GOP to back ban on gay marriage

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Don't worry, Loss. In 200 years from now, you, too, can have the same right to marry as hetero couples.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman"

 

...

 

You can't make this shit up.

[Guest MikeSC]

So basically, what you're saying is that black people had to earn their rights, so gays should have to do the same. I'd rather we grow than go through that again.

Wow. You do realize that you're saying that gays should earn equality if they wan't it, right?. It saddens and scares me that you don't see the dangers or contradictions in that mindset.

No --- blacks simply focused attention on unfair treatment and the people were drawn to their side. If gays can't be bothered to try and win over converts, that is, in the end, THEIR problem.

Why support such a struggle? I'd rather us learn from history than repeat it step-by-step personally, because I don't want people getting shot in the streets or spit on in public again, and that's practically what you're advocating another round of.

No, I'm advocating you getting off your ass and make a case to the voters. You want gay marriage to be legalized --- then give the voters a reason to go along with it? Stop expecting the courts to do what belongs in the realm of the legislature.

Why not *learn* something from the Civil Rights Movement about tolerance and process and improve on it?

1) Again, "Whom you fuck" is hardly a worthy grouping for any special status consideration.

2) Don't blame the proponents complete and total ignoring of the people --- thus turning them against it (notice how no state wants it --- hell, even CA doesn't support it) --- on anybody but the proponents.

 

THEY have dropped the ball. Do you think people who opposed racial preferences in, say, college admissions started off winning? No -- it took them YEARS to point out the OBVIOUS discrimination involved and to get ANY action taken.

 

If you can't get the people to support your views, then it is your problem, nobody else's.

Wow. You do realize that you're saying that gays should earn equality if they wan't it, right?. It saddens and scares me that you don't see the dangers or contradictions in that mindset.

Gays have equality. Gays can't marry. If gays WANT to marry, then make your case, rather than demonizing people who don't even CARE about the issue, but more about your tactics.

 

Hell, I could have EASILY become a supporter of this --- but the proponents have turned me off on this almost completely. If it became legal here, I would not care. I would not campaign for or against it.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman"

 

...

 

You can't make this shit up.

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman"

 

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman"

 

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman"

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Gays have equality. Gays can't marry

[Guest MikeSC]

Saying that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman IS essentially saying "Gays can't marry."

No, it is not. Saying "Homosexual unions are forbidden" is saying gays can't marry. Saying "Marriage between anybody but a man and a woman" is saying gays can't marry.

 

This says none of that.

Unless it's a gay man and a gay woman getting married, and then, what's the point?

 

If the federal government then wouldn't recognize a state-recognized marriage, the couple in question wouldn't get any marriage benefits on a federal level. What's the deal with that?

They WOULD get the benefits. Any state-recognized marriage is also a federally-recognized one (notice how in the marriage ceremony, the power invested in whomever is doing the ceremony is not given by the federal gov't, but by the state? There is a reason)

 

However, should you move to a state where gay marriage is not recognized (thus eliminating your federal recognition) --- then go to a lawyer and draw up some documents.

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman"

That is to define it for the "Full Faith and Credit Clause". It's like talking to a wall here.

 

Go ahead --- point out the whole "ALL OTHER MARRIAGES WILL BE NULL AND VOID" line in there.

He has. Repeatedly. The word "only" covers a lot of ground.

I'm not even a LAWYER and I can see the obvious room allowed for states to make their own choices written into that.

 

The definition of a marriage is to show what the MINIMUM of a marriage is (two heterosexuals). States CAN go above and beyond that --- again, STATES determine their own marriage rules --- but this absolves other states of the requirement of recognition.

Don't worry, Loss. In 200 years from now, you, too, can have the same right to marry as hetero couples.

Ironically, the only person not insulting and demonizing his opponents --- is me.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Gays have equality. Gays can't marry

Gays have equality. They can do whatever they want. They can live together, rent houses/apartments (and if refused, can bring suit for it), get federal jobs, be protected from unfair treatment at work, etc.

-=Mike

...Marriage is hardly equality...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

"MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES SHALL CONSIST ONLY OF A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHATCHU GONNA DO, BITCH?"

[Justice 0]

"MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES SHALL CONSIST ONLY OF A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHATCHU GONNA DO, BITCH?"

This is the best post in this entire thread. Which makes this very sad.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Look. Seriously.

 

There is no wiggle room there. The langauge is very clear. ONLY between a man and a woman. No state constitution shall be construed to say otherwise. Full faith and credit my ass--this is a ban. Stop being a moron and admit you've been wrong about this the whole time. Admit that you supported this amendment without reading it and you're trying to defend it because you don't want to admit that you're wrong. And let's move on.

 

There are more important topics to discuss than this one. There is no chance for you to win this argument; you can't argue with fact. Seriously. There's no way to do it.

[Guest Loss]

No --- blacks simply focused attention on unfair treatment and the people were drawn to their side. If gays can't be bothered to try and win over converts, that is, in the end, THEIR problem.

The gay rights movement has actually come a long way since the late 60s and a lot of progress has been made. I'm happy about that and I'm proud of that. So I can say, without hesitation, that the gay rights movement has largely been a success. But you almost make it sound as if you think the courts have done more to hurt the gay rights movement than help it. I would disagree with that. Even if every marriage in San Francisco ended up being annulled, it was a huge symbolic victory, and a step in the right direction. The next step is to get the attention of the majority. I agree with you there.

 

And just so you know, I do realize that Bill Clinton talked a good game, but was no more pro-gay rights than our current President. He's the one who bought ad time on Christian radio stations promising to oppose gay marriage. He's also the one who passed the federal law in 1997 banning same-sex marriage.

 

My feelings on the Republican party are still what they are. But I wanted to clarify that I am fully aware that the Dems are no better.

 

No, I'm advocating you getting off your ass and make a case to the voters. You want gay marriage to be legalized --- then give the voters a reason to go along with it? Stop expecting the courts to do what belongs in the realm of the legislature.

 

I don't understand why a "case" has to be made. You're still saying that gays haven't earned the right to marry and that they deserve a fight.

 

1) Again, "Whom you fuck" is hardly a worthy grouping for any special status consideration.

 

Then why do married heterosexuals get a special status consideration?

 

2) Don't blame the proponents complete and total ignoring of the people --- thus turning them against it (notice how no state wants it --- hell, even CA doesn't support it) --- on anybody but the proponents.

 

I blame it on the Religious Right and Clear Channel as much as anyone actually.

 

THEY have dropped the ball. Do you think people who opposed racial preferences in, say, college admissions started off winning? No -- it took them YEARS to point out the OBVIOUS discrimination involved and to get ANY action taken.

 

This is not the beginning of the gay rights movement. It has been going on since the late 60s. We celebrated the 35th anniversary of the Stonewall riots this year. I think being called a faggot and made fun of by the media on a regular basis would do a lot to broaden your perspective on just how fiercely anti-gay the populace at large is.

 

If you can't get the people to support your views, then it is your problem, nobody else's.

 

So the Civil Rights Movement was wasted effort until the very end? Most people opposed them initially.

 

Gays have equality. Gays can't marry.

 

These two sentences directly contradict each other.

 

If gays WANT to marry, then make your case, rather than demonizing people who don't even CARE about the issue, but more about your tactics.

 

I guarantee you that we would be at the exact same place we are in the struggle for equal rights if the Supreme Court hadn't gotten involved. That's incidental. People have their minds made up about homosexuality.

 

Hell, I could have EASILY become a supporter of this --- but the proponents have turned me off on this almost completely. If it became legal here, I would not care. I would not campaign for or against it.

          -=Mike

 

I believe it was Bush's "we're all sinners" line that put this entire story into motion. I don't see how the proponents affect the issue, and I think you're sidedraining the issue and focusing on the messenger more than the message.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Gays have equality. They can do whatever they want. They can live together, rent houses/apartments (and if refused, can bring suit for it), get federal jobs, be protected from unfair treatment at work, etc.

Well, now I'm confused. You said "whom you fuck" isn't a reason for protection, yet here are 2 cases where it clearly is.

[Guest MikeSC]

Look. Seriously.

No. Saying marriage is illegal between anybody but man and a woman is quite definite. The FMA does not begin to do that, It defines marriage (since the entire thing is based on the poor legal definition of marriage in the states) and --- this is an absolute guarantee, mind you --- states can OPT TO define marriage differently is they so choose --- it just makes sure other states are not required to accept that which they find abhorrent.

No state constitution shall be construed to say otherwise.

It does not say that. Re-read it. It states that no state shall be required to construe that anything BEYOND a man and a woman is a marriage.

 

Thus, states CAN choose to legalize it --- but it won't be recognized outside of that state.

Full faith and credit my ass--this is a ban.

Nope --- "Marriage cannot occur between two men and two women" would be a ban.

Stop being a moron and admit you've been wrong about this the whole time.

I'm the ONLY one correct in all of this to date.

Admit that you supported this amendment without reading it and you're trying to defend it because you don't want to admit that you're wrong. And let's move on.

No, YOU have chosen to read all of the negative comments about it and simply decided to alter your reading so it lives up to all of your misconceptions.

There is no wiggle room there.

And I am telling you, without a doubt, there is --- and I've EXPLAINED it in some depth.

The langauge is very clear. ONLY between a man and a woman. 

Nope. Federal definition of marriage is between a man and a woman only. No state shall be required to recognize anything outside of that.

 

Which is not even close to the same thing as "no state CAN recognize anything outside of that."

There are more important topics to discuss than this one. There is no chance for you to win this argument; you can't argue with fact. Seriously. There's no way to do it.

Fact is, I'm arguing the facts and you're arguing YOUR misconceptions --- and when you realize you have NO case, whatsoever --- you want to say "You're totally wrong and give it up".

 

Not happening. I am 100% correct here and have explained how REPEATEDLY.

 

If you choose to remain ignorant, I can do nothing to rectify your decision.

-=Mike

[Slayer 0]

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

If you can't understand that you're pulling clauses of this proposed FMA out of thin air--specifically the fact that it's only a basic definition and states can do as they wish--then I've been made obsolete. This thread is a self-parody of everything that is wrong with CE.

 

Mike's been provided with solid evidence--PRIMARY SOURCES, even--that show the Federal Marriage Amendment is banning gay marriage.

 

"MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES SHALL CONSIST ONLY OF A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN"

 

There is nothing to argue here. There is no wiggle room there. There is nothing open to interpretation vis a vis some crafty constitutional interpretation.

 

This is the epitome of partisan retardedness. Mike can't admit that he's wrong, that Bush is wrong, and that FMA is wrong. Instead, he pulls shit out of thin air, stating that this MUST BE WHAT THEY MEANT--even though it was never even remotely implied by FMA's authors--because that's what Mike says.

 

This is why people hate CE.

[Slayer 0]

 

It has become self-aware...

[Guest MikeSC]

Gays have equality. They can do whatever they want. They can live together, rent houses/apartments (and if refused, can bring suit for it), get federal jobs, be protected from unfair treatment at work, etc.

Well, now I'm confused. You said "whom you fuck" isn't a reason for protection, yet here are 2 cases where it clearly is.

Just because I feel it's an invalid grouping does not mean the gov't agrees.

The gay rights movement has actually come a long way since the late 60s and a lot of progress has been made. I'm happy about that and I'm proud of that. So I can say, without hesitation, that the gay rights movement has largely been a success. But you almost make it sound as if you think the courts have done more to hurt the gay rights movement than help it. I would disagree with that. Even if every marriage in San Francisco ended up being annulled, it was a huge symbolic victory, and a step in the right direction. The next step is to get the attention of the majority. I agree with you there.

The actions in San Fran did more harm to this movement than anything else. Nothing is going to piss of the majority --- the people you claim to want to win over --- then a man saying "Fuck state law, I'm doing this ANYWAY." It was not a symbolic victory for gay marriage --- it was a symbolic "fuck you" to the state and the voters of CA.

I don't understand why a "case" has to be made. You're still saying that gays haven't earned the right to marry and that they deserve a fight.

If you want laws CHANGED, you have to present a case as to why. And the proponents have been unwilling to do so.

Then why do married heterosexuals get a special status consideration?

They have historical tradition --- and the knowledge that marriage has always been between a man and a woman for a reason (family). If you wish to change the definition, you have to make your case to the voters.

I blame it on the Religious Right and Clear Channel as much as anyone actually.

The religious right's power is neglible, at best. However, when you have officials deciding that THEIR law is better than state law, you definitely play to the worst fear-mongering they spout.

This is not the beginning of the gay rights movement.

No, it's not. It's the beginning of the gay MARRIAGE movement and, thus far, the proponents could not have possibly done a worse job than they have.

I think being called a faggot and made fun of by the media on a regular basis would do a lot to broaden your perspective on just how fiercely anti-gay the populace at large is.

I'll let you in on a secret --- heteros don't give two shits about gays. We don't spend even a moment worrying about what you are doing.

 

HOWEVER, when you make it public and then decide to ignore state law --- then people notice and they don't like it.

 

If this was a simple, state-by-state effort, it would've been infinitely more palatable to the people.

 

And when does the media make fun of gays?

So the Civil Rights Movement was wasted effort until the very end? Most people opposed them initially.

They TRIED and started making inroads. The gay marriage proponents haven't even tried.

I guarantee you that we would be at the exact same place we are in the struggle for equal rights if the Supreme Court hadn't gotten involved. That's incidental. People have their minds made up about homosexuality.

People had their minds made up about blacks. For years.

 

Their opinions, obviously, have changed dramatically. So, clearly, it can be done --- and God knows gays start off in much better condition than blacks did.

I believe it was Bush's "we're all sinners" line that put this entire story into motion. I don't see how the proponents affect the issue, and I think you're sidedraining the issue and focusing on the messenger more than the message.

What Bush --- and the Republicans at large --- want is for states to have the choice to approve or disapprove of gay marriage. They do NOT like the idea of courts making the decision when this is not the court's area to make the decision.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

If you can't understand that you're pulling clauses of this proposed FMA out of thin air--specifically the fact that it's only a basic definition and states can do as they wish--then I've been made obsolete.

Oh, that happened back in your Dean fawning days.

This thread is a self-parody of everything that is wrong with CE.

I agree. I argue points logically --- you do not.

Mike's been provided with solid evidence--PRIMARY SOURCES, even--that show the Federal Marriage Amendment is banning gay marriage.

 

"MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES SHALL CONSIST ONLY OF A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN"

And ignore my points --- as usual. I won't recite them. I've done so enough and you have yet to actually make a case against them.

 

I know, "Full Faith and Credit Clause" is a hard concept to grasp.

There is nothing to argue here.

When losing a debate, arguing that there is nothing to argue here is a little weak.

There is no wiggle room there. There is nothing open to interpretation vis a vis some crafty constitutional interpretation.

I simply point out facts that YOU do not wish to face. So be it.

This is the epitome of partisan retardedness.

I agree --- but expect it out of you.

Mike can't admit that he's wrong, that Bush is wrong, and that FMA is wrong. Instead, he pulls shit out of thin air, stating that this MUST BE WHAT THEY MEANT--even though it was never even remotely implied by FMA's authors--because that's what Mike says.

 

This is why people hate CE.

Tyler, you can leave. Links are towards the top of the page. If you don't like CE, then get the hell out. Nothing worse than bitching about a place you can easily avoid.

 

If you can't make a cogent argument, don't bitch when your arguments get slammed.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I agree. I argue points logically --- you do not

 

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

While not talking about gay marriage specifically, I feel that this whole attitude of "Let people do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't bother me" is dangerous, which is what some in here seem to have.

 

A key point someone seems to bring every once in a while yet no one else seems to reiterate is the cause of homosexuality. I believe they're born like that, but if they aren't than we should not have gay marriage since it is not something inherent, and that takes away from its "naturalness". Until that is proven I don't think it should be legalized. Polygamy ain't natural, no one is born with the inclination to be a polygamist, so we should definitely not allow it, even though it "doesn't harm me personally". The concept of a man and his five wives raising one son is a little odd to me personally, and as much as I may sound like a "dinosaur", is fucked up.

[Guest Loss]

A key point someone seems to bring every once in a while yet no one else seems to reiterate is the cause of homosexuality. I believe they're born like that, but if they aren't than we should not have gay marriage since it is not something inherent, and that takes away from its "naturalness". Until that is proven I don't think it should be legalized. Polygamy ain't natural, no one is born with the inclination to be a polygamist, so we should definitely not allow it, even though it "doesn't harm me personally". The concept of a man and his five wives raising one son is a little odd to me personally, and as much as I may sound like a "dinosaur", is fucked up.

I didn't choose to be gay and I'm not lying. There's your proof.

[MrRant 0]

Let's dissect Loss.

[Guest Loss]

You just want an excuse to feel me up.

[Slayer 0]

I get his penis, postmortem

 

*crowd gasps

 

"what the hell?!", "Is he gay too?"*

 

...it's for scientific purposes.

 

*crowd understands

 

"oh okay then...","certainly nothing wrong with that..."*

[NoCalMike 0]

I get his penis, postmortem

 

*crowd gasps

 

"what the hell?!", "Is he gay too?"*

 

...it's for scientific purposes.

 

*crowd understands

 

"oh okay then...","certainly nothing wrong with that..."*

*runs away from this thread....FAST*

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

A key point someone seems to bring every once in a while yet no one else seems to reiterate is the cause of homosexuality. I believe they're born like that, but if they aren't than we should not have gay marriage since it is not something inherent, and that takes away from its "naturalness". Until that is proven I don't think it should be legalized. Polygamy ain't natural, no one is born with the inclination to be a polygamist, so we should definitely not allow it, even though it "doesn't harm me personally". The concept of a man and his five wives raising one son is a little odd to me personally, and as much as I may sound like a "dinosaur", is fucked up.

I didn't choose to be gay and I'm not lying. There's your proof.

There's no doubt in my mind that you didn't choose to be gay. No one would want to choose to be persecuted by the general populace.

 

Being born with it does not necessarily go hand in hand with not choosing it. Many people believe it has something to do with the environment you grow up in. The fact that many people believe this and have evidence to back it up (none that I've seen personally, I haven't looked into it because it's not something I am that strong about) means that there needs to be convincing evidence.

 

It's retarded, but if you're going to change something as important (to many people, believe it or not) as marriage, it's required.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The fact that you can name only one prominent example of a gay man being beaten to death shows how dissimilar the two are.

Are you implying that because there's been one well-publicized example that it's only happened one time?

(sorry, this thread has grown by pages since I left it)

[Guest MikeSC]

A key point someone seems to bring every once in a while yet no one else seems to reiterate is the cause of homosexuality. I believe they're born like that, but if they aren't than we should not have gay marriage since it is not something inherent, and that takes away from its "naturalness". Until that is proven I don't think it should be legalized. Polygamy ain't natural, no one is born with the inclination to be a polygamist, so we should definitely not allow it, even though it "doesn't harm me personally". The concept of a man and his five wives raising one son is a little odd to me personally, and as much as I may sound like a "dinosaur", is fucked up.

I didn't choose to be gay and I'm not lying. There's your proof.

But can you PROVE its genetic?

 

That's the inherent problem.

 

Logically, very few --- if any --- would CHOOSE to be gay. By the same token, nobody would CHOOSE to molest children.

 

Just because logic indicates that nobody would willingly make that choice --- it does not mean that it must be genetic.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

The fact that you can name only one prominent example of a gay man being beaten to death shows how dissimilar the two are.

Are you implying that because there's been one well-publicized example that it's only happened one time?

(sorry, this thread has grown by pages since I left it)

I'm saying it's hardly common. Lynchings and the like WERE commonplace (hell, newspapers ADVERTISED them in some cities).

 

Gays aren't the victims of massive hate crime and the like. They are the victims of SOME --- but hardly to the level where some would want you to believe.

-=Mike

[Special K 0]

Why does it even matter? I would say good. We've progressed as a society to the point where we don't beat and murder people for who they are (exluding pedophiles and the like because they hurt people).

That's a plus. Doesn't mean that the issue doesn't warrant still looking at.

It's a moot point. Let's all stop arguing about who had/has it worse.