Topic: Uh... somebody explain to me again why this is an issue? (Read 34803 times)

Anonymous · « **on:** February 13, 2004, 09:42:36 AM »

http://www.geekforum.org/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=13" target="BLANK">

http://www.gotthegeek.com/images/demo_avatar_kane_screen_sm.jpg"> Submitted by Demosthenes

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=5&u=/nm/20040213/ts_nm/rights_gays_dc" target="BLANK">Linkage

From the linked article:

Foes of gay marriage said they were dismayed by the outcome and predicted the lawmakers who voted against the amendment would face fury from voters in their districts.

"There's going to be a lot of people waking up tomorrow who will be very disappointed in their legislators," said Ron Crews, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

Or, they might just not care very much at all.

This is something I am completely at a loss to understand. I can see one side getting upset about not being treated equally... in this day and age especially. There is reason for uproar when a segment of society is being ostracised and treated poorly for no reason whatsoever, and the biggest indicator of that is how they are treated under the law.

The Constitution forbids granting more privileges and rights to one group over another, and it forbids depriving anyone of rights and privileges without due process.

Homosexuals have a pretty good reason to be upset. They are being treated like second-class citizens by the lack of recognition from the government and that is an inequity that is clearly unamerican and against the principles of liberty and equality under law.

HOWEVER...

What the hell are their opponents in an uproar over?

Let me say this: as a heterosexual man, gay marriage is none of my business.

Why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? How does that harm anyone?

There are no grounds to be getting upset about if you're not one of the people being deprived of a right and/or privilege.

So as a straight man, I see gay marriage as none of my business.

But as an American who firmly believes in the concepts of individual liberty and personal responsibility, I am outraged.

I see a segment of society being openly and maliciously discriminated against, and it makes me sick that such a large portion of our population is that willfully callous and spiteful.

To those immature, backwards people, I say "Grow the fuck up!" and "Mind your own business!".

How would you like it if there was suddenly open talk in the White House and Congress about making a Constitutional amendment that prohibits something that YOU can't change about yourself?

Here's an idea for a Constitutional amendment: "Nobody who has naturally blond hair may marry another person who also has naturally blond hair."

That's fair, isn't it?

I mean, it's no more or less arbitrary than prohibiting same-sex couples from getting hitched. Right?

How about this one: "No person who is right-handed may marry any person who is left-handed."

See where I'm going with this?

"But that's not the same thing!" you protest.

I beg to differ.

Anonymous · « **Reply #1 on:** February 13, 2004, 09:45:56 AM »

Holly huge anchor tag batman!

EDIT: awww....

hackess · « **Reply #2 on:** February 13, 2004, 09:48:05 AM »

Kryzec on the Republicans: "Pray to remove the gay."

Let 'em marry. This is ridiculous.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2004, 10:06:15 AM »

Quote from: TheJudge

Holly huge anchor tag batman!

EDIT: awww....

Heh. I missed the end quotation mark in my link right at the beginning of the post, so everything after that was fuxx0r3d up.

xolik · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2004, 11:21:40 AM »

Why is it an issue? It's an election year. I think certain politicians will be pushing this more and more in hopes to distract the voters from noticing certain other worldly events (and failures). Or maybe I'm just being cynical.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #5 on:** February 13, 2004, 11:32:57 AM »

Quote from: xolik

Why is it an issue? It's an election year. I think certain politicians will be pushing this more and more in hopes to distract the voters from noticing certain other worldly events (and failures). Or maybe I'm just being cynical.

Bingo.

"Let's take something that doesn't even affect most people and make up a bunch of indignant moral outrage about it so we can distract everyone from our other fuckups".

Sounds about right.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #6 on:** February 14, 2004, 11:31:09 AM »

Geez, Demosthenes...you're such a fag-hag.

Seriously though, I join you in my 'still not getting it'-ness.

What possible difference can it make to people?

"Oh no, now a gay man could have sex with me and he'll be committing adultery, too! This is worse than ever before! They are making a sham out of the institution of marriage! My seven ex-wives and I all agree on this."

Demosthenes · « **Reply #7 on:** February 14, 2004, 04:30:53 PM »

One of the arguments I keep hearing is that it somehow "erodes" the institution of marriage between men and women.

I'm married. To a woman.

I don't feel the least bit threatened by a bunch of people I don't even know getting married to each other... same sex or otherwise. How on earth do existing hetero marriages become somehow lessened by this?

A totally nonsensical argument, if you ask me.

Rico · « **Reply #8 on:** February 14, 2004, 04:48:47 PM »

As a Christian I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong (suprise!), but as one of my best friends is gay, and even a cousin, I've gotten much more used to the idea than most of the other folks in my home-town-area.

Despite that, my opinion on gay marriages? I couldn't care less. It doesn't effect me, or my wife. I know why alot of the Christian Coalition guys are all up in arms over the issue, but I don't particularly agree with them. My gay buddy is a good friend, demonstrated time and again as he looks after my wife while I'm overseas. I see no reason why he can't live his life however he wants. I think pre-marital-sex is wrong too, but I did it, and I don't see any difference between the two. The Bible says that all sins are of equal weight, so why bother picking a couple to get worked up over, and ignoring the others.

That probably just means I'm not a very good Christian, I guess.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #9 on:** February 14, 2004, 04:54:59 PM »

Oh, I don't know.

In my book, the definition of "A Good Christian" is one who is comfortable enough in his own beliefs to not insist that every other person on the globe believe in exactly the same manner.

You seem like a Good Christian to me, Rico.

Binoboy · « **Reply #10 on:** February 14, 2004, 04:58:10 PM »

The political cartoon in my school paper had something like this. A redneck reading a paper:

"Homosexuals gittin' hitched?! It'll erode out moral fiber, it will! Even my three ex-wives would agree on that!"

Of course there's a white pointed hood with eyeholes hidden in the background. Hehehe, I was one of the few people I know who noticed it on first look.

Rico · « **Reply #11 on:** February 14, 2004, 04:58:24 PM »

Ah, guess I'm an okay Christian in your books then, Demo. I believe the way I do, for my own reasons and don't really expect others to believe the samething, much less for the same reasons.

I can hear my fellow Southern Baptist having a collective appolexy over this one though. lol

Demosthenes · « **Reply #12 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:05:26 PM »

Lol. This really makes me laugh: Linky

Good for them.

The part that makes me laugh is the fact that there are people out there actually pissed off enough about the whole situation that they are trying to get a court order to stop them.

LOL! Like that'll work or something.

There's a good point to this. Here's how I see the chain of events:

1) Mass. sets a precedent by declaring bans on gay marriage "unconstitutional"

2) Other municipalities begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and performing marriages

3) Spiteful bigots bring lawsuits to bear in order to stop this, pointing out existing ordinances that say marriage is only "man-woman"

What happens next?

4) As a result of the bigots' lawsuits, said laws get overturned as "unconstitutional" on equal protection grounds, and same-sex marriage becomes a recognized entity in legal terms in every state where this happens, one after another.

5) Said bigots then move to only other recourse: "What? Unconstitutional? FINE! We'll change the Constitution!" on both a state and federal level.

6) Not enough support present to amend the respective Constitutions, same-sex marriage recognition stays on teh books.

Someone wanna take bets on whether or not I'm wrong?

Law · « **Reply #13 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:36:38 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

Someone wanna take bets on whether or not I'm wrong?

Sounds about right from a legal standpoint.

Anonymous · « **Reply #14 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:39:40 PM »

I've always said your should find your soulmate. Souls don't have genders.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #15 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:44:40 PM »

Quote from: Law

Quote from: Demosthenes
Someone wanna take bets on whether or not I'm wrong?

Sounds about right from a legal standpoint.

Well that's about what I figured too... it seems obvious.

Now why aren't the conservative legal-types that are raising an uproar about this seeing the same course of events?

I mean, it's obvious that the "civil disobedience" going on in the issuing of marriage licenses in areas where it is illegal to do so is just a ploy to get them to sue to stop them so as to get the laws overturned in a court of law.

And it's obvious by Massachusetts' ruling that this is a pretty hardcore precedent to get around.

Heck, with all the talk about a US Constitutional amendment defining gays as second-class citizens, they MUST be aware that challenging gay marriage in court right now is probably going to end in a loss for their "moral" cause. I mean, that's why they're barking up the Amendment Tree to begin with... it's because they KNOW that it's unconstitutional to deny equal rights to any segment of society, and they KNOW that they'll have to change the Constitution if they want to have their way.

But are they honestly so dense as to think that a Constitutional amendment of this nature would actually happen? The very idea is such a long shot as to be ludicrous!

So law, am I missing something here, or does this look like "game, set, match" for civil rights?

With victory that clearly inevitable, why are the conservative moralists insisting on stepping onto the courts? Do they know something I don't know?

xolik · « **Reply #16 on:** February 16, 2004, 02:12:06 PM »

Here's an additional laugh.

"Defense of Marriage Act Author Sexually Assaults Woman in Hotel Lounge"

http://www.enidnews.com/story.php?story_id=56471&c=29

Because marriage is sacred and so is grabbing young women's rears.

Law · « **Reply #17 on:** February 16, 2004, 08:59:04 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

So law, am I missing something here, or does this look like "game, set, match" for civil rights?

I'm still trying to figure out what they think they have up their sleeve. The Massachsetts ruling beats all when it comes to near iron-clad precedents to overcome, much more so than Vermont or Hawai'i. The creation of a "second class" is a damn near impossible classification to overcome under today's Constitutional rulings.

The other issue that most of the parties advocating an amendment are doing so on the basis of their 'morals.' The problem being, when asked to define their moral outrage they immediately lunge at either a Bible or a religious leader and BAM the Establishment Clause smacks them upside their heads. So, the challenge is to define religious morality without a trace of religion or face immediate judicial termination of your amendment.

So, the onyl thing I can think of is that they are pissed at Margaret Marshall et al. and have decided to shout as loudly as possible while the cameras are pointing at them and hope (but not pray!) that a solution falls into their laps...

Demosthenes · « **Reply #18 on:** February 17, 2004, 09:12:46 AM »

Quote from: Law

Quote from: Demosthenes
So law, am I missing something here, or does this look like "game, set, match" for civil rights?

I'm still trying to figure out what they think they have up their sleeve. The Massachsetts ruling beats all when it comes to near iron-clad precedents to overcome, much more so than Vermont or Hawai'i. The creation of a "second class" is a damn near impossible classification to overcome under today's Constitutional rulings.

The other issue that most of the parties advocating an amendment are doing so on the basis of their 'morals.' The problem being, when asked to define their moral outrage they immediately lunge at either a Bible or a religious leader and BAM the Establishment Clause smacks them upside their heads. So, the challenge is to define religious morality without a trace of religion or face immediate judicial termination of your amendment.

So, the onyl thing I can think of is that they are pissed at Margaret Marshall et al. and have decided to shout as loudly as possible while the cameras are pointing at them and hope (but not pray!) that a solution falls into their laps...

Well that ultimately brings me to the only real tactic I think these guys are using... make a big show for the conservative voters.

That way, when they lose, they can just blame it on those godless liberals like everything else, and they still have the semblance of piety and morality. I don't think they have any real expectation of being able to amend the Constitution in this way, and I certainly don't think they expect to win any of these lawsuits. It's all for show.

Heck, even some Democrats are taking that path from the looks of it. And some are being rather noncommittal until they get a better feel for what the fallout is going to be like.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #19 on:** February 17, 2004, 11:53:37 AM »

As a sidetrack to this topic, I just wanted to share this picture I ran across this morning, because I thought it was funny.

Rico · « **Reply #20 on:** February 17, 2004, 12:09:07 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

As a sidetrack to this topic, I just wanted to share this picture I ran across this morning, because I thought it was funny.

They don't like hotlinking there...

Anonymous · « **Reply #21 on:** February 17, 2004, 12:12:26 PM »

http://www.unclestupid.com/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/10007/normal_lesbians-bush.jpg

copy and past this address in your browser.

xolik · « **Reply #22 on:** February 17, 2004, 12:13:18 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

As a sidetrack to this topic, I just wanted to share this picture I ran across this morning, because I thought it was funny.

Haw haw! /muntz

Demosthenes · « **Reply #23 on:** February 17, 2004, 12:25:47 PM »

Quote from: Rico

They don't like hotlinking there...

Eh?

Why do you say that? Are you getting a red-x or something?

Anonymous · « **Reply #24 on:** February 17, 2004, 12:27:27 PM »

It shows an imgae that says "No hotlinking". Clear your browser.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Uh... somebody explain to me again why this is an issue? (Read 34803 times)

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous