Big win for gay marriage in New York

Anything About Anything...
User avatar
FFIIXXIITT
Match Winner
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:20 am

Re: Big win for gay marriage in New York

Post by FFIIXXIITT »

Okay so having an opinion about gay marriage is bad and I shouldn't have said anything then right? Shit i thought giving this forum a break for a couple of weeks would help my standing a bit but no the first thing I say I get burnt for. Thank you man for your supporting and loving comment.

User avatar
Clutch
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 1009
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:53 pm
Location: A frozen wasteland

Re: Big win for gay marriage in New York

Post by Clutch »

FFIIXXIITT wrote:Okay so having an opinion about gay marriage is bad and I shouldn't have said anything then right? Shit i thought giving this forum a break for a couple of weeks would help my standing a bit but no the first thing I say I get burnt for. Thank you man for your supporting and loving comment.
I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion, I said I personally lost the minimal amount of respect I had for you. Well actually, you're in the red zone, because I never had any.

Understand that your opinions will change how people look at you and how they think about you. It doesn't mean you CAN'T voice your opinion. But yeah you probably shouldn't have said anything in the middle of a forum topic that's obviously going to be full of people who think gay marriage is right. If you're so ******* sensitive to what everyone else says, then leave, obviously you have little to no friends at all.
Boxed

User avatar
Phytotron
Formerly Oscilloscope
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
Contact:

Re: Big win for gay marriage in New York

Post by Phytotron »

FFIIXXIITT wrote:...i don't personally think that they should be able to have a traditional marriage and that an alternative form of marriage should be made available to them with reasonable respect to those who's religion is directly opposed to the gay culture as a whole.
A statement that just goes to show how ignorant you are on the subject. (And yet another proving you need to read some legitimate damn news instead of all that wacko garbage.) Although, unfortunately, it's not an uncommon misunderstanding.

No one is proposing forcing churches (or mosques, synagogues, etc.) to perform or recognize marriages of same-sex couples. That would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment. On this subject, what is always being referred to is civil marriage—which doesn't require religious officiation whatsoever. You know, go to the court house, get a license, automatically become eligible for around 1,400 State and Federal legal rights and benefits exclusive to married couples. (See here for a short list of some of the more prominent ones currently denied same-sex couples.) Churches can already perform religious marital ceremonies for same-sex couples, if they so choose; there's nothing that can prohibit that. The difference is that the government (Federal and most States) won't recognize these as legal civic marriages the way that it automatically does for heterosexual marriages. So, you have it backwards. This is religion infringing on civic government (the only arguments against same-sex marriage are fundamentally sectarian), not the other way around (which may mean that same-sex marriage bans constitute a violation of the First Amendment as well).

With respect to your proposition of an "alternative form of marriage"—that is, what people informed on this issue usually refer to as "civil unions"—the problem with that is that it leads to a condition of "separate but equal." Are you educated enough in US history to understand why that's objectionable?

Which leads to my next response. Owned, I think much of what I said and what you said in your response clarifying (which I appreciate) can be true at once. Except this: "Am I right in thinking that the federal government has no right to legalize gay marriage without amending the Constitution due to the 10th Amendment?" No, you're not. :) This is an equal protection issue, falling under the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment. So, it's not about granting some new right*, it's about overturning the discriminatory bans against same-sex marriage (both on the State and Federal levels; the latter mainly centering on repealing DOMA) and (re)instating an equal right. Correcting an inequality, not adding new "special rights." In this area, the Fourteenth effectively overrules the Tenth Amendment. (Recall that the South argued "states' rights" in trying to uphold Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws. No constitutional amendment was required to overturn that. Of course, the Civil Rights Act and Supreme Court rulings were.)

Now, where the Tenth Amendment can be relevant is on the subject of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Prior to its being enacted, the federal government automatically recognized any marriage recognized by any individual state, whatever its laws. This would have included same-sex marriage. DOMA changed that when it explicitly defined marriage as between one man and one woman. So, here's where you get the positions of some politicians (both Democrat and Republican, and other) that the issue of same-sex marriage should be left to the States. If one State wants to recognize it, but another doesn't, that's their right under the Tenth, they say. So, even here there would be no reason to amend the Constitution to recognize same-sex marriage; just overturn DOMA, and possibly have a Supreme Court ruling in support of this interpretation of the Tenth.

However, as I already mentioned, where this is problematic is in erecting a status of separate-but-equal. So, we come back to the Fourteenth. (And, as I mentioned above, possibly the First.)


* And, after all, in the US rights aren't something created and granted by the government. Rather, they are conceptualized as existing naturally and are only enumerated, protected or limited by the government. Remember, the so-called "founding fathers" were of the Age of Enlightenment. Contrary to the completely ahistorical rantings that the US was founded on Christianity, it was founded on the concept of Natural Law/Rights.

"Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs." (Arendt, 1958).

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." -- Loving v. Virginia
[Replace "racial" with "sexual orientation."]
Last edited by Phytotron on Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Kijutsu
Match Winner
Posts: 676
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:37 pm

Re: Big win for gay marriage in New York

Post by Kijutsu »

Clutch wrote:
FFIIXXIITT wrote:
Z-Man wrote:Alias accounts are only accepted as long as they're not used as sock puppets. Just saying, no special reason.
/\ Wow cool really? /\

As far as gay marriage goes eh... I don't want to be intolerant but i don't personally think that they should be able to have a traditional marriage and that an alternative form of marriage should be made available to them with reasonable respect to those who's religion is directly opposed to the gay culture as a whole. I am not extreme enough to be a homo hater or a homo phobe but I agree that the traditional form of marriage is reserved for a man and woman.
You're losing my respect faster than ice melts in a microwave. :|
Yeah, everyone's dying for your respect. :roll:

FFIIXXIITT would have a point if marriage was actually something that's cherished and respected. It appears to be reserved for a man and a woman so for many it looks like gay people are trying to ruin this tradition, what they don't realize is, the tradition is already a joke and nobody cares about spending their lives together anymore. Have you seen the divorce rate...? Allowing gay people to get married won't make it any worse, maybe even a bit better.

tl;dr marriage is a joke let gays get married no1curr etc

User avatar
Phytotron
Formerly Oscilloscope
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
Contact:

Re: Big win for gay marriage in New York

Post by Phytotron »

Speak for yourself. Typical unthinking, reactionary, destructive view. No better than the reactionary anti-gay forces, just the nihilistic side of the coin. "No one cares, it's all bullshit, morals/ethics/values/laws are worthless, I don't give a shit, so long as I get mine, I'll do whatever I want, screw you, blah blah."

And thanks yet again to Liz, yet another conversation of some relative civility, intelligence, and substance is dragged into the gutter of shallow stupidity. Mission accomplished on her part.

User avatar
Kijutsu
Match Winner
Posts: 676
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:37 pm

Re: Big win for gay marriage in New York

Post by Kijutsu »

Phytotron has a crush on me.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6300
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Big win for gay marriage in New York

Post by sinewav »

Phytotron wrote:Mission accomplished on her part.
Yeah, her execution leaves something to be desired, but I get the point she's trying to make toward Sir Fixitstein. He seems to hold the view that there is something special about heterosexual marriage. But considering the amount of violence, adultery, and other forms of abuse in marriage (plus the skyrocketing divorce rates) one has to wonder why this special arrangement should be reserved for opposite sex couples? How could same sex couples disgrace such a glorious institution? Probably by doing it better than heterosexuals and shaming them by example.

I'm preaching to the choir though. I really think those against gay marriage simply haven't the introspective, empathic, critical thinking facilities needed to see how absurd their prejudice is.

User avatar
Clutch
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 1009
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:53 pm
Location: A frozen wasteland

Re: Big win for gay marriage in New York

Post by Clutch »

vogue wrote:
Clutch wrote:You're losing my respect faster than ice melts in a microwave. :|
Yeah, everyone's dying for your respect. :roll:
That's weird, because I don't remember saying that. Don't put words in my mouth
Boxed

User avatar
Phytotron
Formerly Oscilloscope
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
Contact:

Re: Big win for gay marriage in New York

Post by Phytotron »

Before my wife and I got hitched (in an exclusively secular, civil manner), we debated whether we should refrain from doing so as a matter of protest and solidarity, until our gay brothers and sisters were granted marriage equality. But after a lot of discussion including many of them, we decided that we could at least as strongly argue for it by demonstrating that, see, we're married, and our marriage isn't the least bit threatened by gays being wed.

There is, of course, the position that the state has no business recognizing marriage at all, particularly in granting it any special status and attendant rights and benefits. That it should remain only a private, usually religious institution. I think that's Ron Paul's position, for a semi-popular example. And it's one with which I disagree (not that I universally support every right and benefit on the books, of course). While I certainly don't believe married people are superior to singles or even cohabitors, there are very good reasons to legally recognize the relationship and ensure those rights—and, again, some of the most prominent and crucial ones are linked to above. Of course, hardcore libertarians oppose government existence of or involvement in many of the institutions, laws, regulations, whatnot that precede and undergird those rights, anyway.

My position, on the other hand, rather than to just mindlessly trash the concept of lifelong (or even just long-term) pair bonding, is to recognize not only marriage equality for gay couples, but also the establishment of [be it defined as common law, domestic partnership, or cohabitation] status with the (scaled) expansion of rights and benefits (both civil and workplace) to those relationships as well, on at least a provisional basis. (Obviously, one has to protect against fraud and abuse of the system, "Bosom Buddies" style.) Not just saying, f*ck it all.

'Course, there's this: http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/
But there are also all the studies demonstrating that marriage produces happier, healthier, longer lives. And that cohabitation doesn't produce the same results. (On top of that, couples who cohabited for years prior to marriage are more likely to fail—a statistic we plan to beat, heh.) ::shrug:: Veering off topic.


Incidentally, don't put domestic violence, adultery, and divorce on the mere fact of being married. Put it on the wrong people getting married for the wrong reasons. Moreover, all three (replace "divorce" with "break ups") occur within unmarried relationships as well. And none of that has anything to do with sexual orientation.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6300
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Big win for gay marriage in New York

Post by sinewav »

It's true what you say about people getting married for the wrong reasons. I tend to think it's because of external and internal social pressures. I even find myself doing it when I talk to friends who have been dating a long time, asking "so when's the big day?" Gay couples don't get that kind pressure (am I wrong? I don't know for sure). While both types of couples yearn for a long, loving relationship, it's the heterosexual ones that seem to feel obligated to get married. And I think the more you buy into this whole "I have to / they have to get married" thing, the more likely you'll see homosexual marriage as wrong. This is just speaking from my personal experience with friends and loved ones. The friends of mine who are in the happiest marriages just so happen to be the ones most supportive of gay marriage. Also, none of them define themselves by their spouse either. Are people against homosexual unions insecure about themselves and their relationships?

<end musing>

User avatar
compguygene
Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 2336
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:09 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Big win for gay marriage in New York

Post by compguygene »

What is kind of ironic in watching this debate, is my view on it. Even though you could classify me as an "Evangelical Christian", I actually agree with Phytotron on this issue. This is a legal, not religious issue. When you have couples of the same sex forming these unions anyways, but not having equal access to the legal benefits and protections therein, it is a problem. While I would certainly not endorse my church performing a same sex wedding, as a libertarian, I cannot see this being denied to same sex couples as a good thing.
Armagetron: It's a video game that people should just play and enjoy :)
https://bit.ly/2KBGYjvCheck out the simple site about TheServerPharm

owned
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 876
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Big win for gay marriage in New York

Post by owned »

Phytotron wrote:Which leads to my next response. Owned, I think much of what I said and what you said in your response clarifying (which I appreciate) can be true at once.
I agree. Actually, most of my response wasn't meant as a counter to yours, apart from the point that I think New York's legalization will have a greater effect on the country than you do.
Another reason for this (that I've heard in various news outlets in the past few days) is that legalizing gay marriage actually provides an economic benefit, (I heard somewhere to the tune of 300 million) so this could provide another reason for legalizing it.
Except this: "Am I right in thinking that the federal government has no right to legalize gay marriage without amending the Constitution due to the 10th Amendment?" No, you're not. :) This is an equal protection issue, falling under the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment. So, it's not about granting some new right*, it's about overturning the discriminatory bans against same-sex marriage (both on the State and Federal levels; the latter mainly centering on repealing DOMA) and (re)instating an equal right. Correcting an inequality, not adding new "special rights." In this area, the Fourteenth effectively overrules the Tenth Amendment. (Recall that the South argued "states' rights" in trying to uphold Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws. No constitutional amendment was required to overturn that. Of course, the Civil Rights Act and Supreme Court rulings were.)
Heh. I was actually thinking about the 14th amendment and thought it might apply to this situation. However, for some strange reason I remembered it as only applying to sex and race discrimination. Reading it again I can see that you're right.

@Durka No. I do hope that in the future more states will bring the gay marriage debate out of the closet so that a vote can be made to legalize it.

User avatar
FFIIXXIITT
Match Winner
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:20 am

Re: Big win for gay marriage in New York

Post by FFIIXXIITT »

I should not have even said anything, I dont know enough to defend my opinion and apparently I am a bit ignorant when it comes to this whole topic, so yeah you win this time phyto.

User avatar
Phytotron
Formerly Oscilloscope
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
Contact:

Re: Big win for gay marriage in New York

Post by Phytotron »

It's not about "winning." Once you get that, you'll get a whole lot more.

But, let me add this: I disagree completely with what Clutch said: "you probably shouldn't have said anything in the middle of a forum topic that's obviously going to be full of people who [take the opposite view from you]." As a companion to what I said here, there shouldn't be any prohibition or discouragement here, formal or cultural, from lodging an opinion of disagreement, even if every other person in that thread takes the opposite view (providing, of course, that it's a substantive comment, not just a random troll/flame/shit-toss).

However, what should be discouraged, and where people should practice personal restraint (not only here, but in any context), is taking and stating with resolute declaration an uninformed, or even misinformed, opinion. You should be at least familiar with the basics of a subject. If not, get informed. And that can include asking questions. There's nothing wrong with that. (You don't "lose" because you don't know something and ask a question about it.) But one must become informed on a subject before forming and subsequently stating and acting upon (e.g., voting) an opinion.

User avatar
Clutch
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 1009
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:53 pm
Location: A frozen wasteland

Re: Big win for gay marriage in New York

Post by Clutch »

I said that because he got all sensitive when someone rebuked him.

So I guess I should've said "If you take the opposite view in a thread obviously full of people with a certain view, you will probably get bashed. So if you're sensitive or not willing to fight for your idea don't post it"
Boxed

Post Reply