Fifth consecutive poll shows national majority support for same-sex marriage

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by DevilMay, Nov 14, 2012.

  1. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I of course was talking about federal courts.
     
  2. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your claim stated no such restriction AND what the (*)(*)(*)(*) kind of court do you think "A federal district court in Hawaii" is? Always amusing to watch you babble on endlessly about topics you know nothing about, and then comes your dishonesty in an attempt to disguise the ignorance.
     
  3. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see you've sunk to your pathetic equivocation again. not unexpected.
     
  4. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not sure you understand the word because that would be you engaged in the pathetic equivocation. Stating "every case in the past five years the courts have heard they have ruled against you." And claiming that you were actually talking about Federal Courts.
     
  5. martin_777

    martin_777 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    975
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Reading:
    Keep in mind, that it's "under the gun" support. There are laws, forcing us to coexist with gays, there is a mass media hunt, heavy gay propaganda, while anti-gay propaganda is outlawed.
    I really doubt that you would get such number, if for example there would be no laws protecting gays and forcing us to tolerate you, anti-gay propaganda.
    And what are you going to do with remaining 47%? 47% should suffer because of 2% of gay population? This is how western democracy works!
    And it's kinda stupid to say "people re-elected" Obama, who became this time pro-gay, fist election he was aniti, btw, that American people chose him because of exactly that. We all know, that when number of candidates is so low, as 2(!), people are left with no choice as to elect "a least evil". Let's say one is for war, another is for gays. I don't want war more, then gays. So I will elect who is for gays, not because I am pro-gay, it's because I hate war more!
    Plus, in US other candidates are discriminated. They are even called "third party". The elections are clearly unfair. Have you ever seen that these "third party" are ever invited for debates with republicans and democrats? No! I have to search online for them. They are ignored by the system. People don't know them, because they are almost never shown, they never show them, because people don't know them. Excellent system!
     
  6. martin_777

    martin_777 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    975
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Forgot to mention that I am not responding to user "Jonny-C", who on my option is politely trolling me.
     
  7. J2800

    J2800 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, you don't have to suffer unless you want to. You choose to be bothered by coexisting with homosexuals. That is your choice and no one is forcing you to feel that way. I would be willing to postulate that upwards of 75% of Americans do not have a problem living in a country with gay people. Whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry is completely different question than whether homosexuality should be allowed or not.

    Why should the 2% be persecuted because 47% don't want them to be married? Isn't that tyranny of the majority?
     
  8. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Except for the fact that the Respect for Marriage Act doesn't mandate federally-recognized same-sex marriage to the exclusion of 'any other type of couple', it merely once again defers the definition of marriage to the states - like it was for hundreds of years prior to DOMA being passed.

    Some states differ in what age someone can be married, however the federal government doesn't mandate a miniumum (or maximum) age - it defers the question to the states, as it should. It's laughable that you think DOMA upholds the Equal Protection Clause when it clearly mandates that certain couples (the sterile and elderly) should receive hundreds of federal benefits simply on account of their genders, or because "they rub genitals just like a couple capable of procreation" - yet an IDENTICALLY situated couple in terms of procreative ability cannot, merely because they are two people of the same gender. DOMA is a form of gender discrimination, period.
     
  9. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not sure of your point. Unconstitutional discrimination doesnt become constitutional because the Federal government endorses it.
    And encouraging all heterosexual couples to marry cuts down on single mothers on their own raising children and increases the number of children with both their mother and father in the home. Encouraging gays to do so does not.
     
  10. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Allowing and encouraging homosexuals to marry, would be beneficial too; nothing need be taken FROM heterosexual marriages either.
     
  11. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No more so for homosexuials than it would for ANY TWO PEOPLE. Discrimination must have some justification otherwise it is unconstitutional.
     
  12. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    removing the gender restriction is not discrimination.
     
  13. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is because the discrimination limited to heterosexuals is justified only because of the very real differences between the genders. By removing it you lose the only justification marriage had to legitimize the discrimination. You need a new one.

     
  14. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    removing the gender restriction is not discrimination. same sex couples are similarly situated to most opposite sex couples and identically situated to the remainder.
     
  15. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, heterosexual couples perpetuate the human species, homosexual couples do not.
     
  16. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And that's the key point. Similarly situated persons deserve the law's equal protection. Dissimilar situation remains as a justification for other restrictions on eligibility. We can certainly debate as a separate topic whether some other group is also being illegitimately discriminated against, but that has nothing to do with the determination that marrying someone of the same sex is a similar situation to marrying someone of the opposite sex. Removing the barrier to same-sex couples more generally doesn't remove other restrictions that may still apply to specific cases. The restrictions in the law operate independently of each other.
     
  17. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    but they are not similarly situated. Only heterosexual couple perpetuate the human species. Homosexual couples do not.
     
  18. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course they're similarly situated. no requirement of ability to procreate exists in order to marry, so the ability or inability to "perpetuate the human species" is irrelevant.
     
  19. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Seconded. Government recognition of marriage serves many purposes, not just those connected to procreation. That being so, the ability/inability to procreate - and I do mean as applied to whole classifications of people, not specific couples - is not relevant to determining similar situation. This goes beyond just being mere overinclusion/underinclusion.
     
  20. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You're deluded beyond belief. What you are saying... that DOMA, the law, is required by the Constitution? And if DOMA or a similar federal law limiting the federal definition of marriage to one man and one woman weren't on the books, it would be unconstitutional discrimination??? What the actual ****?

    The fight over DOMA isn't about recognising same-sex marriage as a Constitutionally protected right, it's about whether the federal government should be able to define marriage in Section 3 of the law and withhold federal benefits to legally married couples in the 10 states that recognise same-sex marriage.

    Nope, only encouraging couples who can procreate cuts down on single mothers on their own raising children and increases the number of children with both their mother and father in the home. Encouraging elderly couples does not. Encouraging sterile couples does not. They are therefore permitted thousands of more rights simply on account of how they have sex, while gay couples are denied those rights based on how they have sex. Gender and sexuality discrimination. It is absolutely in the states power to impose practical limitations to exclude those who have, as your logic would suggest, no business in marrying - the sterile and the elderly.
     
  21. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    But you're not arguing based on homo/heterosexuality, you're arguing based on procreation and the consequences of it, and claiming that marriage only pertains to couples who can procreate with one another. Not all heterosexual couples can. If the government ONLY had an interest in granting marriage to those able to conceive then it would limit it to only those who can to the exclusion of all others - INCLUDING the heterosexual couples who cannot. It is not fair or indeed Constitutional to cite procreation as a reason for withholding a whole multitude of rights to same-sex couples while acknowledging it awards them those in the EXACT SAME situation. That's why DOMA will fall, and that's why SCOTUS will eventually (whether it takes months or decades) strike down constitutional amendments limiting marriage.
     
  22. Sadanie

    Sadanie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    Messages:
    14,427
    Likes Received:
    639
    Trophy Points:
    113

    That's fine. . .as a personal CHOICE.

    But if you were TOLD that you are not allowed to cover your "future Mrs. Beason" while Mr. Gay has the option to support HIS spouse or partner. . . would you feel the same way?
     
  23. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We don't know which couples can or will procreate. We only know that every couple who does procreate will exclusively be heterosexual couples. Bright lines drawn in the law. The laws are full of them. Usually selected, not for their precision but instead their ease in identification. Being overinclusive doesn't render a law unconstitutional. AND, even if it was, making the law even more overinclusive doesn't fix the problem and would make it worse
     
  24. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never made any representation as to what marriage "pertains" to. If I had I would of said marriage pertains to any two people who are married. I've never been in an auto accident for which I was liable, but still the laws encouraging everyone to buy liability insurance on any auto owned, "pertain" to me. The potential of an auto accident is still why government does so.
     
  25. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    we know of course many couples which can't procreate, yet can still marry. rendering your procreation argument totally irrelevant and invalid.

    you do not need to be heterosexual, or a couple in order to procreate.
    no law limitting marriage to a man and a woman because they procreate exists in any state.
    of course it does. that's why you keep losing in court.
    nonsense. including same sex couples in no way makes the problem worse. it grants equal rights to more couples.
     

Share This Page