patrick.net

freak80 says

But what rights are being denied people based on their sexual activities? That's what I don't understand

There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.

freak80 says

Sure, there's the marriage issue, but is marriage a "right"?

According to the Supreme Court, it is. From the case of Loving v. Virginia (June 12, 1967)

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Now this case dealt with laws forbidding interracial marriage, but if you replace "race" with "sexual orientation" the reasoning is exactly the same. Hence, this Supreme Court case also validates the Unconstitutionality of any restrictions on gay marriage. It also affirms that marriage is not just a right, but a fundamental human right.

No real American can deny equality under law. One who does is American in name only. The very essence of what it means to be American is embodied in the 14th Amendment. It is the fundamental principle of our society.

anonymous says

Tom, do you think all these folks are gay?

He probably does. Tommy and Homeboy are basically these two idiots...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/_OuAZW3OtBA

Dan8267 says

FYI, heterosexual men are also discriminated against as shown in this ABC News experiment.

As a liberal, I don't see the difference between a man drugging a woman and a woman drugging a man. Both are doing evil and obviously intend on doing even more evil later. Both should be confronted.

Maybe more people would have helped the guy had he not looked so much like a realtor. They probably thought the pill was some kind of meat tenderizer.

Dan8267 says

Now this case dealt with laws forbidding interracial marriage, but if you replace "race" with "sexual orientation" the reasoning is exactly the same. Hence, this Supreme Court case also validates the Unconstitutionality of any restrictions on gay marriage. It also affirms that marriage is not just a right, but a fundamental human right.

Fair enough.

But then why limit the definition of marriage to *only two* people? My sexual orientation is the desire to have sex with as many women as possible. I'd love to have 10 wives. Isn't the government discriminating against my sexual orientation?

If I remember correctly, the Mormon church was forced by the federal government to outlaw polygamy (correct me if I'm wrong).

Oddly enough, there isn't a mass-movement in favor of polygamist marriage right now. Ok, maybe in Utah...

Dan8267 says

The gay rights movement is about equality under law. That includes what laws are written, marriage equality, equal taxation, and eliminating law enforcement discrimination against gays, both in terms of police crimes against gays and civil crimes against gays that the police ignore.

But we are not all equal in every way, we are only equal under equal circumstances. And laws are not about "equality", they are about promoting better society and order. If someone wants to marry a dog or 10 wives it's their sexual orientation too, but they shouldn't have the right to do so if we are to have a civilized society. Everything goes is anarchy of failure.

bob2356 says

Get a life. Roman empire fell because of corrupt politicians, dividing the empire, citizens dodging military service, currency debasement, poor trading practices, and the huge rise in number of and cooperation between the barbarian tribes. Morality wasn't the issue.

You just described failure of morality and then said morality was not an issue. You liberals don't know your left hand from your right one!

freak80 says

But then why limit the definition of marriage to *only two* people?

It shouldn't be. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a business contract. You can enter a business contract with multiple people, so polygamy should be legal. Nonetheless, the issue of polygamy is independent of the issue of gay marriage. So one battle at a time.

The fundamental problem is that the state should not have a secular institute of marriage in the first place. The state should stay out of the bedroom. There should be no legal definition of marriage and no law using the word marriage and no rights based on marriage and no tax codes based on marriage status just like there isn't any of these things regarding holy communion status or baptismal status.

A religious and social institution should not be a secular institution. All laws concerning marriage should be immediately and unconditionally repealed. Laws regarding child custody and parental rights should be marriage agnostic.

Unfortunately, the state has long based its control over the population around marriage that moving away from that model is inconceivable. Nonetheless, no government agency should have any authority over the personal and private relationships of any persons. The state should no more be in the marriage business than in the proctology business.

Dan, I admire your consistency on the marriage issue. +1.

Too often I hear, "well you're just a bigot for using polygamy as an argument against gay marriage" or something to that effect.

I wish more politicians would make a careful distinction between "civil" marriage and "religious" marriage (like you do). There'd be a lot less conflict. Unfortunately, many politicians want conflict. They want to rally their "true believers" and portray the "other side" as a bunch of evil scum. Do you think it's the tribal psychology thing, similar to the psychology of pro sports? I think it is.

The gay marriage issue is also a great "wedge issue" to divide the population. The top 0.1% can "divide and conquer" the 99.9%

FortWayne says

bob2356 says

Get a life. Roman empire fell because of corrupt politicians, dividing the empire, citizens dodging military service, currency debasement, poor trading practices, and the huge rise in number of and cooperation between the barbarian tribes. Morality wasn't the issue.

You just described failure of morality and then said morality was not an issue. You liberals don't know your left hand from your right one!

Good thing I'm not a liberal then. I'm middle of the road right leaning on fiscal, left leaning on social issues. That means I have the burden of actually thinking for myself, rather than just regurgitating whatever fox,beck,rush feed me like you do.

Which of the above so you see as a morality issue other than corrupt politicians? That's not a morality issue, it's just nature of the beast. Trade? Stronger enemies? Poor trade practices? Splitting the empire? Currency debasement? Yep all of these are certainly about sex, drugs, rock and roll. Not.

Dan8267 says

The state should no more be in the marriage business than in the proctology business.

+1000

mell says

Dan8267 says

The state should no more be in the marriage business than in the proctology business.

+1000

When I look over the withholdings on my paycheck I think they actually are!
Every week!
No lube!

freak80 says

Too often I hear, "well you're just a bigot for using polygamy as an argument against gay marriage" or something to that effect.

Polygamy has failed in many cultures. The world has adopted the Roman/European model to marriage and rights of the blood offspring to carry on the family name. The question is not about all kinds of unions, but the rights of offspring to carry the name and pass on property/assets.

YOU ARE the son of your fathers, fathers, father.. and all the rights that come with your last name, authority, property, and etc etc.

FortWayne says

If someone wants to marry a dog or 10 wives it's their sexual orientation too,
but they shouldn't have the right to do so if we are to have a civilized
society. Everything goes is anarchy of failure.

The Dog analogy always comes up sooner than later; so much that it needs its own internet-lore law. We should call it Dogwin's law, as a gay marriage thread progresses, the chance of someone mentioning marrying their dog approaches 1.

The vanguard phase of a social change movement requires an excess of pride for the sake of cohesion and motivation. In a generation, when gay couples are accepted instead of stigmatized, gay "pride" will be a moot point. Until then, it's really going to bother certain people, in measure with their dislike (for whatever reason) of gay people.

Championing divisive causes such as this is one of the Republican party's current problems.

Cool, I just submitted Dogwin's Law to Urban Dictionary and they're publishing it. Thanks, FortWayne.

Automan Empire says

The Dog analogy always comes up sooner than later; so much that it needs its own internet-lore law. We should call it Dogwin's law, as a gay marriage thread progresses, the chance of someone mentioning marrying their dog approaches 1.

That's a good (and hilarious) observation. +1.

FortWayne says

Whats there to take pride in exactly?

Pride in being true to yourself, and doing it despite the hate that is likely going to be directed at you for it. It takes bravery to come out as homosexual. An openly gay person has faced a dilemma, been true to themselves, and has earned the right to be proud of it.

freak80 says

But then why limit the definition of marriage to *only two* people? My sexual orientation is the desire to have sex with as many women as possible. I'd love to have 10 wives. Isn't the government discriminating against my sexual orientation?

Go ahead - provided:

1) You can support your 10 wives and all resulting children without any state support

2) You marry American women that no other man will take - fat, ugly, stupid, and possibly psychotic.

3) No pre-nuptuals

Have fun!

FortWayne says

If someone wants to marry a dog or 10 wives it's their sexual orientation too, but they shouldn't have the right to do so if we are to have a civilized society.

THAT gets into the question of consent. Marriage has to be between two consenting individuals - how can you confirm a dog (or any animal) consents or even has any comprehension of marriage?

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

They should get one big fucking bed, literally, for savage group fucking and satiation of the god-man of the household.

And the bed should be made of the bones of bankers with skulls for the headposts.

FortWayne says

But we are not all equal in every way, we are only equal under equal circumstances. And laws are not about "equality", they are about promoting better society and order.

What does that even mean? No one is arguing that we are all equal in height, good looks, finance, intelligence, and body odor. The 14th Amendment says we are all equal under law. That means something specific. It means

1. We all have the exact same set of rights.
2. There are no privileges under law.
3. Laws cannot be written to arbitrarily discriminate against any group or enforce any prejudice.
4. No one is above the law or not subject to it.
5. Enforcement of laws must be universal. Police and the state cannot choose against whom to enforce the law.

Does our government violate the 14th Amendment? Yes, every fucking day. And every time it is, the government pisses on the graves of every soldier who died defending our freedom. But that means we, the people, should not tolerate any violation of the 14th Amendment. It is the most important part of the Constitution, even more important than the First Amendment. The principle that we all have the same rights is more important than any particular right, even free speech.

To argue that we are equal under law has nothing to do with stating that all people are identical, have the same talents, most have the same net worth by law, or any other Straw Man argument. To argue that we are all equal under law pertains only to the taxation, representation, legislation, and court system to which every individual is subject. Yet, these things are so critical to the liberty and quality of a person's life, that equality under law is the single most important principle of our society. It is utterly impossible to promote a better society without this principle.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/cH0WD4XpoJ8
http://www.youtube.com/embed/QTwKOCILJl0

FortWayne says

If someone wants to marry a dog or 10 wives it's their sexual orientation too, but they shouldn't have the right to do so if we are to have a civilized society.

If someone wants to marry an African or Jew or 10 wives it's their sexual orientation too, but they shouldn't have the right to do so if we are to have a civilized society.

Notice that the reasoning, or lack thereof, in the above two sentences are exactly the same. This should be the first clue that your statement is false.

During the 1960s, bigoted Americans made the exact same argument against interracial marriage, called miscreation at the time. They argued that if a man were permitted to marry a nigger, it's like and will eventually lead to men marrying dogs and to polygamy. This, of course, is a racist and ridiculous marriage. A black human being is not the same thing as a dog. Black persons can enter legally binding contracts; dogs can't.

This argument when applied to same-sex marriage is just as bigoted and ridiculous, and for the exact same reasons. A homosexual person is not the same thing as a dog. Homosexual persons can enter legally binding contracts; dogs can't.

As for polygamy, there is no legal justification to ban it. However, that argument is independent of the argument of same sex marriage. The two issues have nothing to do with each other, so equating them is a red herring. However, if you want to discuss the morality of bestiality or polygamy, go to Why the hell is bestiality or polygomy immoral?

FortWayne says

If someone wants to marry a dog or 10 wives it's their sexual orientation too, but they shouldn't have the right to do so if we are to have a civilized society. Everything goes is anarchy of failure.

The statement that polygamy cause anarchy is empirically false. Polygamy was legal in the United States until it was outlawed by the federal government in 1862. It did not lead to any fall of government, mass hysteria, or crime against humanity. Drones, the NSA, and America's dependency on oil has lead to all three of these things. They should be banned rather than polygamy.

The banning of polygamy does clearly and wholly violate the First Amendment. Many religions such as Islamic ones practice polygamy. Even some Christian and Christian-like religions practiced it. The ban on polygamy is based solely on modern Christian beliefs and thus is both an attack on other religions and is forcing the practice of another religion onto the people.

Even if you dismiss Islamic religions as "subhuman and unworthy of respect", are you willing to do the same to Native American religions and look like an intolerant asshole? Yep, many Native American religions practiced polygamy. Are you willing to go so far as to let the federal government, the same assholes who committed genocide against the Native Americans, to now prevent their few surviving descendants from practicing their non-violent native religions? That would be pretty low. Yet, this is exactly what the federal ban on polygamy does.

Yet, banning the marriage of multiple persons does not ban the practice of having sex with multiple persons either sequentially or in parallel. Polygamous sex is the norm in our society and there is nothing that the state should be allowed to do about it. The freedom to make one's own sexual decisions is a basic human right.

Automan Empire says

The Dog analogy always comes up sooner than later; so much that it needs its own internet-lore law. We should call it Dogwin's law, as a gay marriage thread progresses, the chance of someone mentioning marrying their dog approaches 1.

It's a reasonable analogy for the slippery slope society we are in.

New Renter says

THAT gets into the question of consent. Marriage has to be between two consenting individuals - how can you confirm a dog (or any animal) consents or even has any comprehension of marriage?

Chickens, pigs, and cows don't exactly consent to being on a dinner plate either, but oh well. Whats your point?

FortWayne says

Chickens, pigs, and cows don't exactly consent to being on a dinner plate either, but oh well. Whats your point?

Wow--did you just compare being married to being eaten?

FortWayne says

Automan Empire says

The Dog analogy always comes up sooner than later; so much that it needs its own internet-lore law. We should call it Dogwin's law, as a gay marriage thread progresses, the chance of someone mentioning marrying their dog approaches 1.

It's a reasonable analogy for the slippery slope society we are in.

Just in case you weren't clear on who you're talking to, well,..now you know.

Let me guess Fort Wayne. As a student you were always one of the brightest. You got perfect scores on your SATs and went to either MIT, Cal Tech, Stanford or Harvard. And since then, well the rest is history.

So it's no wonder that when you bring your high powered thought processes and your resulting opinions to this forum, that most of us can't begin to comprehend where you're coming from.

Not even close.
You cannot equate canines with humans.

Dan8267 says

If someone wants to marry an African or Jew or 10 wives it's their sexual orientation too, but they shouldn't have the right to do so if we are to have a civilized society.

Notice that the reasoning, or lack thereof, in the above two sentences are exactly the same.

My dog nods 'yes' and 'no' to questions asked.
You must house a dumb bitch...

New Renter says

Marriage has to be between two consenting individuals - how can you confirm a dog (or any animal) consents

FortWayne says

New
Renter says

THAT gets into the question of consent. Marriage has to be between two
consenting individuals - how can you confirm a dog (or any animal) consents or
even has any comprehension of marriage?

Chickens, pigs, and cows don't exactly consent to being on a dinner plate
either, but oh well. Whats your point?
It's a reasonable analogy for the slippery slope society we are in.

The point is, animals cannot consent or enter into contracts, so your strawman argument is so ridiculously inapplicable as to exclude your opinion from serious consderation in the debate.
Ditto for the "slippery slope" argument; it is poor debating technique, especially when your provided examples have high shock value but near zero practice or demand in real life.
You can do better than this, I suspect...

New Renter says

1) You can support your 10 wives and all resulting children without any state support

Don't worry, I'll use condoms. And they'll be on the pill.

Dan8267 says

Even if you dismiss Islamic religions as "subhuman and unworthy of respect", are you willing to do the same to Native American religions and look like an intolerant asshole?

Dan, if I remember correctly, you're no fan of Islam. Does that make you an intolerant asshole? ;-)

bg says

FortWayne says

Whats there to take pride in exactly?

Pride in being true to yourself, and doing it despite the hate that is likely going to be directed at you for it. It takes bravery to come out as homosexual. An openly gay person has faced a dilemma, been true to themselves, and has earned the right to be proud of it.

Did I miss it? Did Fort Wayne finally come out of the closet? :)

FortWayne says

Chickens, pigs, and cows don't exactly consent to being on a dinner plate either, but oh well. Whats your point?

His point is that marriage is a contract and chicken, pigs, and cows can't sign contracts, whereas blacks, gays, and Jews can. Therefore, comparing same-sex marriage or interracial marriage to bestiality is retarded.

SoftShell says

You cannot equate canines with humans.

Which is exactly why it's retarded to propose that allowing gays to marry is akin to allowing a man to marry a dog.

freak80 says

Dan, if I remember correctly, you're no fan of Islam. Does that make you an intolerant asshole? ;-)

I'm no fan of any religion, but I can be against religion and in favor of religious freedom. That makes me a very tolerant asshole. I literally tolerate religion (up to the point where it interferes with other people's rights). You can't tolerate something you don't dislike.

Nonetheless, my point in the above quote is that the people who are so willing to criticize polygamy and demand that it stay illegal, would have a very tough time doing so when confronted by a Native American who wanted to practice his heritage, the one destroyed by land-stealing genocidal racists. Then it becomes hard to take the moral high ground against polygamy.

Dan8267 says

That makes me a very tolerant asshole.

Fair enough. :-)

marcus says

Let me guess Fort Wayne. As a student you were always one of the brightest. You got perfect scores on your SATs and went to either MIT, Cal Tech, Stanford or Harvard. And since then, well the rest is history.

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach".

Yeah Mr big shot teacher, "leave them kids alone".

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

You cannot equate canines with humans.

Which is exactly why it's retarded to propose that allowing gays to marry is akin to allowing a man to marry a dog.

If enough perverts in society market and parade about it enough, they'll justify marrying a dog using any flawed logic if necessary... just like homosexuality.

While Rome burns.

Obligatory:

zzyzzx says

Obligatory:

Hehe - good one ;)

Automan Empire says

The Dog analogy always comes up sooner than later; so much that it needs its own internet-lore law.

Agreed because instead of addressing reality, its taking the debate to an extreme context that has nothing to do with the debate at all. The reason this sort of analogy falls flat on its face is that it basically denies the existence of human intellect and basis rationality. We are not talking about dogs. We're talking about human beings.

Either way, in 50 years time people will look back at such negative statements with the same disgust that people look upon attitudes expressed on other, now commonplace rights that have come into prominence. This further illustrates how from a historical perspective, conservative Americans have pretty much already lost every single thing they fight against and cannot stop.

RE: The $50 lesson as cut and pasted in various guises about the internet.

One year later, the man is pacing about his dead lawn and flowerbeds when the family happens by again. "What's wrong?" the little girl asks. Agitated, the man describes his pension that he worked 40 years to pay into was raided when his former company was bought by a venture capital group. He tells of having no money to maintain his home, even to eat, and he is about to lose everything and doesn't understand why.

The little girl tells him dinner is at 6:00 if he wishes to join them. "Really, you'd do that?"
Yes, says the little girl. Welcome back to the Democratic party.

freak80 says

New Renter says

1) You can support your 10 wives and all resulting children without any state support

Don't worry, I'll use condoms. And they'll be on the pill.

Better hope they don't "forget" to take the pill and shove a pin through your condoms.

Of course with wives like these the pill and condoms become a moot point altogether:

Have fun!

FortWayne says

If enough perverts in society market and parade about it enough, they'll justify marrying a dog using any flawed logic if necessary... just like homosexuality.

While Rome burns.

1. No amount of marriage equality under law would result in bestial marriages.

2. There is absolutely nothing immoral about two committed guys in a marriage.

3. There is absolutely nothing immoral about gay sex, which happens more often outside of marriage than in. Gays don't get married to get laid or play the field, they get married when they don't want to play the field.

4. The idea that gay marriage would cause the collapse of the United States government is ridiculous. Sure, the U.S. is like the Roman empire right before the fall, but it has nothing to do with sex, homosexuality, or marriage.

Rome fell because

1. They over-expanded their territories.

2. They used mercenaries who had no allegiance to their society. Most Roman soldiers were non-Roman "barbarians" for hire. Most worked for Haliburton. OK, I'm kidding about that, but it's pretty much the same thing.

3. The government debased the currency, what used to be call "inflation" before the term was misused in Newspeak.

4. Declining birth rates due to lead poisoning of the water supply.

5. A ever widening rich-poor gap. Yes, the 0.1%. Too bad Occupy Rome wasn't invented.

6. Geographical and political division of the Roman Empire into two distinct bodies (the Eastern Empire and the Western Empire).

7. Most important of all, the rise of Christianity. Yes, Christianity killed the Roman Empire by acquiring political and economic power from the state. The pope became more important than the emperor.

And yes, all of these reasons except #6 apply to the United States. It's ridiculously easy to see how each of those things are being played out in the United States..

Rome, and the United States, have 99 problems but a gay ain't one of them.