The Gallup Polls – Fake or Real? 54% of Americans support gay marriage? (moved)

[Queller]

When everyone is willing to give them their rights, just don't call it marriage.

Why not?

 

[Queller]

Primarily, this is not a religious issue. Its mostly a squicky issue. And that squickiness is directly connected to the legitimate concerns about our society.

Which legitimate concerns are those?

I do hope that when this case (or cases) finally make it to the SCOTUS, that the relevant facts are presented well. If they aren't, and it negatively impacts the outcome, I may rue the day when I didn't work harder to make a better post on CF. Until then, I think lawyers will do a better job, and have a more relevant audience than I have here.

I hope no lawyer is basing their legal arguments on internet forums.

What you really should be hoping for is that this does not come before SCOTUS anytime soon, and you have to wait a very long time to have what you should already know spelled out for you. Because the current Court isn't really that friendly to your cause.

Why not? The current court struck down the relevant portion of DOMA in US v. Windsor.

 

[Maren]

Gay people already have equality. If gay maraige is legalised everywhere in the world they will still have marriage equality. Equality is actually same rights. So at the moment every person in the US & Australia has the right to marry whoever they want provided consent can be given, the person is opposite gender and is not already married. When gay marriage is legalised everywhere then everyone will have the right to marry provided consent is given and they are not already married. So the equal rights are already there by definition. Changing a definition does not change equal rights.

And in the sense of US law, you are wrong. The easiest example to use was when some parts of the US had laws that allowed people to marry people of the same race, but you were not allowed to marry people of the other race.

When this was brought to the US Supreme Court, they ruled that it was not "equal rights". The argument about gay marriage is the same, just based on sexual orientation rather than skin color today. Now, you may disagree with the Supreme Court but I think they had it right -- but more to the point, that is how "equal rights" is currently defined in the US.

As another example, let's say your community passes a law that Christian churches can no longer exist in your community. If you wish to go to a Church service, you can attend one of the many other types of churches/mosques/temples in your community. Since the law applies equally to all, you have equal rights, right?

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Pretty much this, yes. All the gays have to counter that is shaming anything in their path, and pity for their poor rights. When everyone is willing to give them their rights, just don't call it marriage.

If "everyone" is willing to give equal rights as long as its not called marriage, why did so many states (19 including those struck down in court) put in their constitutions a ban on such unions? The anti-equality crowd has realized they've lost, and are scrambling now to rewrite history and pretend that they weren't maliciously denying the rights, not just the term marriage, to same sex couples. Too bad. You lost. No backtracking now will change that soon, very soon, same sex marriage will be legal nationwide. And nobody's going to care that it gives you a sad that they get to call it marriage.

 

[Skaloop]

If "everyone" is willing to give equal rights as long as its not called marriage, why did so many states (19 including those struck down in court) put in their constitutions a ban on such unions? The anti-equality crowd has realized they've lost, and are scrambling now to rewrite history and pretend that they weren't maliciously denying the rights, not just the term marriage, to same sex couples. Too bad. You lost. No backtracking now will change that soon, very soon, same sex marriage will be legal nationwide. And nobody's going to care that it gives you a sad that they get to call it marriage.

Especially since even if they were to truly just want the legislation reflect all the rights of marriage without technically calling it marriage, they cannot legislate how the word marriage is used in the public sphere. So gay couples will still talk about being married. Nobody is going to stop using it in that colloquial manner just because the government uses it a more specific way. So you're going to have people with all-the-benefits-of-marriage-by-another-name smelling just as sweet because it's still going to be referred to as a marriage 99%+ of the time.

 

[Vylo]

I find these threads more amusing than anything. I said way back when only 8 or so states legalized SSM that eventually it would be legal everywhere, and we are well on our way. 19 states already with 7 pending.

 

[TheDag]

When did that happen? Care to cite a single example?

Does an unverifiable example count? I have had this conversation so many times in so many different settings. There have been gay people involved in those discussions and they say that incest relationships are wrong. That is telling people who they can and can't love.

The religious definition of marriage is relevant only within that particular religion. Since the only thing in question for this issue is the LEGAL definition of marriage (which is not based on any religion) the legal definition applies.

So any objection to the law based on religious principles is invalid.

i think you missed the context of my comment. Another poster, who is a humanist, was saying it is a religious issue. I was simply pointing out that if they wanted to claim that then the religious definition does come into it. If you had read every single post you would have seen I have no problem with SSM being allowed.

so if you object to changing the legal definition of marriage, don't vote to ban same sex marriage....

I won't ever get to vote on it. I don't live in the US and it has been ruled that here it is a simple matter of government changing the legislation after it was changed to include one man & one woman in the definition which previously was not included.

Although the fact that this was not specified does not mean that the original writers of the law intended for same sex marriages to be allowed by it. That isa actually just an assumption. Just like in the 1600's they would find mention of a car strange and not include a car in any rules made about transport then depending on when laws are made they may not mean to include SSM.

 

[TheDag]

How is SSM being legal not equality? If equality is, as you suggest, having the same rights, and that there is currently equality, then legalizing SSM will maintain that equality, as everyone will have the same rights. You'll have the right to marry a man just like the everybody else.

Yes I know and that is exactly what I said. Read first two sentences in my post (#305) if you want to confirm that.

 

[TheDag]

Say what, now? Gays are being told they cannot marry the person they've just spent years in a relationship with because a religion decided marriage needs to be between a man and a woman. Sorry but your religion does not dictate our society. End of discussion on that point.

So thats a no you don't want to address what I said but would rather go on about something else. I have never met a gay person in real life who is happy to let people marry who they want. They all think incest is wrong and should not be legalized for marriage purposes. And you still did not address the point I made that you originally responded to. Yet you have a go at me!

It's not wrong. If a dude wants to do his sister, or mother or aunt or even his brother, that would be between them and is of no concern to me. Why is it an issue to you?

Thats not what you said. You said just living together to help out. you specifically said no sex. Now you change your mind and try to make out I said something I didn't. That is rather dishonest of you.

You don't have to answer it, that's why I wasn't originally directing the scenario at you. You chimed in and started talking about commitment in relationship, I said my point was not originally about commitment. You keep yammering on about commitment, and I understand your point. But that wasn't the point of my hypothetical that wasn't even directed at you in the first place.

Your hypothetical was wrong to begin with because you keep using words incorrectly.

I know plenty about Internet forums. That has nothing to do with me setting up a scenario for someone else to answer an you coming in and not even addressing the point being made by the scenario.

Then don't get upset when someone does what is normal on internet forums then.

Again, that was not the point of my hypothetical. The person it was addressed to hasn't even answered it and I'm not expecting anything, anytime soon so I really don't even care about that comment anymore. Can we just move on now?

Depends on you really. If you want to keep using words incorrectly or refusing to address other peoples posts when you quote them then no.

It's a religious issue to religious people who don't understand the meaning of secularism. The debate about gay marriage has always been a secular and legal issue. That is until Christians started trying to make it illegal to be gay and married to a man.

If you acknowledge it is a religious issue then the religious definition is valid. Simple as that. That people try to make it a religious issue does not change the fact that it is a secular issue.

You guys will fail when this gets to the Supreme Court. I'm willing to bet on it.

Wrong. Can you figure out why you are wrong? Part of the reason is that you are making the assumption that I am against SSM. I'm sure the supreme court will rule the way you say.

 

[TheDag]

As another example, let's say your community passes a law that Christian churches can no longer exist in your community. If you wish to go to a Church service, you can attend one of the many other types of churches/mosques/temples in your community. Since the law applies equally to all, you have equal rights, right?

correct.

 

[A2SG]

Does an unverifiable example count? I have had this conversation so many times in so many different settings. There have been gay people involved in those discussions and they say that incest relationships are wrong. That is telling people who they can and can't love.

No it isn't. That's just stating an opinion. And considering that's an opinion shared by most humans, I wonder why you chose to single out homosexuals.

i think you missed the context of my comment. Another poster, who is a humanist, was saying it is a religious issue. I was simply pointing out that if they wanted to claim that then the religious definition does come into it.

The point, I believe, was that those who propose bans on same sex marriage use religious principles as as basis for the ban, not valid legal ones. It's a religious issue for them. Granted, that's an invalid basis for US laws, but that's another matter.

If you had read every single post you would have seen I have no problem with SSM being allowed.

I was addressing the statements made, I wasn't really addressing your personal opinions. Sorry if that wasn't made clear.

I won't ever get to vote on it. I don't live in the US and it has been ruled that here it is a simple matter of government changing the legislation after it was changed to include one man & one woman in the definition which previously was not included.

That's similar to the legal issue here, gender was never specified in any marriage law until some states recently added it to the definition by banning same sex marriages. Those that had bans ruled as unconstitutional simply did not ban same sex marriage, and thus made it explicitly legal.

Although the fact that this was not specified does not mean that the original writers of the law intended for same sex marriages to be allowed by it. That isa actually just an assumption. Just like in the 1600's they would find mention of a car strange and not include a car in any rules made about transport then depending on when laws are made they may not mean to include SSM.

The law is kinda like that, if you don't specify something as illegal, it's legal by default. Same sex marriage was never explicitly illegal, but so long as states denied licenses to same-sex couples, it was made de facto illegal, if not de jure.

Which is why when a court rules a ban to be unconstitutional same sex marriage is considered legalized, even though no existing law is repealed and no new legislation is enacted. It was never actually illegal to begin with.

-- A2SG, so the only ones "changing the definition of marriage" are those who seek to ban certain ones, not those who don't want the ban....

 

[TheDag]

No it isn't. That's just stating an opinion. And considering that's an opinion shared by most humans, I wonder why you chose to single out homosexuals.

The only comment I made where your reply of 'No it isn't" makes sense is where I said that is telling people who they can and can't love. Sorry but you are either wrong or the arguments for gay marriage are wrong. Which way do you want it to be? Every single argument that is used to support gay marriage applies to incest.
Why did I single out homosexuals? Thought that would be kinda obvious but since it needs explaining here goes. because they are the ones who started using those arguments while denying them when it suits and I have a low tolerance for people whose views are double standards.

 

[Affliction]

Great, that works for Catholics. Now tell us why the non-Catholic judge down at the courthouse should be bound by that?

--moved

 

[Queller]

In response to the person you quoted...

While I agree with most of what you said here, it might be better if you directly quote the person you're responding to. That way others can see the post you're discussing without having to trackback through my post as well.

 

[Affliction]

Same-sex attraction is a disorder, and people are born with disorders.

In fact from a Christian point of view, with are ALL disordered in various ways due to original sin.

You cannot just flat out say people are not born gay, period. Even though some weirdos may choose to "experiment" and for them they are making the choice, nonetheless others are born with such a disorder.


2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

- Catechism of the Catholic Church

Actually this is FALSE. How dare you attach a mental disturbance to something that people are born with.

There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. However, the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others, such as employers, means that some LGBT people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health difficulties and substance misuse problems because of it.

All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness.

 

[A2SG]

The only comment I made where your reply of 'No it isn't" makes sense is where I said that is telling people who they can and can't love. Sorry but you are either wrong or the arguments for gay marriage are wrong. Which way do you want it to be? Every single argument that is used to support gay marriage applies to incest.

That's incorrect.

The basis for every single US court challenge that ruled same sex marriage bans unconstitutional is the 14th Amendment protection of "equal protection under the law." Denying US citizens a "fundamental civil right" based on nothing but gender violates this protection, and is unconstitutional.

Laws against incest do not violate the 14th Amendment guarantee of "equal protection under the law" as they DO apply to everyone, equally.

If you want to legalize incest, you're gonna need a different legal argument than the one same sex marriage uses.

Why did I single out homosexuals? Thought that would be kinda obvious but since it needs explaining here goes. because they are the ones who started using those arguments while denying them when it suits and I have a low tolerance for people whose views are double standards.

I assume you can definitively prove that homosexuals created laws against incest then.

Otherwise, well, there's no double standard.

-- A2SG, especially since you really seem to misunderstand the legal issues involved here......

 

[Vylo]

So which state will be next? I wonder how long til those 7 with stays topple over too. The tears are delicious.

 

[TheDag]

That's incorrect.

The basis for every single US court challenge that ruled same sex marriage bans unconstitutional is the 14th Amendment protection of "equal protection under the law." Denying US citizens a "fundamental civil right" based on nothing but gender violates this protection, and is unconstitutional.

Laws against incest do not violate the 14th Amendment guarantee of "equal protection under the law" as they DO apply to everyone, equally.

If you want to legalize incest, you're gonna need a different legal argument than the one same sex marriage uses.

Actually thats not a standard argument probably because the US laws do not apply to every single country in the world.

I assume you can definitively prove that homosexuals created laws against incest then.

Otherwise, well, there's no double standard.

-- A2SG, especially since you really seem to misunderstand the legal issues involved here......

No I don't need to prove they created those laws. I only need to hear them oppose getting rid of those laws. Yes the double standard is there because the arguments they frequently quote such as Nobody should be able to tell you who you can love apply equally to incest.

 

[pyramid33]

Of course 54% are willing to give up their lives to be homosexual...False.


Homosexuality is boring.

 

[A2SG]

Actually thats not a standard argument probably because the US laws do not apply to every single country in the world.

First, you said "Every single argument that is used to support gay marriage applies to incest."

I proved that wrong.

Second, I'd argue that any law that prohibits incest, in any country, is based on incest being non-consensual, a factor that does not apply to same sex marriage, so I doubt there is any law, in any country, where the legal principles behind incest and same sex marriage are exactly the same.

But, if you'd care to provide an example of a legal argument that applies to both incest and same sex marriage in the same way in some other country, feel free to do so, and we'll see if your assessment holds up.

No I don't need to prove they created those laws. I only need to hear them oppose getting rid of those laws.

Not if they oppose repealing incest laws for perfectly valid reasons that have no bearing on same sex marriage. Say, consent.

Yes the double standard is there because the arguments they frequently quote such as Nobody should be able to tell you who you can love apply equally to incest.

No, it doesn't. Incest is often non-consensual, and that's the basis for it being illegal and often criminal. This fact doesn't apply to same sex marriage, which is consensual.

I think you may be misunderstanding the arguments you've heard. Perhaps if you gave an example of someone arguing for the position you attribute to them, we'd see if it actually is as you've characterized it.

-- A2SG, be nice to get it from the source instead of second-hand....