Gay marriage is a civil rights issue!

JMS · #1 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 10:23 AM

see the forum this section is in? the admin knew what he was doing...

if gay marriage werent a civil rights issue, why would there have been discussion of an amendment to the constitution to prevent gays from marrying?

taken from the "american superiority" thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior

Marriage is not a right for heterosexuals either. The Constitution says nothing about marriage. It is a state issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Septimiux

Then why aren't a heterosexual and homosexual couple in America enjoying the same rights?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior

Technically they do. Please cite your source that says marriage is a right.

the last response is obviously disingenuous. "technically." you use the argument that gays can marry someone of the opposite sex and then enjoy the benefits. well, this is technically not enjoying the same rights, actually.

marriage shouldnt even be a requisite for having certain legal protections, but because it is, it must be open to all pairs of adults. this is inequality. you can try to rationalize it all you want, but it is most definitely a civil rights issue.

nonsqtr · #2 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 12:05 PM

Agreed. 100%. Right on the money. It seems to me, that there ought to be a federal umbrella of some sort around this thing. The same kinda thing that protects "civil rights", yes?

Blade · #3 (**permalink**) 01-28-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMS

see the forum this section is in? the admin knew what he was doing...

if gay marriage werent a civil rights issue, why would there have been discussion of an amendment to the constitution to prevent gays from marrying?

taken from the "american superiority" thread:

the last response is obviously disingenuous. "technically." you use the argument that gays can marry someone of the opposite sex and then enjoy the benefits. well, this is technically not enjoying the same rights, actually.

marriage shouldnt even be a requisite for having certain legal protections, but because it is, it must be open to all pairs of adults. this is inequality. you can try to rationalize it all you want, but it is most definitely a civil rights issue.

No, it's not a civil rights issue. If farmer bill decides to marry his horse, does that become a civil rights issue?

raytri · #4 (**permalink**) 01-28-2008, 02:24 PM

Why is it that no other area of human law draws responses involving animals, but this one does?

Hint: That would be because it makes no logical sense to do so. Trying to equate "consenting adult humans" with "Farmer Brown and his horse" is lazy.

97240sx · #5 (**permalink**) 01-29-2008, 02:19 AM

While we're at it, can I request to marry more than one woman, please? I love pork.

greatamerican128 · #6 (**permalink**) 01-29-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade

No, it's not a civil rights issue. If farmer bill decides to marry his horse, does that become a civil rights issue?

And then trans-gendered people get a special union too as well as people with cars....

I don't hate gay people, but I don't believe that they need special rights, neither does anyone else. I also don't believe that America should endorse the gay lifestyle by legalizing gay marriage. And yes, legalizing something is promoting it. I'm not comparing here, but let me provide an example. Imagine if tomorrow if the US legalized prostitution, that would be endorsing it. By allowing something not previously legal, the US would be supporting the idea or the act.

raytri · #7 (**permalink**) 01-29-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatamerican128

I don't hate gay people, but I don't believe that they need special rights

I hate this argument. What's "special rights" are they seeking? This only makes sense if you agree that the right to marry a person of the opposite gender is a "special right". And then the question becomes, why do straights think its fair to claim "special rights" for themselves while denying them to others?

Quote:

Imagine if tomorrow if the US legalized prostitution, that would be endorsing it. By allowing something not previously legal, the US would be supporting the idea or the act.

Hardly. It would be recognizing that the issue at hand is none of the government's business. Or are you seriously arguing that only things the government approves of should be legal?

JMS · #8 (**permalink**) 01-29-2008, 01:54 PM

marriage should have nothing to do with any laws. people should be able to have whatever traditional, exclusive ceremonies they want in a church or establishment of their choice, and the laws applicable to married persons now should be granted to any two adults that agree on it. denying gays the options that straight people have is unconstitutional, otherwise why attempt to amend?

BurningPlastic · #9 (**permalink**) 02-02-2008, 04:57 PM

Gays should have at least the right for a state recognized Civil partnership which grants them all the benefits of marriage, financially and legally.

svoth1 · #10 (**permalink**) 02-04-2008, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurningPlastic

Gays should have at least the right for a state recognized Civil partnership which grants them all the benefits of marriage, financially and legally.

I do not necessarily agree with the homosexual lifestyle, in fact, it somewhat repulses me. The point at hand is that there truly is nothing in the constitution about marriage, heterosexual or homosexual. I don't think that homosexuals should have the right to adopt because of the psychological affects it creates upon the children (http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0090.html.)
However, I don't see a problem with granting them the status of "civil partnership" for financial purposes. These are not "special rights."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode