A couple of quick observations (as I have to work in the morning): 1. You discuss what the law is. A debate is centered around what the law should be. There was a time when it was legal to own people. There were times when discrimination was the norm. These things changed and we are better off for it. Why the closed mind here? 2. Immutable? I do not know. I do know that nobody has ever woken up one morning and made the conscious choice to be gay. One does not control who they are attracted to. 3. It is interesting that there is a group who can have a long term relationship, have all of their property taken in the middle of the night by their partner, and have no legal recourse for it. This seems to lack in the "fundamental fairness" that many Constitutional scholars like to wax philosophical about.
while this might be true...I do know people that have woken up in the middle of the night and decided to NOT be gay, (anymore). your other point about property rights is interesting. But, I have read about civil unions offering protection in these types of situations and nearly every other legal benifit as a hetreosexual marriages, and yet homosexuals still want the term "marriage". That, to me, seems more like a battle of acceptance than equality.
i would love to have sensible intelligent republicans with your mindset to disagree with in the gop leadership.
I know some girls who have made that choice about 2 a.m in the morning. They were up all night drinking though.
That's what they told you, but either they weren't really gay or they are still guy but keeping it a secret.
As you recognize though there isn't a legal framework in regard to the dispostion of rights in polygamy which is why it is problematic. Gay marriage doesn't require a new legal framework since it is the same as hetero marriage in that it deals with two parties. It is an expansion of who those parties are but its not the creation of a new set of rights. I don't know all of the laws regarding this but my understanding is that sex between cousins isn't illegal but the issue of marriage between cousins is in regard to the danger of inbreeding. IN that case you can say that an act is necessary for that particular hazard but n the case of homosexuals this is hazard that doesn't exist since homosexuals can't biologically have children with each other. So the danger that is being avoided isn't purely one of moral repugnance as there is a biological component which isn't a problem with homosexuals to begin with.
Disabled are under the American with Disabilities Act. Anyway this argument isn't about creating a protected class its about extending the same rights to homosexuals as it is to heterosexuals. In regard to marriage homosexuals aren't asking for anything different or special.
Is this truly just a homosexual thing? Granted, the majority of same-sex marriages would probably be between two gays, but would folks be O.K. with creating a "Chuck and Larry" marriage where two straight men or women could also get married? I assume same-sex marriage laws would extend to straight folks as well.
We should post a poll to choose Shovel Face/Southern Select/Artesticle's next user name. This is frequently brought up with absolutely no evidence it would happen. Aside from the movies - why is it assumed that homosexuals are prone to having sham-marriages any more than heterosexuals?
If gay marriage divorces are allowed it will set a precedent that will lead to the end of Christian marriage as we know it -- this liberal agenda has got to stop. Gay Divorce, FEMA re-education centers, death camps, socialism -- WHERE DOES IT END !?
There's really so little debate to this issue now it's comical. These threads basically consist of 3 types of people. 1) Trolls who either hate homosexuals and/or liberals and can't identify between the two 2) Guys like Madmax, rhester, etc. 3) EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE PLANET
it ends with our sexually confused children at the wrong end of a glory hole at a random interstate rest area. with the education czar passing out condoms.
give a reason why one small politically and socially powerful group should be able to dictate the establishment of new rights to the rest of society? Homosexually is aberrant and an evolutionary dead end but let's assume that homosexuality isn't "morally" wrong. Then as a political question why should one group be able to redefine a seminal institution to suit their needs. Like many social issues it's caged in "constitutional" rights as thorny questions have traditionally been (for example Southern states insisted that Slavery wasn't a moral question but a question of property rights guaranteed to slave owners by the Constitution) but society places all manner of restrictions on who can legally marry whom that we all accept... there's an age of consent, polygamy laws, etc etc. If the gay argument is that it's a basic human right for anyone in love to marry anyone else... and that therefore it's morally and legally wrong for the State to impede the union between consenting individuals then what right does the state have to say one consenting man cannot legitimately marry 2 consenting women? Or that he doesn't have the right to enter into a legal union in order to support/raise families by 2 women and give them the same legal protection that gays want via legitimizing marriage? It sounds crazy to compare gay marriage to polygamy or underage marriage but 10 years ago gay marriage was a preposterous idea as well. And in fact in other countries and throughout history, despite the fact that no society (even those with histories of pederastry or gay societies) allowed the marriage of 2 men there have been societies that have functioned perfectly well with polygamy and marriage between minors. Seems that if it's a MORAL question than Society does without question have the right to regulate via public consent what is in fact constitutes marriage. If it's simply a Constitutional question then the legality of gay marriage would then consistently also establish that if the state doesn't have the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman, it's rightfully neither has the right to regulate marriage between a man and 2 women. If they are all consenting and desire to form a union between all 3 for whatever legal, economic or emotional reasons
Many of the arguments that are pro same-sex marriage revolve around implicit and explicit benefits that spouses currently get - custody, insurance, tax benefits, etc. Would you consider it a sham marriage if a couple of lifelong heterosexual buddies, who are widowers, decided that they want to get married in the eyes of the law due to those above described benefits? If so, would would you want legislation to prevent these types of marriages? If so, how would that be enforced?
I don't follow this. "One small .. group" is not changing ANYTHING about the rights of the "rest of society." In fact, the status quo has society removing rights from "one small group." That's not American. The aberration does appear in (if memory serves) 550 species now, based on behavioral observations of long-term behavior in the wild and in captivity. There are a number of theories emerging that propose that homosexuality is actually an evolutionary advantage in social animals -- having a small % of your population not obsessed with standard M-F procreation but contributing in different ways to the entire group can apparently be beneficial. Not saying that's my take, but I believe it is primarily an effect of nature and not nurture. And nature tends not to keep a 10% inefficiency for very long. Just for a different POV...
