For those of you who support gay marriage

builttospill · 08-17-2010, 08:34 AM - **1 Like**

Sorry to hear about your friends Mike. I hate hearing of stories like this.

GeneV · 08-17-2010, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by builttospill

But let's take your angle for argument's sake to continue the initial discussion. I also agree the OP's comparisons aren't exactly related. But why do we need to legalize same-sex marriage? That's what you call an optional freedom. Under our system the law defines marriage as a union between man and woman. A gay person has every right to be married just like a straight person. But when the system affords extra rights, or "optional freedoms" to a group of people, I don't see it being any different as paying higher taxes to feed and educate illegal immigrants or failed rehabilitation of prison inmates in their luxurious prison suite. A straight community has never denied the right of a gay person to be married. It's not a level playing field but we can at least try to give everyone the same opportunities in America.[COLOR="Silver"]

You'll have to explain that logic a little bit. How is it that when we tell Americans that you can marry anyone you want, as long as they are of the opposite sex, that is gving everyone the same rights. However when we tell Americans that they can marry anyone they want, regardless of gender, that is granting someone "extra rights" or "special rights?"

Phil1 · 08-17-2010, 10:55 AM

GeneV,
"Deeming more of the mothers "unwed" just helps to keep the fathers off the hook. That is the way some of these folks are getting welfare now. It is difficult to adjudicate paternity without the cooperation of the mother, and if the mothers choose not to go after the fathers for child support, then they end up with welfare. If the children are born in some kind of a legal relationship, the parental rights are established automatically, and the fathers can't escape responsibility as easily or collusively. "

Thanks I didn't see that aspect of it. I go sideways when the taxpayers have to foot the bills for this BS.

"Maybe poly-marraiges should be legalized post tubal ligation-vasecomy" I fasceciously said. ;-) Just leave my wallet out of it.

MRRiley · 08-17-2010, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by builttospill

Under our system the law defines marriage as a union between man and woman.

The ultimate law in our country does not address gender in marriage. Only the possibly unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act and numerous, just as possibly unconstitutional, federal and state statutes. The Constitution is silent on the matter, but it is loud and clear that ALL citizens must be treated equally.

builttospill · 08-17-2010, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

You'll have to explain that logic a little bit. How is it that when we tell Americans that you can marry anyone you want, as long as they are of the opposite sex, that is gving everyone the same rights. However when we tell Americans that they can marry anyone they want, regardless of gender, that is granting someone "extra rights" or "special rights?"

Because if that right was available we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. It isn't a right at the moment, so it may be an additional or extra right afforded to gays if the law is changed.

Parallax · 08-17-2010, 11:41 AM

All citizens are/will be treated equally regardless of the outcome.

Either:
EVERYBODY, gay or straight will be allowed, if they choose, to marry someone of the same sex
or
NOBODY, gay or straight, will be allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

It doesn't get any more equal than that.

builttospill · 08-17-2010, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

The ultimate law in our country does not address gender in marriage. Only the possibly unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act and numerous, just as possibly unconstitutional, federal and state statutes. The Constitution is silent on the matter, but it is loud and clear that ALL citizens must be treated equally.

You make another excellent point Mike.

GeneV · 08-17-2010, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

All citizens are/will be treated equally regardless of the outcome.

Either:
EVERYBODY, gay or straight will be allowed, if they choose, to marry someone of the same sex
or
NOBODY, gay or straight, will be allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

It doesn't get any more equal than that.

So, if the miscegenation laws were in effect, we would all be equal as well, since EVERYBODY, black or white, would be able to marry someone of the same race?

---------- Post added 08-17-10 at 12:55 PM ----------

Originally posted by builttospill

Because if that right was available we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. It isn't a right at the moment, so it may be an additional or extra right afforded to gays if the law is changed.

It is an additional right afforded to everyone--not just gays.

Parallax · 08-17-2010, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

So, if the miscegenation laws were in effect, we would all be equal as well, since EVERYBODY, black or white, would be able to marry someone of the same race?

Damnit, Gene! Quit confusing me with facts and logic just when I think I have everything sorted out.
What that post made me realize is that we are arguing fairness as gay v. straight and from that angle, everything is fair. The unfairness is along gender lines. Currently women have rights that men don't, i.e. they can marry a man. The reverse is true for men. If the current law is unfair, it is inequity based on gender, not sexual orientation.
That may be the angle for SCOTUS to strike down Prop. 8 if they are inclined to do so.

GeneV · 08-17-2010, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

Damnit, Gene! Quit confusing me with facts and logic just when I think I have everything sorted out.
What that post made me realize is that we are arguing fairness as gay v. straight and from that angle, everything is fair. The unfairness is along gender lines. Currently women have rights that men don't, i.e. they can marry a man. The reverse is true for men. If the current law is unfair, it is inequity based on gender, not sexual orientation.
That may be the angle for POTUS to strike down Prop. 8 if they are inclined to do so.

Bingo! Gender is the suspect classification here.

By the way, though this is a small group of people, there may actually be straight people who need to enter into a same-sex marriage, as there are gay people now who enter into heterosexual marriages. For example, two aging, long-time platonic roommates who want to make sure there are no issues with their joint property when one passes on might want to be married. On the other hand, I have a female friend who married a gay man who was her business partner in order to simplify the partnership issues. Neither she nor her business partner had any interest in marrying their love interests.

MRRiley · 08-17-2010, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

Damnit, Gene! Quit confusing me with facts and logic just when I think I have everything sorted out.
What that post made me realize is that we are arguing fairness as gay v. straight and from that angle, everything is fair. The unfairness is along gender lines. Currently women have rights that men don't, i.e. they can marry a man. The reverse is true for men. If the current law is unfair, it is inequity based on gender, not sexual orientation.
That may be the angle for POTUS to strike down Prop. 8 if they are inclined to do so.

I assume you mean SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) Jim...

And yes, in the final analysis it is not a gay/straight thing, it is a gender thing. Heck 2 elderly straight women could get married so that one could inherit from the other if they chose. marriage should be gender-blind, not just gender neutral. As a civil contract, this is the only equatablesolution. As I have said many times, churches can keep the whole "holy matrimony" thing, but they have no exclusive claim to the institutional contract called "marriage."

p.s. LOL Gene...seems we were formulating the exact same "what-if" scenario at the same time. You put it much better than me though! Kudos!!!

Parallax · 08-17-2010, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by MRRiley

I assume you mean SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) Jim...

:doh:

GeneV · 08-17-2010, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by MRRiley

p.s. LOL Gene...seems we were formulating the exact same "what-if" scenario at the same time. You put it much better than me though! Kudos!!!

Actually, I think that is the second time that we have channeled on this subject.

In some respects these are not really too far fetched. I think many heterosexual marriages late in life are more about the kind of affection and concerns that transcend gender, rather than attraction and a desire to procreate. My mother got one of those proposals many years ago.

Parallax · 08-17-2010, 12:37 PM

People fall in love at 75 for different reasons than at 25.

GeneV · 08-17-2010, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

People fall in love at 75 for different reasons than at 25.

Absolutely. I even wonder if "in love" is the right term for it when the hormones have quieted, or whether it is more appropriate to say people "love each other" for different reasons.

08-17-2010, 12:14 PM	#54
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by GeneV So, if the miscegenation laws were in effect, we would all be equal as well, since EVERYBODY, black or white, would be able to marry someone of the same race? Damnit, Gene! Quit confusing me with facts and logic just when I think I have everything sorted out. What that post made me realize is that we are arguing fairness as gay v. straight and from that angle, everything is fair. The unfairness is along gender lines. Currently women have rights that men don't, i.e. they can marry a man. The reverse is true for men. If the current law is unfair, it is inequity based on gender, not sexual orientation. That may be the angle for SCOTUS to strike down Prop. 8 if they are inclined to do so. Last edited by Parallax; 08-17-2010 at 12:32 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Marriage Equality March, Madison, WI K-X video	BrianStanding	Video Recording and Processing	0	07-29-2010 08:00 AM
Gay Marriage	branphlake	Photo Critique	12	07-10-2009 05:08 PM
K100 and AF400T Marriage?	dbuffington	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	4	01-18-2009 01:01 PM
is this marriage?	Clicker	General Talk	4	01-17-2009 11:57 AM
The Pride (Gay) Parade!	Gooshin	Post Your Photos!	13	06-30-2008 08:05 PM

08-17-2010, 08:34 AM - 1 Like	#46
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	Sorry to hear about your friends Mike. I hate hearing of stories like this.

08-17-2010, 10:33 AM	#47
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by builttospill But let's take your angle for argument's sake to continue the initial discussion. I also agree the OP's comparisons aren't exactly related. But why do we need to legalize same-sex marriage? That's what you call an optional freedom. Under our system the law defines marriage as a union between man and woman. A gay person has every right to be married just like a straight person. But when the system affords extra rights, or "optional freedoms" to a group of people, I don't see it being any different as paying higher taxes to feed and educate illegal immigrants or failed rehabilitation of prison inmates in their luxurious prison suite. A straight community has never denied the right of a gay person to be married. It's not a level playing field but we can at least try to give everyone the same opportunities in America.[COLOR="Silver"] You'll have to explain that logic a little bit. How is it that when we tell Americans that you can marry anyone you want, as long as they are of the opposite sex, that is gving everyone the same rights. However when we tell Americans that they can marry anyone they want, regardless of gender, that is granting someone "extra rights" or "special rights?"

08-17-2010, 10:55 AM	#48
Phil1 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: SoCal Posts: 1,292	GeneV, "Deeming more of the mothers "unwed" just helps to keep the fathers off the hook. That is the way some of these folks are getting welfare now. It is difficult to adjudicate paternity without the cooperation of the mother, and if the mothers choose not to go after the fathers for child support, then they end up with welfare. If the children are born in some kind of a legal relationship, the parental rights are established automatically, and the fathers can't escape responsibility as easily or collusively. " Thanks I didn't see that aspect of it. I go sideways when the taxpayers have to foot the bills for this BS. "Maybe poly-marraiges should be legalized post tubal ligation-vasecomy" I fasceciously said. ;-) Just leave my wallet out of it.

08-17-2010, 11:22 AM	#49
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Originally posted by builttospill Under our system the law defines marriage as a union between man and woman. The ultimate law in our country does not address gender in marriage. Only the possibly unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act and numerous, just as possibly unconstitutional, federal and state statutes. The Constitution is silent on the matter, but it is loud and clear that ALL citizens must be treated equally.

08-17-2010, 11:41 AM	#50
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	Originally posted by GeneV You'll have to explain that logic a little bit. How is it that when we tell Americans that you can marry anyone you want, as long as they are of the opposite sex, that is gving everyone the same rights. However when we tell Americans that they can marry anyone they want, regardless of gender, that is granting someone "extra rights" or "special rights?" Because if that right was available we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. It isn't a right at the moment, so it may be an additional or extra right afforded to gays if the law is changed.

08-17-2010, 11:41 AM	#51
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	All citizens are/will be treated equally regardless of the outcome. Either: EVERYBODY, gay or straight will be allowed, if they choose, to marry someone of the same sex or NOBODY, gay or straight, will be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. It doesn't get any more equal than that.

08-17-2010, 11:42 AM	#52
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	Originally posted by MRRiley The ultimate law in our country does not address gender in marriage. Only the possibly unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act and numerous, just as possibly unconstitutional, federal and state statutes. The Constitution is silent on the matter, but it is loud and clear that ALL citizens must be treated equally. You make another excellent point Mike.

08-17-2010, 11:54 AM	#53
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Parallax All citizens are/will be treated equally regardless of the outcome. Either: EVERYBODY, gay or straight will be allowed, if they choose, to marry someone of the same sex or NOBODY, gay or straight, will be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. It doesn't get any more equal than that. So, if the miscegenation laws were in effect, we would all be equal as well, since EVERYBODY, black or white, would be able to marry someone of the same race? ---------- Post added 08-17-10 at 12:55 PM ---------- Originally posted by builttospill Because if that right was available we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. It isn't a right at the moment, so it may be an additional or extra right afforded to gays if the law is changed. It is an additional right afforded to everyone--not just gays.

08-17-2010, 12:22 PM	#55
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Parallax Damnit, Gene! Quit confusing me with facts and logic just when I think I have everything sorted out. What that post made me realize is that we are arguing fairness as gay v. straight and from that angle, everything is fair. The unfairness is along gender lines. Currently women have rights that men don't, i.e. they can marry a man. The reverse is true for men. If the current law is unfair, it is inequity based on gender, not sexual orientation. That may be the angle for POTUS to strike down Prop. 8 if they are inclined to do so. Bingo! Gender is the suspect classification here. By the way, though this is a small group of people, there may actually be straight people who need to enter into a same-sex marriage, as there are gay people now who enter into heterosexual marriages. For example, two aging, long-time platonic roommates who want to make sure there are no issues with their joint property when one passes on might want to be married. On the other hand, I have a female friend who married a gay man who was her business partner in order to simplify the partnership issues. Neither she nor her business partner had any interest in marrying their love interests.

08-17-2010, 12:24 PM	#56
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Originally posted by Parallax Damnit, Gene! Quit confusing me with facts and logic just when I think I have everything sorted out. What that post made me realize is that we are arguing fairness as gay v. straight and from that angle, everything is fair. The unfairness is along gender lines. Currently women have rights that men don't, i.e. they can marry a man. The reverse is true for men. If the current law is unfair, it is inequity based on gender, not sexual orientation. That may be the angle for POTUS to strike down Prop. 8 if they are inclined to do so. I assume you mean SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) Jim... And yes, in the final analysis it is not a gay/straight thing, it is a gender thing. Heck 2 elderly straight women could get married so that one could inherit from the other if they chose. marriage should be gender-blind, not just gender neutral. As a civil contract, this is the only equatablesolution. As I have said many times, churches can keep the whole "holy matrimony" thing, but they have no exclusive claim to the institutional contract called "marriage." p.s. LOL Gene...seems we were formulating the exact same "what-if" scenario at the same time. You put it much better than me though! Kudos!!!

08-17-2010, 12:32 PM	#57
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by MRRiley I assume you mean SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) Jim... :doh:

08-17-2010, 12:34 PM	#58
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by MRRiley p.s. LOL Gene...seems we were formulating the exact same "what-if" scenario at the same time. You put it much better than me though! Kudos!!! Actually, I think that is the second time that we have channeled on this subject. In some respects these are not really too far fetched. I think many heterosexual marriages late in life are more about the kind of affection and concerns that transcend gender, rather than attraction and a desire to procreate. My mother got one of those proposals many years ago.

08-17-2010, 12:37 PM	#59
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	People fall in love at 75 for different reasons than at 25.

08-17-2010, 01:49 PM	#60
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Parallax People fall in love at 75 for different reasons than at 25. Absolutely. I even wonder if "in love" is the right term for it when the hormones have quieted, or whether it is more appropriate to say people "love each other" for different reasons.