals or indocrtination. Homosexulaity is a part of human biology which last time I checked was a big part of a rounded education.

How many times do you have to be told before it's clear to you. Homosexulaity is not a lifestyle or an opinion, it's a part of your physiology, like the colour of your eyes or your height.

And that "opposing viewpoint" you're mentioning, that's called homophobia, which is a form of biggotry. It's not right to treat somebody differently for something they have no control over.

Needless to say I think biggotry should be kept out of the classroom at all costs.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Ahem. I raise you the laws of sodomy/buggery. You're right, black people were made slaves and had no rights and yes that is terrible. However, just as terrible is the fact that until (relatively) recently if a man (note man) had intercourse with another man or committed buggery with a woman it was punishable by death from it's introduction in 1533 up until 1861. Also gross indecency was punishable by imprisonment from 1885.

Those laws are a thing of the past, just like racial discrimination laws are a thing of the past.

First off, you never said anything about the age of the children in the first place, so naturally I assumed you meant in sex ed for teenagerss.

I agree young children shouldn't be taught sex ed in the first place, but sex ed for teenagers should be all inclusive regardless of sexual orientation, becuase some of those teenagers will be gay and they deserve and equal education about sex as a straight teenager.

And for the last time! Homosexuality has nothing to do with morals or indocrtination. Homosexulaity is a part of human biology which last time I checked was a big part of a rounded education.

How many times do you have to be told before it's clear to you. Homosexulaity is not a lifestyle or an opinion, it's a part of your physiology, like the colour of your eyes or your height.

And that "opposing viewpoint" you're mentioning, that's called homophobia, which is a form of biggotry. It's not right to treat somebody differently for something they have no control over.

Needless to say I think biggotry should be kept out of the classroom at all costs.

The automatic assumption that anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle is a bigot is a logical fallacy. First of all, just because one opposes issues like same-sex marriage does not mean one automatically hates all homosexual people, they just disagree with a matter of policy. The "bigot" card is one homosexual activists play when they have no more logical things to say.

Secondly, people oppose homosexuality for all kinds of different reasons. Many people are taught from a very young age that homosexuality is wrong, it's hard-wired into their train of thought. They do not just all of a sudden decide to "hate" homosexuals just like you assert homosexuals do not just all of a sudden decide to "choose" to be homosexual.

And lastly, what you are calling bigotry should not be excluded from the classroom. I disagree with all this political corectness we are putting into our public school system. The fact that there are people who oppose homosexuality is just as much of a truth as the fact that homosexuals exist. We shouldn't present one-sided information in the name of political corectness but rather should present all sides of the issues so that students can weigh the arguments each side makes and decide for themeselves which side to be on.

 

[Akio123]

Oh, I agree (with all but the last sentence). Relative to the time, the black civil rights movement was more monumental. But my point is, I'm for equality in general. I feel even the most minute shred of inequality is worth fighting for, be it legal or ideological.

I feel being denied marriage is a form of discrimination, and thus is treating gays as a lesser lifeform, which is in conflict with your last sentence. Sure, it's not as extreme as a slave trade, but it still treats the victim as substandard compared to the norm. The foundation for it, as many, many people have shown, is really quite lame, and I don't feel you can justify it with the legal hoo-hah that's been thrown around.

You can't approach something like this with the notion of "degrees". You have to look past the extremeness or mundane-ness of the situation and see that everything is pointing toward the same idea: inequality.

I just can not comprehend how anyone could even think about denying someone anything based on who they are. It's ludicrous! If this kind of stuff continues, and even worse, is embraced by the people, all I have to say is:

Welcome to Nazi America, PokeCommunity.

You decided to bring up Gay Marriage verses people being killed in the streets, blasted with hoses, and being killed for being black. People are killed for being gay, yes it is unequal, but only a select few for being gay as making someone lesser.

I mean using the Civil rights movement you have to understand that people wanted rights for all so that people could be treated as the same? In what world do you live in that gays have to use different schools, restaurants, and even water fountains.

I mean it's unequal, but when we start having complete inequality then I will see some validity there. No offense though.