Supreme Court Gay Rights Rulings: A Slippery Downhill Slope Toward What's Next?

reply to post by kaylaluv


As I've stated in my original post, there are injustices toward the homosexual community in our country, and you bet, there are discriminations on a daily basis on every level that should be dealt with. I have never argued with this point.

However, the topic at hand is marriage, so let's reign it back in shall we?

Your longwinded response to my question yielded just one small statement regarding marriage:

Not to mention the right to legally marry the consenting adult of your choice.

This issue, as I will show, is clearly not an example of discrimination. As you know, NOBODY has the right to marry just any consenting adult of their choosing in the states where gay marriage is illegal. As a homosexual, you have every right (in regards to marriage) that is offered to heterosexuals. Marriage rights, after all, do not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Last I checked, the question of sexual orientation isn't even asked when one applies for a marriage license. Everyone is entitled to marry a person of the opposite sex (which is the basis of marriage) and take advantage of the benefits that come with it whether or not they are homosexual or straight. Follow?

Therefore, to shout "discrimination" regarding this issue is merely an unsubstantiated claim that seems to get a lot of attention, but frankly is not accurate in the slightest.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

As a homosexual, you have every right (in regards to marriage) that is offered to heterosexuals.

One of the weakest and non-compassionate responses we see (and we see this ALL the time on ATS) is this right here.

You have the same Rights and level of equality because we will let you marry the opposite sex.

Brilliant

With this outlook on the issue I think I will bow out of discussion. It's just so fundamentally different than where many of us are coming from............

it's discriminative to not be able to marry who we want based on sexuality,

if a straight person wanted to marry the same sex he couldn't, that is still discriminative because you are not allowed something based on sexuality

reply to post by SaturnFX

But that's a different debate entirely.
This is simply what constitutes government marriage considering they did get their fingers involved and its too late to get it back out.
So, although I may fully agree with you on principle for the whole spirit of marriage, the technicalities here are what matter...and technically speaking, there must..must be equality from a official legal standpoint.
As far as what a priest, rabbi, or anyone else will do, that's up to their own personal philosophies.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge the respectful and thoughtful tone in which you have addressed me and this thread. Against the backdrop of the acrimonious, accusatory, and all-out combative responses that seem to riddle this thread, your voice is certainly a welcome one.

I suppose I have to concede that, yes, government involvement in marriage is part of the problem. I am not necessarily (contrary to what some might believe) bent on denying government benefits to same sex couples on par with those given in marriage. My fundamental contention has to do with the recognition of same sex relationships as marriage itself. I reject that concept for reasons that don't need to be belabored. Maybe I should pose this question. Would the gay community be sated if they were offered the same benefits that are offered to married couples, yet were denied the title of marriage?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

I really didn't see much effort on your part exploring the ones that were. It seemed like the points got overlooked entirely.

I don't think you are in much of a position to assess how much effort I have put into exploring the arguments put forth. Which points were overlooked again?

So why did you start that crap? The opposing side to your viewpoint had all their brains falling out because they were so "open-minded".

My comment, unlike yours, was not a direct insult to anyone in particular, but rather a general pondering as to the wishy-washy nature of our current society. Besides, don't you pride yourself on your "open-mindedness"? However, if my comment was hurtful to you personally in any way, shape, or form you have my deepest and sincere apologies.

Do I agree it's infallible and impervious to change? No.

I take no qualm with changing it to be in line with today's ethics.

And this is where we disagree, as I don't perceive "today's ethics" to be a bastion of moral fortitude. In some aspects, yes we have progressed ethically, but in others I'm sad to say it, we have clearly regressed.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

One of the weakest and non-compassionate responses we see (and we see this ALL the time on ATS) is this right here.

You have the same Rights and level of equality because we will let you marry the opposite sex.

Brilliant

With this outlook on the issue I think I will bow out of discussion. It's just so fundamentally different than where many of us are coming from............

I am sorry to hear that. I am truly attempting to look at this issue from a compassionate standpoint, and have stated on numerous occasions that I recognize the unfriendly climate our society poses to the gay community, and truly hope that can change.

In my second to last post I posed this question that I am willing to concede as a possible solution to my problem. Would it be a fair compromise to accept the same benefits offered a married couple, yet reserve the title of marriage for a heterosexual relationship?

reply to post by Darth_Prime

it's discriminative to not be able to marry who we want based on sexuality,

if a straight person wanted to marry the same sex he couldn't, that is still discriminative because you are not allowed something based on sexuality

As a homosexual, you aren't allowed many things. You aren't allowed to rob a bank. You aren't allowed to be naked in public. You aren't allowed to J-walk. You aren't allowed to marry someone of the same sex. No, it cannot be classified as discrimination because you have the same rules and restrictions that apply to EVERYONE.

I gave an illustration a few pages back that seems to have fallen on deaf ears and warrants repeating. It went something like this: Just because Bill Gates' next door neighbor might like to be entitled to the Gate's family inheritance, doesn't mean that he can insist on arbitrarily changing the definition of the word heir to read "a family member and/or one's next door neighbor." In this scenario, clearly, nobody would argue that there is discrimination taking place because the neighbor doesn't get what he wants. Heir means heir. Just as marriage means marriage.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


Of course I am in a position to make that assessment. I read all the posts. I can't know with certainty because I am not a mind-reader. Already hinted at that.

And this is where we disagree, as I don't perceive "today's ethics" to be a bastion of moral fortitude.

I believe in progress. Which means you don't hold onto "antiquity" as if it were infallible. The flavor of your argument is more or less that whatever is tradition is the proper position for tradition's sake. My feelings and thoughts on the matter are not grounded in 'antiquity' but in compassion for my fellow people.

You sound like a very conservative person. Religious as well? I am not throwing punches here, just saying I can understand if you have that foundation how bizarre it must seem for someone to be so dismissive of the things you attribute great importance to. I don't care one iota about how marriage is traditionally defined. There are other factors that trump that. Peoples lives are at stake.

Would it be a fair compromise to accept the same benefits offered a married couple, yet reserve the title of marriage for a heterosexual relationship?

I personally wouldn't support that.

For me it's akin to giving black students their own drinking fountain and telling them to only use that one. How thoughtful...they get their own and it's the same fresh water.

Many other LGBT supporters are cool with the "civil union" setup. So maybe that's how this will resolve I don't know.

To point out, Marriage is just one of a long list of the issues that constitute the inequality. Some of them are less technical and more abstract. It would be erroneous to think the extent of the issue is solely a matter of Rights. It's off topic so I would encourage continuing this throughout other threads. The info is out there.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


if marriage is a right to Humans then it should be a right to us because we are Human our sexuality doesn't alter that

If it was truly a 'religious thing' then alternative religions wouldn't be 'allowed' to marry, and with the separation of church and state holy laws can not dictate laws,

so why are same sex couples having to fight to marry?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Of course I am in a position to make that assessment. I read all the posts. I can't know with certainty because I am not a mind-reader. Already hinted at that.

Again, I would ask that you point me in the direction of the posts which were dismissed. I have done my utmost to read, contemplate, and respond to everyone who has participated on this thread...have I missed someone/something?

I believe in progress. Which means you don't hold onto "antiquity" as if it were infallible. The flavor of your argument is more or less that whatever is tradition is the proper position for tradition's sake. My feelings and thoughts on the matter are not grounded in 'antiquity' but in compassion for my fellow people.

Yet, even in progress we must decide what has worked in the past and what requires reworking. Change for change's sake is far more dangerous than tradition for tradition's sake. My thoughts on the matter are not rooted so much in antiquity as they are in a healthy reservation for the sake of the future.

You sound like a very conservative person. Religious as well? I am not throwing punches here, just saying I can understand if you have that foundation how bizarre it must seem for someone to be so dismissive of the things you attribute great importance to. I don't care one iota about how marriage is traditionally defined. There are other factors that trump that. Peoples lives are at stake.

I don't consider myself a "conservative" in the ordinary sense of the word. I suppose on this topic I would rather fall on the side of safe than sorry. I know popular opinion says that my stance will fall on the wrong side of history, but frankly I'm not convinced of that. I guess only time will tell. I concur with your philosophy that people, rather than ideals, are priority. Believe me when I say, this belief factors in to my view.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

I personally wouldn't support that.

For me it's akin to giving black students their own drinking fountain and telling them to only use that one. How thoughtful...they get their own and it's the same fresh water.

A better analogy would be giving a duck a pond to swim in, and a pheasant a field of grass. Again, marriage is one thing, a homosexual relationship is another. Not less, not more...just different.

To point out, Marriage is just one of a long list of the issues that constitute the inequality. Some of them are less technical and more abstract. It would be erroneous to think the extent of the issue is solely a matter of Rights. It's off topic so I would encourage continuing this throughout other threads. The info is out there.

Totally agree with most of this statement. Marriage, however is not an issue of inequality.

reply to post by Darth_Prime

if marriage is a right to Humans then it should be a right to us because we are Human our sexuality doesn't alter that

Marriage is a right for humans, correct. All humans are entitled to marry.

If it was truly a 'religious thing' then alternative religions wouldn't be 'allowed' to marry, and with the separation of church and state holy laws can not dictate laws,

Marriage is not a religious thing, correct. (although it can include religious components)

so why are same sex couples having to fight to marry?

Same sex couples are having to fight to change the definition of marriage, so that their relationship can even be considered within the parameters of marriage.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by Darth_Prime

 

if marriage is a right to Humans then it should be a right to us because we are Human our sexuality doesn't alter that

Marriage is a right for humans, correct. All humans are entitled to marry.

If it was truly a 'religious thing' then alternative religions wouldn't be 'allowed' to marry, and with the separation of church and state holy laws can not dictate laws,

Marriage is not a religious thing, correct. (although it can include religious components)

so why are same sex couples having to fight to marry?

Same sex couples are having to fight to change the definition of marriage, so that their relationship can even be considered within the parameters of marriage.

edit on 3-7-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)

The definition of marriage has already changed since the 1930s or so depending where you are in the world, at one point the wife was considered property of the husband with no separate legal personality of her own. You would have been one of the people at they times saying the granting of rights to women changes what marriage is. The world progresses, these attitudes hold it back, like religious groups have tried through out history.

Marriage is a state sanctioned partnership, extending that partnership to same sex couples in no way is going to devalue what you have with your wife. Its nothing more than a commitment between two people that effects no one but the parties involved.

Get over your self, I find it funny that Fundy Christians all over this forum complain that people are not tolerant of there beliefs, its hard to be tolerant of a bigot. Not you personally but the religious belief system is by default.

reply to post by Redarguo

The definition of marriage has already changed since the 1930s or so depending where you are in the world

Sure. In the details, as should be expected as we progress. Not fundamentally, however. Marriage at its core is between man and woman.

Marriage is a state sanctioned partnership, extending that partnership to same sex couples in no way is going to devalue what you have with your wife.

That is not my concern here...arbitrarily changing the definition of marriage is. And although, as you have correctly stated, marriage is a state sanctioned partnership, this does nothing to define what marriage is, but merely who sanctions it.

Get over your self, I find it funny that Fundy Christians all over this forum complain that people are not tolerant of there beliefs, its hard to be tolerant of a bigot. Not you personally but the religious belief system is by default.

Hmmm...the only shouts of intolerance that I've heard are from those of your ilk. Only when I am accused of intolerance do I point out the obvious circular reasoning and non sequitur logic employed to arrive there.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
Classically and throughout the history of mankind the institution of marriage has been defined as one thing and one thing alone...a formal union between a man and a woman. In order to properly call a homosexual relationship a marriage, we are forced to change the definition and fundamental basis of what a marriage is.

What an incredibly asinine thing to say. The definition of marriage has changed thousands of times. These changes are even in the Bible... which I'm assuming is the piece of literature that you're claiming to have knowledge of. Come on, now.

"Who cares what a marriage has been deemed in the past...it's time for progress and evolution," you might respond. OK sure, but have you considered the consequences of arbitrarily changing the definition of marriage?

Hah. I'll tell you what the negative consequences of redifing marriage were: the publicly zealous slaughter, slavery, humiliation, and segregation of gay people. Maybe they shouldn't have changed it 4,000 years ago, or 600 years after that, 250 years after that, 350 after that, etc..

I'm sorry but this OP is so void of correct information I really have to refuse to entertain it with any more of my time.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

As I've stated in my original post, there are injustices toward the homosexual community in our country, and you bet, there are discriminations on a daily basis on every level that should be dealt with. I have never argued with this point.

However, the topic at hand is marriage, so let's reign it back in shall we?

Your longwinded response to my question yielded just one small statement regarding marriage:

Not to mention the right to legally marry the consenting adult of your choice.

This issue, as I will show, is clearly not an example of discrimination. As you know, NOBODY has the right to marry just any consenting adult of their choosing in the states where gay marriage is illegal. As a homosexual, you have every right (in regards to marriage) that is offered to heterosexuals. Marriage rights, after all, do not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Last I checked, the question of sexual orientation isn't even asked when one applies for a marriage license. Everyone is entitled to marry a person of the opposite sex (which is the basis of marriage) and take advantage of the benefits that come with it whether or not they are homosexual or straight. Follow?

Therefore, to shout "discrimination" regarding this issue is merely an unsubstantiated claim that seems to get a lot of attention, but frankly is not accurate in the slightest.

Do you love your wife? Does she love you? Do you feel that she is the one for you? What if you were told by your government that you were not allowed to be married to her? What if you were told that you were free to marry, but you could only marry a person that you did not love or have any attraction to? This is what is happening to heterosexuals. They are told that they can indeed marry, but they have to marry someone they will never really be attracted to. That is the right that YOU have, that they do not have. Follow?

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

As I've stated in my original post, there are injustices toward the homosexual community in our country, and you bet, there are discriminations on a daily basis on every level that should be dealt with. I have never argued with this point.

However, the topic at hand is marriage, so let's reign it back in shall we?

Your longwinded response to my question yielded just one small statement regarding marriage:

Not to mention the right to legally marry the consenting adult of your choice.

This issue, as I will show, is clearly not an example of discrimination. As you know, NOBODY has the right to marry just any consenting adult of their choosing in the states where gay marriage is illegal. As a homosexual, you have every right (in regards to marriage) that is offered to heterosexuals. Marriage rights, after all, do not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Last I checked, the question of sexual orientation isn't even asked when one applies for a marriage license. Everyone is entitled to marry a person of the opposite sex (which is the basis of marriage) and take advantage of the benefits that come with it whether or not they are homosexual or straight. Follow?

Therefore, to shout "discrimination" regarding this issue is merely an unsubstantiated claim that seems to get a lot of attention, but frankly is not accurate in the slightest.

Do you love your wife? Does she love you? Do you feel that she is the one for you? What if you were told by your government that you were not allowed to be married to her? What if you were told that you were free to marry, but you could only marry a person that you did not love or have any attraction to? This is what is happening to heterosexuals. They are told that they can indeed marry, but they have to marry someone they will never really be attracted to. That is the right that YOU have, that they do not have. Follow?

Bigger issue would be if you had to pay inheritance tax on her property when she died, had no next of kin privilege, were denied a war widows pension if she served her country or compensation for her wrongful death ie industrial malpractice. Marriage for marriages sake is a bit dumb IMO. I don't need the states blessing to show my GF that I love her.

For those that are dubious about gay marriage, I present the short video below of an astonishing moment in the history of NZ. They have had gay civil unions there for several years now, and just recently they passed full and equal marriage into law.

Bear in mind this is parliament here and that the great majority of politicians are straight. The song you will hear is sung in Maori, New Zealand's second official language and is both a celebration and a gesture of good will and thanks from the people in the gallery.

Originally posted by markosity1973
For those that are dubious about gay marriage, I present the short video below of an astonishing moment in the history of NZ. They have had gay civil unions there for several years now, and just recently they passed full and e

This is the point most people are missing, its not even marriage but a civil union, ie contract, that grants the same rights as marriage. ie hetero couples can not have a civil partnership, its been tested in UK law.The definition of marriage is left in tacked for those that care the schematics of how their relationship is defined.

Originally posted by Redarguo

Originally posted by markosity1973
For those that are dubious about gay marriage, I present the short video below of an astonishing moment in the history of NZ. They have had gay civil unions there for several years now, and just recently they passed full and e

This is the point most people are missing, its not even marriage but a civil union, ie contract, that grants the same rights as marriage. ie hetero couples can not have a civil partnership, its been tested in UK law.The definition of marriage is left in tacked for those that care the schematics of how their relationship is defined.

Yes, based on the model of the NZ, civil union was a precursor to full marriage rights. It gave the straight community time to adjust and realise that gay relationships are not scary. It's a good compromise for both sides of the argument - the legal rights are the same just a different name.

And in the case of both countries, people eventually realised that the gay community weren't going to bring down the basic family unit or infringe on the age old man marries a woman stereotype.