Forum puts Democrats in hot seat over gay issues

[Ignatius J.]

NYB. (Unless you're asking me out on a date.)

However, in answer to the question "Why is this such a big deal to you?":

I was a kid during the "civil rights period" of the 60's. I saw the riots (on TV), the marches. I remember being in elementary school when they announced the deaths of JFK and MLK. I remember pictures of "whites only" and "colored" drinking fountains. Of George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door to prevent blacks from entering a white school. Of people being arrested (and beaten) for marching for simple equality.

And I remember wondering how people could possible hate so much. And wondering how decent people could tolerate the hatred being such a part of their everyday lives.

And I remember the statement that all that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

And I resolved that if I were a grownup, and people were doing things like that where I was, that I'd be out there marching with the blacks. That I'd have the courage to walk down that street and be a symbol of the fact that equality isn't just "a black issue". That the politicians who voted for Jim Crow were going to lose more than just the black vote.

I believe that the people trying to legislate discrimination against gays are evil incarnate. (I believe that people who simply discriminate in their hearts are defective people, but that I'm not perfect, either.) That they hold the same moral ground as Hitler and the KKK.

I literally have trouble comprehending how our society has gotten to the point where the forces of bigotry can possibly stand up in public, and express their message of bigotry, not even hiding the fact that they're even using the same arguments that were used 40 years ago, and not be booed off the stage. I don't understand why people aren't ashamed to be seen with such scum.

And I believe that good people have the obligation to oppose such evil people, and their acts, whenever they see them.

I fight for truth, justice, and the American way.

Does that answer your question?

:applause:

[81artmonk]

No, this is a classic example of one side demanding that if they can't outright ban a group of people who's only "sin" is to be unliked, then they'll offer discrimination in a slightly different form. (A form which has already been tried, and for exactly the same reasons.)

Will civil unions require employers to give the same benefits to gay "married" couples? Will subdivisions which have "married couples only" restrictions recognize them?

You and I both know they won't. In fact, the "separate but equal" crowd are counting on it. They want for a marriage certificate to be a government-issued "straight ID" card, which can then be used as a tool for discrimination. They want to be able to discriminate while saying "gee, the company policy says 'married'."

Yep. People who've been discriminated against all their lives get touchy about it after several decades. Start acting like discrimination is wrong, or something.

Civil unions are an attempt by bigots to revive the same system of bigotry that they tried to use against the last minority who got uppity because they didn't like their country discriminating against them. It was wrong then, and it still is.

Sorry I have to step in on this one. I take extreme offense to the BIGOT comment! Gays are not born that way. They are not born Black, or hispanic or asian. They choose that lifestlye. Until proven otherwise. So for them to play the minority card as if they are like the black community or hispanic community is wrong. They are a lifestyle, not a class.

I believe that the bible says homosexuality is wrong. So that makes me a bigot?? I don't think so!! I don't hate them as people. I don't like the lifestyle they have chosen.

Let's take this a step further. Let's say we allow gays to marry. What is to prevent others to want their day too. pediphiles wanting to marry cousins or nephews?? Zoophiles wanting to marry thier miniture horse?? The same arguements you use to allow gay marriage, can't be thrown out now for these people.

Here's where I have a real problem with your statements. The bible, which most Americans would say they believe in and God never once said that rascism was right against blacks. People may have said it, but certianly couldnt prove it.

You shall not lie with man as one lies with a women; this is an abomination.(Leviticus 18:22 )

• 
  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural (physin) relations for unnatural (para physin) ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural (physin) relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.(Romans 1:26)
  
  

[81artmonk]

For lo, the Earth will collapse if our society ever ceases to discriminate.

(Um, as has been pointed out by countless bigots looking for a reason why bigotry is OK, gays can't breed.)

Wow, now there's a logical argument:

See? The gays don't want equality, because if I were to offer something that isn't equality, I just know that they'll keep right on demanding actual equality.

(Here's another point for you to think about, too: The mere fact that you're offering civil unions as a compromise, proves that you don't think they're equal.) (Which also proves that you're lieing when you say that they are.)

I never said they were. As humans they are, as gays they are not. Why should they have rights they don't have now based on a lifestyle??

[SkinsHokieFan]

Simple solution

Get government out of marriage. Stop giving tax benifits to married people, spousal stuff etc etc

Keep it as a thing with people who are religious

Let insurance companies, finance companies etc etc sort it out on a case by case basis

[81artmonk]

:laugh: This example made me laugh out loud. Do you realize that lions and penguins can't mate? Are you suggesting that if two men "mate", they're gonna produce something entirely different?

I am still reeling.

Man you people call me stupid, it's an example, that if you take something that isn't natural and create something out of it than you no longer have the original. I wasn't making the case for either mating. :doh1:

[SUSkinsFan]

The example I like to use is if you mate a lion and a penguin, you no longer have either. The outcome will be something entirely different. Same with gay marriage.

That statement implies that all lions and penguins in the world will suddenly stop mating if one lion and one penguin decide to mate and create a pelion or a lioguin.

You're assuming that if gay marriage is legalized every single man and woman in this country will suddenly turn homosexual, which is not the case.

[Larry]

Sorry I have to step in on this one. I take extreme offense to the BIGOT comment!

Then quit sticking out your foot, in public, and demonstrating how well the shoe fits.

Gays are not born that way.

Which is an excuse for why, in your opinion bigotry is OK. It doesn't make it any less bigotry.

Here's a hint:

If it's bigotry to say "A black can't marry a white", then it's bigotry to say "A man can't marry a man". They may be different kinds of bigotry (one's racial and one's sexual). But either they're both bigotry, or neither is.

I believe that the bible says homosexuality is wrong. So that makes me a bigot?? I don't think so!! I don't hate them as people. I don't like the lifestyle they have chosen.

No, you just don't think the government should treat them the same as their betters (you).

Let's take this a step further. Let's say we allow gays to marry. What is to prevent others to want their day too. pediphiles wanting to marry cousins or nephews?? Zoophiles wanting to marry thier miniture horse?? The same arguements you use to allow gay marriage, can't be thrown out now for these people.

Wow, did you just think of those yourself? (Or have you forgotten the last 100 times bigots have tried to use them, and the responses to them?)

Please show me the part of the Constitution that guarantees that horses are entitled to be treated the same as other citizens. Or, for that matter, show me the horse that's considered legally competent to make an informed consent to enter into a lifetime contract?

Children can't legally enter into a contract to get a credit card. Maybe it's just me, but I think marriage should be a bit of a bigger commitment than applying for a credit card.

And society has a good, compelling reason to prevent cousins from marrying: They tend to have FLKs. (Funny-looking kids.) (Now, show me two brothers who want to marry, and I'd say they've got a case.)

Here's where I have a real problem with your statements. The bible, which most Americans would say they believe in and God never once said that rascism was right against blacks. People may have said it, but certianly couldnt prove it.

You shall not lie with man as one lies with a women; this is an abomination.(Leviticus 18:22 )

• 
  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural (physin) relations for unnatural (para physin) ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural (physin) relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.(Romans 1:26)
  
  

Well, now, there's certainly a good reason for the government to be mandating nationwide, legally required creation of second-class citizens: The government's Constitutional power to enforce religion.

(Wondering if I'll live long enough for you to be out there supporting the mandatory-burkha laws. After all, the Koran says so.)

[Larry]

I never said they were. As humans they are, as gays they are not. Why should they have rights they don't have now based on a lifestyle??

(scratching head about the first half of your post)

As to the second sentence:

Equality. It's the only reason they need to want equality. Equality is a benefit to society.

[twa]

Larry , why have the courts found your reasoning of equality under the law lacking?

[ACW]

Simple solution

Get government out of marriage. Stop giving tax benifits to married people, spousal stuff etc etc

Keep it as a thing with people who are religious

Let insurance companies, finance companies etc etc sort it out on a case by case basis

Exactly. Have a civil union between consenting adults (two or more, of whatever gender) that allows the benefits; let "marriage" be determined by religious institutions.

Now, 81:

-First off, homosexuals didn't "choose" to be gay anymore than I "chose" to be straight

-Even if the current insitution collapses, so what? And besides, it hasn't always been that way: http://www.reason.com/news/show/36703.html

-The Bible: http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/309.htm Go down to Myth #8.

[Larry]

Larry , why have the courts found your reasoning of equality under the law lacking?

1) I haven't read any decisions on the subject. (And might well not be competent to judge them if I had read them.)

2) Two words: Dread Scott. Bigoted judges can find bigoted excuses for making bigoted decisions, just like message board posters can.

[SparkleMotion]

Here's a solution....keep the federal government out of it completely. No federal mandate saying gay marriage must be recognized but also no amendment saying marriage is between a man and a woman. Let the states decide. As we saw in the last election...the people of most states seem to decide in a certain direction. If the people of a state have no problem with gay marriage then gay couples should logically want to live there anyway right?

[SUSkinsFan]

Larry , why have the courts found your reasoning of equality under the law lacking?

Pick up a Constitutional law book, and you'll see that a majority of cases where homosexuals are discriminated against are eventually overturned.

[SUSkinsFan]

Here's a solution....keep the federal government out of it completely. No federal mandate saying gay marriage must be recognized but also no amendment saying marriage is between a man and a woman. Let the states decide. As we saw in the last election...the people of most states seem to decide in a certain direction. If the people of a state have no problem with gay marriage then gay couples should logically want to live there anyway right?

The problem with doing it state by state is full faith and credit. Assume gay marriage was legal in MD, but illegal in VA. What if a gay couple moved from MD (where the marriage is legal), to VA (where its illegal). Does VA have to recognize the marriage?

It's issues like this that make me want a national referendum, that way it would be possible to see exactly how the country feels on issues

[stevenaa]

The problem with doing it state by state is full faith and credit. Assume gay marriage was legal in MD, but illegal in VA. What if a gay couple moved from MD (where the marriage is legal), to VA (where its illegal). Does VA have to recognize the marriage?

It's issues like this that make me want a national referendum, that way it would be possible to see exactly how the country feels on issues

It's irrelevant. It is a states rights issue. If they want the protection the state they married in allows, don't move out of the state. Just like someone with a concealed handgun license can't legally carry a concealed weapon in a state that doesn't have such laws.

Be careful what you wish for, you might not like the results.

[twa]

Pick up a Constitutional law book, and you'll see that a majority of cases where homosexuals are discriminated against are eventually overturned.

Which would prove my point that they are equal under the law,except in cases where the law does not apply to them.

Can I as a man use laws benefiting women?

Can a white use laws benefiting minorities?

What this is about is extending the benefits of marriage granted under law to more people....not equality.

Perhaps it is bigotry...or perhaps it is because differences exist in the need.

A well reasoned debate putting forth the need for change is a requirement for change...rather than demands and name calling.

Suffrage was not granted and slavery did not end until a need to do so was evident.

[SparkleMotion]

I think the supporters of gay marriage will be very disappointed if they do get their wish with a national referendum. Remember all the "moral values voters" from 2004? If we did have a national referendum and the people voted no to gay marriage, would you support the government taking action to prohibit it?

[twa]

The problem with doing it state by state is full faith and credit. Assume gay marriage was legal in MD, but illegal in VA. What if a gay couple moved from MD (where the marriage is legal), to VA (where its illegal). Does VA have to recognize the marriage?

It's issues like this that make me want a national referendum, that way it would be possible to see exactly how the country feels on issues

I would think DOMA(passed under Clinton) would qualify as a national referendum....and addressed the full faith and credit issues.

[Larry]

Suffrage was not granted and slavery did not end until a need to do so was evident.

Please point out to me the reasons other than equality that mandated suffrage and abolition. The reasons that were more compelling than "I am an American citizen".

[AsburySkinsFan]

But there is a right to "equal protection under the law".

Equal protection, how exactly is a the ability to marry protection? BTW, its not that I don't like homosexuals (as you claim) its that I believe that they have chosen a lifestyle by their own accord and now they want everyone to support and legislate approval of their choice.

BTW, you can save me all the "its not a choice" stuff, I've heard it all before and am unconvinced.

What's more is that it is my contention that this debate will be the one that separates the church's and the state's function in marriage. I believe that once the inevitable comes (gay marriage) that many churches will reconsider their function with the state and we will end up with civil marriages (in the eyes of the state) and religious marriages that have nothing to do with one another. I believe that sooner or later civil marriages will all devolve into just an exchange of paperwork.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's issues like this that make me want a national referendum, that way it would be possible to see exactly how the country feels on issues

But a national referendum is the last thing that the GLBT community wants on this issue, they have a much better chance of changing these things by manipulating politicians and or bringing lawsuits in front of judges sympathetic to their cause. A national referendum will result in either a ban, or civil unions.

[Larry]

It's irrelevant. It is a states rights issue.

Ah, the "states right" argument. Where have I heard that one before?

Ah, I remember. It was in the context of "How dare them federals come down here with their Constitution and all, and tell us we can't legally mandate that everybody in our state must discriminate?"

I seem to remember it being associated with "separate but equal".

(Now, I do agree: Marriage is a state function. As long as they treat all citizens equally, as required by the US Constitution. If (hypothetical and streiotype) Alabama wants to allow 13-year-olds to marry their second cousins, then that's their decision. As long as it's not 13 years old for some citizens, and 18 for citizens we don't like.)

[Winslowalrob]

What's more is that it is my contention that this debate will be the one that separates the church's and the state's function in marriage. I believe that once the inevitable comes (gay marriage) that many churches will reconsider their function with the state and we will end up with civil marriages (in the eyes of the state) and religious marriages that have nothing to do with one another. I believe that sooner or later civil marriages will all devolve into just an exchange of paperwork.

I contend that that is the best option for everyone involved. If there is one marraige that essentially boils down to tax breaks and another that marries you before god, then it would be up to the churches themselves (which could not be regulated in the same way as other institutions) to allow or forbid gay marraige. They SHOULD NOT have anything to do with one another: the church marraige should be a spiritual and symbolic act, not an excuse to pay less taxes, wouldn't you agree?

[AsburySkinsFan]

(Now, I do agree: Marriage is a state function. As long as they treat all citizens equally, as required by the US Constitution. If (hypothetical and streiotype) Alabama wants to allow 13-year-olds to marry their second cousins, then that's their decision. As long as it's not 13 years old for some citizens, and 18 for citizens we don't like.)

So would you support a state rights if they passed a law that allowed a man to marry is daughter even if both were consenting and of age?

[Larry]

Equal protection, how exactly is a the ability to marry protection? BTW, its not that I don't like homosexuals (as you claim) its that I believe that they have chosen a lifestyle by their own accord and now they want everyone to support and legislate approval of their choice.

No, they want everyone to quit passing laws that are designed for the specific purpose of denying them equal treatment under the law.

No one (at least, in this thread. There are some real whackjobs "out there") is demanding a federal law forcing everyone in the country to like gays.

One side, however, is advocating laws who's sole purpose is to force everyone in the country to discriminate against gays.

BTW, you can save me all the "its not a choice" stuff, I've heard it all before and am unconvinced.

You won't here any "it's not a choice" from me. All you'll hear from me is that "it's a choice" is nothing more than the first half of the sentence "It's a choice, therefore it's OK for me to legislate discrimination against someone who's only crime is that I don't like them."

(For some reason, the "it's a choice" crowd always leave the second half of their sentence off. Like they're ashamed to actually state their position, or something.)

What's more is that it is my contention that this debate will be the one that separates the church's and the state's function in marriage. I believe that once the inevitable comes (gay marriage) that many churches will reconsider their function with the state and we will end up with civil marriages (in the eyes of the state) and religious marriages that have nothing to do with one another. I believe that sooner or later civil marriages will all devolve into just an exchange of paperwork.

I maintain that that state was reached long ago.

I'm recalling the comment about the GOP passing Constitutional Amendments to protect the sanctity of an institution which can be performed on two teenaged drunks in Las Vegas in an hour by an Elvis impersonator.

IMO, many churches have long held higher standards for who they'll marry than the state has. (As well they should. A significant function of religion in this country is the spread of their particular morality.)