Marriage equality, and the SCotUS

[Giordano]

Prejudice against homosexuals exists, surely you cannot deny this fact.

 

Once the government recognize this, the prejudice will wane: just like it did to women and colored people. Social movements must start change, if you're waiting for it to happen "naturally" this is as naturally as social reform gets.

Racism and sexism still exists. People like to argue that you can't legislate morality, but I think it's even crazier to try to legislate respect.

"the prejudice will wane"

 

Read.

[Kaida23]

Are homosexuals so insecure they need their deepest relationships validated by common language? :rolleyes:

 

Are heterosexuals so insecure that they can't contemplate redefining the common language?

[sees_all1]

Are homosexuals so insecure they need their deepest relationships validated by common language? :rolleyes:

 

Are heterosexuals so insecure that they can't contemplate redefining the common language?

nope, and that isn't the arguement being made.

[Kaida23]

Sure it is. Homosexuals want the definition of marriage changed so that they don't feel like they're being discriminated against by being denied the right to marry, and heterosexuals don't want it changed for really no other reason than "that's the way it's always been" (which wasn't a valid reason against minorities and women's rights either).

 

Seems to me that it's the hetero side of this argument that are the insecure ones.

[constrictor]

Sure it is. Homosexuals want the definition of marriage changed so that they don't feel like they're being discriminated against by being denied the right to marry, and heterosexuals don't want it changed for really no other reason than "that's the way it's always been" (which wasn't a valid reason against minorities and women's rights either).

 

Seems to me that it's the hetero side of this argument that are the insecure ones.

 

Seems to be that the insecurity of one side of the argument to the other is entirely a worthless dicussion. Everyone is insecure. Every single poor damn child, mother, father, brother, every single one of them has an insecurity. It is a generalization, but a fact.

 

Anyways, moving on from that.

 

 

 

Personally, I entirely support it, but only because as a nation we need to learn that if hold one thing (ie voting rights) to one group individuals, we must hold it to all.

I don't think marriage is what it was 15-30 years ago, or whatever the hell people are being nostalgic about - and saying they don't want gay marriage because it needs to be "like it was."

Well in that respect, [bleep] all of them; please people, look at the divorce rate. Is marriage even close to what it was? 52% of all marriages end? Like what the hell?

How come that doesn't enrage us?

[nine naked men]

Well now that we've put that issue to bed, let's move onto something a bit more substantial.

 

Should unmanned drones be allowed to marry other unmanned drones?

[Kaphias]

Well now that we've put that issue to bed, let's move onto something a bit more substantial.

 

Should unmanned drones be allowed to marry other unmanned drones?

Based on what I'm seeing here, yes.

 

[Kaida23]

Lesbian drones! *headslap* Why didn't I think of that?

[Range_This11]

A simple counterpoint to the "marriage is for procreation" argument is that there are plenty of young couples that have the inability to procreate, yet we allow them to marry. Many couples (including a couple in my family) have been trying for over 10 years without luck. They are still married legally and enjoy all the benefits. Are you prepared to implement a test for those types of couples?

Nope, and there doesn't need to be. Just because a heterosexual married couple cannot procreate at a single instance in time doesn't mean they'll be unable to procreate in the future, unlike homosexuals which by definition cannot procreate.

 

Here's another interesting article I found.

http://www.businessi...arriage-2012-11

You totally disregarded the historical argument I made for the evolution of marriage, which was the strongest point I made.

[sees_all1]

Marriage has evolved from a pragmatic practice (exchange of property, creation of children for work) to an emotional practice. We emphasize love and commitment in our vows, not who gets how many cows.

The government is not interested in if two people are in love or are committed, it's not a requirement to be married. The government's only interest in recognizing marriage as a legal institution is children.

 

I'd be willing to listen to the argument about how homosexuals want to express their "total commitment" through marriage if the median length of a marriage in the U.S. wasn't 11 years. Marriage is no longer viewed by society as "til death do us part," more like, "til we can't stand each other or the next best thing comes along." Seems to me they have the opportunity to form a new institution to show heterosexuals how it's done.

[Range_This11]

Your argument was that traditional marriage was for procreation. The role of government has nothing to do with that argument.

[sees_all1]

Your argument was that traditional marriage was for procreation. The role of government has nothing to do with that argument.

Traditional marriage is for procreation, government's interest in marriage is children which is why government has incentives for married couples to stick together.

[Range_This11]

I'll hold back some snarky comments about the government's interest in children's well-being. If there is an interest it is what you said, that it is for couples to stick together. I don't think their interest is in the actual procreation, just that couples who have children--whether adopted or not--stick together.

[obfuscator]

I'll hold back some snarky comments about the government's interest in children's well-being. If there is an interest it is what you said, that it is for couples to stick together. I don't think their interest is in the actual procreation, just that couples who have children--whether adopted or not--stick together.

 

Historically the government's interest would specifically be in procreation, as adopting someone else's child isn't growing your population. Not such a relevant issue these days, I just thought i'd make the observation.

[Furah]

Weak answer. Very weak answer.

I can't imagine a movement spending so much time, effort, and money on something so frivolous as the definition of a single word. Are homosexuals so insecure they need their deepest relationships validated by common language? :rolleyes:

 

There are many social, economical, and legal benefits that you get when marrying someone. Seriously, all you're doing is giving reasons why no marriage should exist. Marriage is not so two people can procreate. People have been having kids without being married for centuries. People having being marrying without having children for thousands of years. People have been marrying, never wanting, and never having kids for thousands of years. There is no good reason why people should should not be able to have same sex marriages.

[jasignhagj]

On the political side of the issue, this is a very interesting read:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/how-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-is-changing-and-what-it-means/

[sees_all1]

There are many social, economical, and legal benefits that you get when marrying someone.

You're making my point for me.

[TTanT]

There are many social, economical, and legal benefits that you get when marrying someone.

You're making my point for me.

It's amazing how weak arguments are when you take a single sentence out of them and focus on only it while ignoring the context.

[jetset516a]

Why can't homosexuals have civil unions? if it's all about being able to love who you want and having legal rights, why must it be called "marriage"? Honestly, if the reason is to force people to consider homosexuality "normal", nobody's buying that.

And yeah I know, flame away...gays and closet gays (who typically are the loudest supporters of the lifestyle) are allowed to do that. I'm not allowed to disagree with the lifestyle choice, but it's ok that I be called bigot, insensitive, ignorant (and/or worse) for not subscribing to the idea a deviant sexual fetish is normal.

All that aside I understand the arguments on both sides...I just can't grasp why it MUST be called and compared to a traditional marriage. It's not.

[sees_all1]

And in other news, Russia doesn't want its children adopted by homosexuals.

 

http://rt.com/politics/gay-couples-report-foreign-973/

[Sprint]

Why can't homosexuals have civil unions? if it's all about being able to love who you want and having legal rights, why must it be called "marriage"? Honestly, if the reason is to force people to consider homosexuality "normal", nobody's buying that.

And yeah I know, flame away...gays and closet gays (who typically are the loudest supporters of the lifestyle) are allowed to do that. I'm not allowed to disagree with the lifestyle choice, but it's ok that I be called bigot, insensitive, ignorant (and/or worse) for not subscribing to the idea a deviant sexual fetish is normal.

All that aside I understand the arguments on both sides...I just can't grasp why it MUST be called and compared to a traditional marriage. It's not.

It's not a sexual fetish; that's really just proof you don't get it. Homosexuals actually are attracted to the same sex, and really do love members of the same sex.

 

A sexual fetish would be something like, for me, glasses. I don't need a girl to have glasses, but i'm more physically attracted to girls with them. A homosexual on the other hand will never be attracted to a woman/man, no matter how hard he/she tries. There's a difference there. And there's different degrees of homosexuality but that's another argument.

 

As for marriage itself as opposed to civil unions, they're a little different in the rights they offer, while some other people want their marriage under god.

 

While we cant force religions to offer marriage under god to homosexuals because of that whole first amendment thing, we should give them the same legal rights at least.

[TTanT]

Why can't homosexuals have civil unions? if it's all about being able to love who you want and having legal rights, why must it be called "marriage"? Honestly, if the reason is to force people to consider homosexuality "normal", nobody's buying that.

And yeah I know, flame away...gays and closet gays (who typically are the loudest supporters of the lifestyle) are allowed to do that. I'm not allowed to disagree with the lifestyle choice, but it's ok that I be called bigot, insensitive, ignorant (and/or worse) for not subscribing to the idea a deviant sexual fetish is normal.

All that aside I understand the arguments on both sides...I just can't grasp why it MUST be called and compared to a traditional marriage. It's not.

1. Civil unions offer far fewer benefits than marriage does.

2. Nice bit about the closet gays there. The "oh if you support gay marriage you must be closeted" implications totally add to your credibility.

3. It's not a lifestyle choice. Homosexuality isn't a choice. Gay people are born gay (although obviously this isn't obvious until they've had time to hit puberty and figure out which people they want to screw around with.

4. As Sprint said, the fact that you're calling it sexual deviancy just shows your ignorance on the topic. Frankly you sound pretty bigoted so far.

5. That's for the same reason that interracial couples demanded to be included in traditional marriage, that "separate but equal" policies are never the answer (not to mention the fact that the equal half never happens), and that women keep demanding equal rights even over seemingly unimportant issues. Because no-one likes being discriminated against.

[Range_This11]

I'll hold back some snarky comments about the government's interest in children's well-being. If there is an interest it is what you said, that it is for couples to stick together. I don't think their interest is in the actual procreation, just that couples who have children--whether adopted or not--stick together.

 

Historically the government's interest would specifically be in procreation, as adopting someone else's child isn't growing your population. Not such a relevant issue these days, I just thought i'd make the observation.

Yes and that was precisely my point. When the population of the US and the world was relatively low and many children died during birth or shortly after, it was good to have more children. Now there is no reason to continue expanding our population and the government has no interest in it.

[Omar]

Sees, do you want the benefits to married couples removed?

[Furah]

Guys, if we're going to get fussy on terminology, I'm just going to stamp my foot down and point something out: a homosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to someone of the same gender. A homophile is someone who attracted to someone of the same gender on an emotional level. The two aren't the same. Someone can be a heterosexual homophile, which means they like having sex with someone of the opposite gender, while 'fall in love with' people of the same gender. A heterosexual heterophile, on the other hand, is someone who likes having sex with, and fall in love with, people of the opposite gender.

 

Why can't homosexuals have civil unions? if it's all about being able to love who you want and having legal rights, why must it be called "marriage"? Honestly, if the reason is to force people to consider homosexuality "normal", nobody's buying that.

And yeah I know, flame away...gays and closet gays (who typically are the loudest supporters of the lifestyle) are allowed to do that. I'm not allowed to disagree with the lifestyle choice, but it's ok that I be called bigot, insensitive, ignorant (and/or worse) for not subscribing to the idea a deviant sexual fetish is normal.

All that aside I understand the arguments on both sides...I just can't grasp why it MUST be called and compared to a traditional marriage. It's not.

 

I'm all for them having civil unions. I also think that civil unions should be the only thing recognised by the states. Sexual preference is not a lifestyle, nor is it a choice, or a fetish. Sexual preference is something hardwired to the brain. There are also over 4,000 known species of animals to perform homosexual acts. It must be called marriage, because marriage is recognised by the state and has certain benefits awarded to it not awarded with civil unions.