Thread updated as states legalize same-sex marriage *USA*

[Daddy]

Think the gay and lesbian residents of Maine give a shit that they aren't regarded as equals under the law

the term conspiracy theory implies something was hidden. The church was open about it's opposition to such

[Daddy]

oh mister title changer learn the difference between stalinism and socialism. your insults would make a lot more sense.

i'm going to assume it was title since he seems to throw around terms like that which is funny becuase he is unaware of irs regulations.

[Travis]

WHY DO THOSE QUEER-O-SEXUALS EVEN WANNA MARRY ANYWAY

[Classic]

Shut up Travis.

[Travis]

Shut up Travis.

Take a joke, TYLER

[Daddy]

WHY DO THOSE QUEER-O-SEXUALS EVEN WANNA MARRY ANYWAY

idklol

But "who gives a shit" when the law doesn't affect me

Now if it was a law denying the right of x to Muslims or ordering the deportation of Albanians I'm sure certain people (including me) would give a shit and realize that the protection of the minority from the Majority is important

Or Socks since you brought up a hypothetical: If the majority voted to strip the rights of all people from Albania or to deport them would you support such and give up the rights or agree to be deported or would you be disgusted by such?

Bolded for Socks to see because I want an answer.

Title, RDX, Socks: have you ever seen the look of happiness on homosexual's face when their state finally recognizes them as equals? I have. There were a few lesbian Californians here when prop 8 passed. The reaction they had was awful. Their equality under the law had just been voted away.

If you've experienced either you'd see why I care about this. I'm pretty sure none of you three, as well as I, (well RDX is a muslim--not trying to be insulting, being factual--so he'd experienced it to a degree I suppose) could imagine how it feels to be treated as a second rate citizen where, because of a way you were born, you do not deserve the same rights as everyone else. Where it's seen as a legitimate view that you're "an abomination".  Ask any of the gay members here or one you go to school or work with if they think they should be second-rate citizens.

It's not about religion in particular, I've already said a large number of religious people voted against it. My mentioning of the church was its illegal injection of itself into politics to push its own agenda.  Here is a source of it happening in the past. Spoiler I'll make it a right wing source to appeal to title and his boner for propaganda http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125408,00.html

if that article is tl;dr, it involves the church's threat to excommunicate Kerry during the 2004 election for his view on abortion.

When you have people raised to believe that the church is the only way to heaven and the church is telling, or at least heavily implying, you to vote against gay marriage you sure as hell know a large number would vote against it. Yes, a large number of people to oppose the ban, but it was still less than half.

I'm not even saying all of the votes were direct interference from the church, but even 10-20% of those votes would have changed the result.

[Classic]

Take a joke, TYLER

"Serious Discussion
No screwing around here."

Trust me. I love a good joke more than anyone.
(See: the McCain/Palin campaign)

[Daddy]

Satire is allowed if it's bzns

[Socks]

Now if it was a law denying the right of x to Muslims or ordering the deportation of Albanians I'm sure certain people (including me) would give a shit and realize that the protection of the minority from the Majority is important

you're muddying up the issue. gays are not being denied "protection", nor are they being denied a civil right. now, on that latter point, by default, the highest court agrees with this. i don't mention that to give creditability to my position, i mention it to highlight that you are your own source for that bit of comparison and claim.

Or Socks since you brought up a hypothetical: If the majority voted to strip the rights of all people from Albania or to deport them would you support such and give up the rights or agree to be deported or would you be disgusted by such?

Bolded for Socks to see because I want an answer.

well since you asked, hypothetically, of course i would not support such, nor would i enjoy it. and you, and anyone else who care to do so, can be just as disgusted by the Main result. i never said you have to like it or not criticize it. However, would i (in the case you brought up) have any grounds to claim (solely on the process) that a decision reached in such a manner is invalid? NOPE. i would consider it unjust and likely not comply with it, and i would be prepared for the full ramifications of my refusal to follow society's say. it essentially means that i would no longer be able to live within the normal bounds of the social contract to which i was formally a member of. so i can bitch and moan all i want but at the end of the day i can either live as a fugitive or go find another place more accepting. in the meantime, as in this case, all efforts to try and reverse the decision are be welcomed.

I'm not even saying all of the votes were direct interference from the church, but even 10-20% of those votes would have changed the result.

we get it, you want to eradicate religion.

so for the last time, how would lifting the tax exempt status of all religious institutions in America have changed the results of the Main vote? IT WOULD NOT. inferring from your post, only eliminating all religious institutions and banning all 'religious' beliefs could do that.

[Daddy]

you're muddying up the issue. gays are not being denied "protection", nor are they being denied a civil right. now, on that latter point, by default, the highest court agrees with this. i don't mention that to give creditability to my position, i mention it to highlight that you are your own source for that bit of comparison and claim.

Marriage provides insurance, tax, and several other benefits. Denying the right to marriage to homosexuals denies them those benefits. Denying a class of people benefits provided to another class is violating their civil rights.

i would consider it unjust

Exactly. I never said the vote was invalid. The closest I said to that was that the conduct of one of its biggest funders was engaged in illegal activity

we get it, you want to eradicate religion.

Uh, where did you get that from 10-20% of the voters who were directly manipulated by the church would make a difference == eradicating religion?

See:

I disagree with religion but I wouldn't vote to ban it
I disagree with extreme promiscuity. I wouldn't vote to ban it
I disagree with raw foodism but I wouldn't ban that either

I CAN just use my opinion and not exercise those rights without touching anyone elses

so for the last time, how would lifting the tax exempt status of all religious institutions in America have changed the results of the Main vote? IT WOULD NOT. inferring from your post, only eliminating all religious institutions and banning all 'religious' beliefs could do that.

I didn't say it would. I'm saying that the current conduct is illegal and actually enforcing such would either:
a.)At least shut them up with their bigotry
b.)Punish them for their violation of the law and open a new revenue stream.  If they're a tax paying institution then they can delve into politics all they want--they pay taxes.

[Socks]

Denying a class of people benefits provided to another class is violating their civil rights.

we'll have to agree to disagree on this one as i don't view marriage as a right for all regardless of circumstance. i see it more as a government mediated service subject to a state's voters.

Exactly. I never said the vote was invalid.

So we agree everyone that has an unfavorable decision placed upon them has a right to dislike it? Ok, glad we established that.

See:I didn't say it would.

your desire to remove religious affiliated decision making is evident though

[Daddy]

we'll have to agree to disagree on this one as i don't view marriage as a right for all regardless of circumstance. i see it more as a government mediated service subject to a state's voters.

yeah that really isn't going to go anywhere

personally, I agree with Joe Biden and don't think the government should have a role in marriage at all (Meaning marriage is a  religious ceremony with no rights itself and civil unions should be available to everyone)

So we agree everyone that has an unfavorable decision placed upon them has a right to dislike it? Ok, glad we established that.

And people that are affiliated with such too.

your desire to remove religious affiliated decision making is evident though

When under threats of damnation yes. But I'm also against corporations threatening or scaring their employees to support something.

I don't think fear should force votes.

[Ezloﺕ]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/nyregion/03marriage.html?_r=1&hp


ffffffff

[Zach]

My stance on gay marriage is as follows:

Marriage is not a right, and therefore is not within the realm of civil rights. The government shouldn't even be involved with marriage, and federal legislation concerning marriage is unconstitutional anyway since the Constitution doesn't give the federal government power over marriage, leaving it to the states. If individual states vote to legalize gay marriage, then that's fine, even though I find it morally reprehensible.

[Daddy]

My stance on gay marriage is as follows:

Marriage is not a right, and therefore is not within the realm of civil rights. The government shouldn't even be involved with marriage, and federal legislation concerning marriage is unconstitutional anyway since the Constitution doesn't give the federal government power over marriage, leaving it to the states. If individual states vote to legalize gay marriage, then that's fine, even though I find it morally reprehensible.

Once there are legal benefits to marriage(taxes, visitation in hospitals, adoption, etc) it becomes a civil right.

You can't give one group an opportunity for protections but exclude another.