Why don't conservatives use leftwing methods - like econimc pressure?

[Rick]

Wow, it didn't take long at all for this thread to mutate. From Boycotts to Gay Marraige in less than 2 pages.

Marraige is considered by many to be a religious ceremony, but you do have to obtain a marraige certificate from the government in order for it to be recognized by anyone other than your Church. Spouses have more rights and obligations under the law than mere sex buddies do, so I think for that reason homosexuals need to have something that can give their partners that kind of legal standing. I don't really care what they call it, marraige, civil union, whatever, as long as they aren't denied any rights that other American citizens have.

They can get the practical rights through new laws not allowing marriage. Actually, though, that's backward - rights given to marrieds to the exclusion of others should be done away with.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So you're proposing only lesbian marriage?
Because the equal protection amendment only applies to the categories mentioned - not homosexuals.

No, I think all consenting adults should have access to marriage.

On what grounds would you deny marriage to taxpaying, consenting adult Americans? Marriage is a legal contract in US law, why should some people be denied this lawful contract and some not?

 

[Dr.Who]

Do you recognize that you are using ONLY stats about male homosexuals? Lesbians have less prosmiscuity than heteros, less violence, less child abuse, less VD, and almost no AIDS. By your reasoning only lesbians should be allowed to marry.

Why shouldn't everyone be equally protected under the law like it says in the Constitution?

Agreed. Therefore the only people to lose their rights by being coerced to buy a marriage license would be those the gov has a compelling interest in regulating - people who make children or pass inheritance on to them. I would add that many gay couples do pass on inheritance to children.

 

[Dr.Who]

No, I think all consenting adults should have access to marriage.

On what grounds would you deny marriage to taxpaying, consenting adult Americans? Marriage is a legal contract in US law, why should some people be denied this lawful contract and some not?

I would deny the power of the state to demand that those who do not produce children or pass on inheritance to children be forced to get a license.

Any couple that might reasonable produce a child easily would have to get a license. Straight but infertile couples would not need to get a license if they did not want one. Gay couples in the process of adoption would.

 

[Rick]

No, I think all consenting adults should have access to marriage.

On what grounds would you deny marriage to taxpaying, consenting adult Americans? Marriage is a legal contract in US law, why should some people be denied this lawful contract and some not?

A better question is for you to answer why it's needed.

"Homosexual marriage" should not be enacted, because marriage is and has always been a heterosexual institution, because homosexuals are not harmed in any way shape or form by being denied "homosexual marriage", and because homosexuals only want to hijack it as a means of trying to compell heterosexuals to view them as normal.

If you could go back in time and ask the people who proposed and adopted the equal protection clause "Was part of your intent with this to recognize a right tp homosexual marriage?" what do you think they would say?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

A better question is for you to answer why it's needed.

"Homosexual marriage" should not be enacted, because marriage is and has always been a heterosexual institution, because homosexuals are not harmed in any way shape or form by being denied "homosexual marriage", and because homosexuals only want to hijack it as a means of trying to compell heterosexuals to view them as normal.

If you could go back in time and ask the people who proposed and adopted the equal protection clause "Was part of your intent with this to recognize a right tp homosexual marriage?" what do you think they would say?

Equal protection means "equal protection". Marriage confers more than 1000 legal rights and responsibilities, it is a legal contract in US law and therefore should be available to all citizens.

More than a million children have been raised by gay couples in this country and why shouldn't those children have the same security as offered to children of hetero couples?

You cannot speak for all gay people when you state why gay people want to have marriage, your assertion that it is only to denote "normality" is as incorrect as your assertion that marriage has always been a heterosexual institution. Even the Catholic church has a ritual for the marriage of likeness and gay marriages have been widely recognized throughout history in many cultures.

There is no reason that I know of to deny gay people the right to marriage.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Equal protection means "equal protection". Marriage confers more than 1000 legal rights and responsibilities, it is a legal contract in US law and therefore should be available to all citizens.

More than a million children have been raised by gay couples in this country and why shouldn't those children have the same security as offered to children of hetero couples?

You cannot speak for all gay people when you state why gay people want to have marriage, your assertion that it is only to denote "normality" is as incorrect as your assertion that marriage has always been a heterosexual institution. Even the Catholic church has a ritual for the marriage of likeness and gay marriages have been widely recognized throughout history in many cultures.

There is no reason that I know of to deny gay people the right to marriage.

Well stated!

 

[Rick]

Equal protection means "equal protection". Marriage confers more than 1000 legal rights and responsibilities, it is a legal contract in US law and therefore should be available to all citizens.

Nonsense - all kinds of contracts are limited as to participants in all kinds of ways. That homosexuals aren't allowed to redefine marriage the way they want it doesn't constitute a violation of their equal protection.

More than a million children have been raised by gay couples in this country and why shouldn't those children have the same security as offered to children of hetero couples?

That their parents aren't "married" doesn't threaten their security.

You cannot speak for all gay people when you state why gay people want to have marriage, your assertion that it is only to denote "normality" is as incorrect as your assertion that marriage has always been a heterosexual institution.

Yaaaa yaaaaaaa - maybe this one or that one has a different reason, but I am correct about the motivation of the militant activist movement.

Even the Catholic church has a ritual for the marriage of likeness

Whaaaaaaaaat??

and gay marriages have been widely recognized throughout history in many cultures.

Nonsense.

There is no reason that I know of to deny gay people the right to marriage.

I already told you - you're not listening.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nonsense - all kinds of contracts are limited as to participants in all kinds of ways. That homosexuals aren't allowed to redefine marriage the way they want it doesn't constitute a violation of their equal protection.
That their parents aren't "married" doesn't threaten their security.
Yaaaa yaaaaaaa - maybe this one or that one has a different reason, but I am correct about the motivation of the militant activist movement.
Whaaaaaaaaat??
Nonsense.
I already told you - you're not listening.

It always amazes me what people don't learn with a public school education and what they learn that isn't true.

Perhaps you could give us an example of a contract to which you personally are denied by US law because you are a heterosexual.

John Boswell in his book THE MARRIAGE OF LIKENESS details the history of same-sex unions/marriages in the pre-modern world. Among others, the Catholic church married and blessed the union of Saint Serge and Saint Bacchus with a ceremony that is still in the liturgy today.

Homosexuality is a normal variant in human sexuality just as it is in most of the animal world, an excellent work on this subject is Bagemihl's BIOLOGICAL EXHUBERANCE. You really should keep up on your reading if you are going to discuss these kinds of issues.

As far as I know there is no valid reason why gay people should be denied marriage equality. I know this won't satisfy you, any more than Obie's birth certificate would satisfy a birther, because this is an emotional issue for you just as it has become for the birther movement and truth no longer matters.

 

[GenSeneca]

As far as I know there is no valid reason why gay people should be denied marriage equality.

Hello Mare,

Long time no see, hope you are well. As it's been pointed out, gay marriage was not the intended topic of this discussion but I'm not posting to complain about the thread going off topic, instead I wanted to ask you a question. First, I'll offer my well known opinion about gay marriage.

Marriage is a social contract between two consenting adults, government's only role in the process is to settle disputes and/or enforce the terms of the contract should such action become necessary. Issuing marriage licenses is not the legitimate role of government, rather, it is a violation of an individuals rights to allow government to perform that function. Every individual has an individual right to enter into social contracts. Requiring a license of ANY kind to exercise ANY Right, reduces the Right to a legal privilege which is then subject to the whims of government.

Now Mare, I wanted to ask you the same question that I asked Pocket but I have changed it slightly, by adding "ever":

Is a majority vote ever grounds for denying someone their rights? Yes or No

It's not a setup, I'm not trying to create a "gotcha!" moment, I'm just curious if you feel there is ever a legitimate reason for government to deny an individual his Rights. We've disagreed on the issue of individual rights before but gay marriage is one issue were we've found ourselves in agreement.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Hello Mare,

Long time no see, hope you are well. As it's been pointed out, gay marriage was not the intended topic of this discussion but I'm not posting to complain about the thread going off topic, instead I wanted to ask you a question. First, I'll offer my well known opinion about gay marriage.

Marriage is a social contract between two consenting adults, government's only role in the process is to settle disputes and/or enforce the terms of the contract should such action become necessary. Issuing marriage licenses is not the legitimate role of government, rather, it is a violation of an individuals rights to allow government to perform that function. Every individual has an individual right to enter into social contracts. Requiring a license of ANY kind to exercise ANY Right, reduces the Right to a legal privilege which is then subject to the whims of government.

Now Mare, I wanted to ask you the same question that I asked Pocket but I have changed it slightly, by adding "ever":

Is a majority vote ever grounds for denying someone their rights? Yes or No

It's not a setup, I'm not trying to create a "gotcha!" moment, I'm just curious if you feel there is ever a legitimate reason for government to deny an individual his Rights. We've disagreed on the issue of individual rights before but gay marriage is one issue were we've found ourselves in agreement.

Yes, I think that it is necessary sometimes to deny people their rights because they are too dangerous to others--murderers, pedophiles, some kinds of mentally ill people for instance. Some of these people need to be corraled, unfortunately, for the safety of the rest of us.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Yes, I think that it is necessary sometimes to deny people their rights because they are too dangerous to others--murderers, pedophiles, some kinds of mentally ill people for instance. Some of these people need to be corraled, unfortunately, for the safety of the rest of us.

Sorry, but murderers, pedophiles and mentally ill people all have "rights", too.

For you to believe "that it is necessary sometimes to deny people their rights" runs counter to what you have been posting about the "rights" that homosexuals are being denied.

After all, it was you who also stated "equal protection means equal protection". I guess you should have added "unless a person doesn't deserve equal protection" to the end of that statement.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Sorry, but murderers, pedophiles and mentally ill people all have "rights", too.

For you to believe "that it is necessary sometimes to deny people their rights" runs counter to what you have been posting about the rights of homosexuals.

After all, it was you who also stated "equal protection means equal protection". I guess you should have added "unless a person doesn't deserve equal protection".

One can behave is such a fashion as to lose their rights through violence. Before we get too wild and wooly here we probably should discuss WHICH rights are being lost or taken away.

I know of no crime so heinous that a person's right to marry is taken away, even death row inmates can marry if they can find someone willing. Only gay people are denied marriage and that seems like a very selective loss of equal protection for a group of citizens who have not been convicted of a crime.

 

[TruthSeeker]

One can behave is such a fashion as to lose their rights through violence. Before we too wild and wooly here we probably should discuss WHICH rights are being lost or taken away.

Precisely my point. I doubt that you believe a violent criminal should not receive a timely and fair trial, or should have access to an attorney, etc.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Precisely my point. I doubt that you believe a violent criminal should not receive a timely and fair trial, or should have access to an attorney, etc.

No, of course not, I'm not in favor of taking ALL the rights away from anyone I can think of right off the bat.