The Call

[Garfield1966]

The entire premise of affirmative action is wrong as it is discriminatory.
Are there discriminatory exceptions?



No doubt it would as you are too polarized to see the difference.


B) xUT

I believe technically it is preferential not discriminatory. I do not agree with AA as it is applied.

How is depriving homosexuals of equal rights different from black prior to 1964 or women prior to 1920?

 

[UAL_TECH]

I believe technically it is preferential not discriminatory. I do not agree with AA as it is applied. (who cares)

SO Jim Crow laws should be 'technically' preferential and not discriminatory?

In your 'world' affirmative action is not discriminatory even though the premise specifically implies racial preference?

How is depriving homosexuals of equal rights different from black prior to 1964 or women prior to 1920?

No one is 'depriving' anyone of anything. Your inference to a symbolic connection with sexual deviancy and ethnicity is loose at best.

B) xUT

 

[Garfield1966]

SO Jim Crow laws should be 'technically' preferential and not discriminatory?

In your 'world' affirmative action is not discriminatory even though the premise specifically implies racial preference?



No one is 'depriving' anyone of anything. Your inference to a symbolic connection with sexual deviancy and ethnicity is loose at best.

B) xUT

AA says a certain % need to be this and a certain % need to be that. It does not preclude an entire group of people based on race, gender or religion from doing something. The Jim Crow laws were directed at all blacks and only blacks. I never said that AA is not based on racial preference. What I originally asked is if there was another law on the books that precludes an entire segment of society of equal rights while letting a segment of that same group enjoy rights that the rest do not.

Two people are being deprived of the right to be married. Therefore people are being deprived of equal rights. As to your belief that homosexuality is deviant .... who cares? Don't like it, don't do it.... no one cares what you do either.

Why are you so scared to admit that you have no problem to deny equal rights to a segment of society based on your beliefs? It's about as asinine as pro-choicers saying that abortion is not murder. I believe it is murder (or at least a form of it) and I am perfectly OK with a woman having sole control over her body.

So stop being a chicken chit and admit that you want to deprive people of equal rights. you might want to come to grips that you will eventually loose. In CA alone, the voe count went from 30% to less than 2% Next time or the time after.... it goes down and you will loose. Just as women and blacks fought for and won equal rights, so too will homosexuals.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Garfield... there are plenty excluded groups when it comes to marriage. Those under certain ages... they are restricted from marrying. Siblings are restricted from marriage. I am not suggesting that these groups should be able to marry, but I am answering your question posed to Dell.

 

[Garfield1966]

Guilding,

I did not think of the age/relation issues. The relation issue I think is a bit different in that is is a health issue and not a bias issue. I agree that the age issue is a valid reply tot he question but I think the intent is quite different and the the age restriction. Also, the age restriction applie to everyone, not a specific race, gender, religion or sexual preference.

Piney,

Why is the current preferred group which allowed to marry OK?

When the government allows same sex marriage that will cover any and all combinations not covered. There are only 3 (four if you want to include Polygamist which is fine by me) possible marriages: Male/Female, Male/Male and Female/Female. Communal, Polygamist and "threesome" are all the same technically (multi-member marriage. Not sure why the sate has to regulate that either but that law is different from the proposed laws that prevent same sex marriages. US laws should apply to everyone equally. Laws against Polygamy say that no one may have more than one spouse. The laws against same sex marriage say that only 1 combination of people can get married while excluding the other two combination. That is not an equal application of the law.

By allowing same sex marriage it will eliminate the current preferred group (male/female and allow any two people to enter into a marriage contract.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Guilding,

I did not think of the age/relation issues. The relation issue I think is a bit different in that is is a health issue and not a bias issue. I agree that the age issue is a valid reply tot he question but I think the intent is quite different and the the age restriction. Also, the age restriction applie to everyone, not a specific race, gender, religion or sexual preference.

While I agree with you, Garfield, in all fairness, many would argue argue that it is a health issue for both. Also, many would also argue that anti-homosexual marriage laws apply to everyone (i.e. No one can marry someone of the same sex... no one can marry somone under the legal age for marriage... no one can marry a sibling). (Note: Equal application was shot down in respect to anti-miscegenation laws).

 

[UAL_TECH]

AA says a certain % need to be this and a certain % need to be that. It does not preclude an entire group of people based on race, gender or religion from doing something. The Jim Crow laws were directed at all blacks and only blacks. I never said that AA is not based on racial preference. What I originally asked is if there was another law on the books that precludes an entire segment of society of equal rights while letting a segment of that same group enjoy rights that the rest do not.

Two people are being deprived of the right to be married. Therefore people are being deprived of equal rights. As to your belief that homosexuality is deviant .... who cares? Don't like it, don't do it.... no one cares what you do either.

Why are you so scared to admit that you have no problem to deny equal rights to a segment of society based on your beliefs? It's about as asinine as pro-choicers saying that abortion is not murder. I believe it is murder (or at least a form of it) and I am perfectly OK with a woman having sole control over her body.

So stop being a chicken chit and admit that you want to deprive people of equal rights. you might want to come to grips that you will eventually loose. In CA alone, the voe count went from 30% to less than 2% Next time or the time after.... it goes down and you will loose. Just as women and blacks fought for and won equal rights, so too will homosexuals.

I believe that my position has been clear throughout this discussion and once again you fail to grasp the concept that sexual preference is not the same as ethnicity. Sexual preference is a 'choice' while ethnicity is not. If you fail to grasp this 'truth' then (as I stated previously) our argument is over and no need for you to beat this dead horse 'over and over 🙄 ' repeating the same arguments and expecting different results.

There have been numerous inputs to this thread on all sides of the issue. Maybe you should read some of them before you expose your narrow minded and self indignant conclusions. As many others have pointed out, this is not a one-on-one issue and future implications for the definition of 'marriage' will be open for any 'other' nut case that does not have a clue as to who they are. I prefer to have a definition other than a 'free-for-all'.

There are already protections in place protecting homosexual 'unions/domestic partnerships' in both federal and state laws. If you have not noticed, no one has been trying to reverse these laws, but the LBGTQ...(further acronyms to be added as appropriate... ) are the ones complaining that they need to be 'married'. Civil unions are not enough as they try to 'force' everyone to believe that their lifestyle 'choice' is normal. It may be normal for them but not for me, but that is their choice, not mine.

If we looked at it from a purely judicial perspective (successorship rights, inheritance, tax implications, etc...) and totally discard what the intent of a 'Marriage' originated from (to procreate as a Family), then fine. I would rather simply dump the whole idea of marriage all together than to leave it open for further degradation.

So stop being a chicken chit

Yea, that's so ME...

SO, Garfy, what have 'YOU' done (other than internet posting) to support your position?

B) xUT

 

[Garfield1966]

Sexual preference is a 'choice' while ethnicity is not. If you fail to grasp this 'truth'

There is no scientific evidence to support this statement.

There have been numerous inputs to this thread on all sides of the issue. Maybe you should read some of them before you expose your narrow minded and self indignant conclusions. As many others have pointed out, this is not a one-on-one issue and future implications for the definition of 'marriage' will be open for any 'other' nut case that does not have a clue as to who they are. I prefer to have a definition other than a 'free-for-all'.

As you stated earlier, who cares? Given that I am seeking to allow more people to get married and you prefer to limit access to marriage I fail to see how that makes my opinion (more inclusive) 'narrow as opposed to your opinion (less inclusive) which would be what .... open minded? It is very much a one on one issue. There are two people who are making this chose to get married. What you feel about the subject or what I feel about the subject is irrelevant. The choice should be up to the two people involved. Religion has no relevance in a state function.

There are already protections in place protecting homosexual 'unions/domestic partnerships' in both federal and state laws. If you have not noticed, no one has been trying to reverse these laws, but the LBGTQ...(further acronyms to be added as appropriate... ) are the ones complaining that they need to be 'married'. Civil unions are not enough as they try to 'force' everyone to believe that their lifestyle 'choice' is normal. It may be normal for them but not for me, but that is their choice, not mine.

Separate is not equal. Civil Union is not the same as marriage. No one wants to reverse those laws because they are irrelevant. By seeking to reverse or modify those laws would indicate acceptance of them. The blacks did not want the Jim Crow laws modified or reversed, they wanted full status as a US citizen. Gays do not want a better civil union, they want to get married just as heterosexual people are.

I would rather simply dump the whole idea of marriage all together than to leave it open for further degradation.

I agree whole heatedly but religion will never let that happen. Right now the only thing 'protecting' the term marriages it is currently applied is government intervention. If the term marriage were replaced with Civil Union and the term marriage were relegated solely to religious institutions to with as they choose, the term marriage would loose all relevance. Any religious institution could make up their own rules for marriage. A man could marry his vacuum cleaner and it would have the same validity as your marriage to your wife. Since the state could not regulate marriage, anyone or anything could get married. Religion would never tolerate that.

Personally I am all for it. The state should get out of marriage and all unions for all people would be a civil union. It's a simple contract that covers all the current legal requirements of a 'marriage'. Should two people wish to get married, they can go to the church of their choosing and perform what ever ceremonies that institution requires. The 'marriage' will carry no legal weight what so ever.

SO, Garfy, what have 'YOU' done (other than internet posting) to support your position?

B) xUT

I have written my representatives as well as those in states considering legislation. I have participated in a few marches and donated to organizations that support equal rights under the law.


I'll keep arguing the point till all people are treated equally in this country. Eventually it will happen. The election results in CA on Prop 8 is ample proof of that.

 

[Garfield1966]

While I agree with you, Garfield, in all fairness, many would argue argue that it is a health issue for both. Also, many would also argue that anti-homosexual marriage laws apply to everyone (i.e. No one can marry someone of the same sex... no one can marry somone under the legal age for marriage... no once can marry a sibling). (Note: Equal application was shot down in respect to anti-miscegenation laws).

Not sure I buy all of that. The health issue I think is bogus. Aids has already been proven not to be a 'gay' disease. It's more a promiscuous disease. People who are seeking to get married are more likely to be monogamous. Unprotected sex and promiscuity are issues that have nothing to do with marriage.

I am having difficulty explaining the idea in my head but I think the idea of saying "no one can marry someone of the same sex" is different than saying "no one can marry someone under the age of XX".

 

[UAL_TECH]

Sexual preference is a 'choice' while ethnicity is not. If you fail to grasp this 'truth'

There is no scientific evidence to support this statement.

There nothing to support your 'belief'...
Due to lack of 'proven' evidence, I stand by my position that deviant sexual behavior is a choice and not an act of Darwinism or 'natural selection'.

At least I am comforted that your 'belief' that a marriage is between two people and you are comfortable with the denial of polygamists rights.

Does it make you feel more 'manly'? ...

Separate is not equal. Civil Union is not the same as marriage.

How so? You do know that most of the Merican population do not get ‘married’ in a religious institution? And, pray tell, how are these ‘unions’ recognized by the state and feds? (Short Quiz at 5:00)

No one wants to reverse those laws because they are irrelevant.
By seeking to reverse or modify those laws would indicate acceptance of them.

How could you possibly know that? Pulling it out of your waste orifice (again) ?

The blacks did not want the Jim Crow laws modified or reversed, they wanted full status as a US citizen. Gays do not want a better civil union, they want to get married just as heterosexual people are.

Great, now you are a spokesperson for the black community as well... 🙄

I agree whole heatedly but religion will never let that happen. Right now the only thing 'protecting' the term marriages it is currently applied is government intervention. If the term marriage were replaced with Civil Union and the term marriage were relegated solely to religious institutions to with as they choose, the term marriage would loose all relevance. Any religious institution could make up their own rules for marriage. A man could marry his vacuum cleaner and it would have the same validity as your marriage to your wife. Since the state could not regulate marriage, anyone or anything could get married. Religion would never tolerate that.

Personally I am all for it. The state should get out of marriage and all unions for all people would be a civil union. It's a simple contract that covers all the current legal requirements of a 'marriage'. Should two people wish to get married, they can go to the church of their choosing and perform what ever ceremonies that institution requires. The 'marriage' will carry no legal weight what so ever.

Well, you have ‘issues’ with religion. Do you think ‘the state’ is the ultimate decider of social issues, or the people?

I have written my representatives as well as those in states considering legislation. I have participated in a few marches and donated to organizations that support equal rights under the law.


I'll keep arguing the point till all people are treated equally in this country. Eventually it will happen. The election results in CA on Prop 8 is ample proof of that.

No doubt that you will continue to spread your ‘beliefs’ and many will succumb to it just to stop the tiresome repetitiveness of your ‘belief’. Just keep repeating the same mantra (with occasional twists) over and over (see the last 18 pages) and you will certainly win over the majority of the populace by shear boredom.
View attachment 8244


However, You can rest assured that your diatribe and disinformation is wasted on me.


B) xUT

 

[Garfield1966]

There nothing to support your 'belief'...
Due to lack of 'proven' evidence, I stand by my position that deviant sexual behavior is a choice and not an act of Darwinism or 'natural selection'.

Given that you believe in fairy tales I am not surprised.

At least I am comforted that your 'belief' that a marriage is between two people and you are comfortable with the denial of polygamists rights.

Does it make you feel more 'manly'? ...

Please see post #171. I could care less how many people get married/united. When I said two people, I was thinking of the typical 'wedding where there are only two participants at a time.

How so? You do know that most of the Merican population do not get ‘married’ in a religious institution? And, pray tell, how are these ‘unions’ recognized by the state and feds? (Short Quiz at 5:00)

According to the US State dept site as long as you followed the procedures required of the country in which you were married, your marriage will more then like be recognized in the US. It also said for specific questions you should refer to your the AG of the state in question.

How could you possibly know that? Pulling it out of your waste orifice (again) ?

No, I read and I ask questions. Or perhaps I pulled it out of the same place you pulled your assumption that preference is a choice.

Well, you have ‘issues’ with religion. Do you think ‘the state’ is the ultimate decider of social issues, or the people?

The only issue I have with religion is it's integration into city/state and Federal government.

I would argue both. Had the Feds not intervened in in AR to enforce desegregation, had the state not imposed civil rights acts on the states that disagreed with the concept, where would we be? The "people" did not want it in some areas and it took armed troops to enforce it. There have been times where the state has had to intervene to prevent the tyranny of the majority.


President Jefferson:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

The protection provided by this principle applies fundamentally, of course, in favor of a minority of one: The Individual. No majority, however great even all of the people but one Individual--may properly infringe, or possess the power to infringe, the rights of any minority, however small--even a minority of a lone Individual.

No doubt that you will continue to spread your ‘beliefs’ and many will succumb to it just to stop the tiresome repetitiveness of your ‘belief’. Just keep repeating the same mantra (with occasional twists) over and over (see the last 18 pages) and you will certainly win over the majority of the populace by shear boredom.

Evidence indicates you are wrong. In 2000, prop 22 passed by 38%. Prop 8 in 2008 passed by 4%. Boredom or tiresome ... I could care less how it happens as long as it happens.

However, You can rest assured that your diatribe and disinformation is wasted on me.
B) xUT

You are not the one I am trying to convince. I do not argue against bigotry with the hopes of converting a Klucker, I argue to prevent others from falling prey to bigotry. You are not the only person who reads forum such as these.

 

[777 fixer]

Seems to me the treatment of gays in our country is similar to the way Blacks were treated prior to 1964 and women prior to 1920.

Hardly. While there might be the occasional hate crime you do not see the kind violence leveled against gay people today as there was leveled against black people down south. Someone who was gay back in the 1960's could get a high level job with a Fortune 500 company, as long as they hid their sexuality of course. A black person going for the same job did not have that luxury.

 

[Garfield1966]

Hardly. While there might be the occasional hate crime you do not see the kind violence leveled against gay people today as there was leveled against black people down south. Someone who was gay back in the 1960's could get a high level job with a Fortune 500 company, as long as they hid their sexuality of course. A black person going for the same job did not have that luxury.

I was not referring to the level of violence but rather the arguments being used to justify restrictions. They will cause problems in the military, they will hurt the idea of marriage..... blah blah blah.

 

[Garfield1966]

Let me know when you sign it.

CA proposal to strike marriage from CA law.

SACRAMENTO--

California's top election official says supporters can start collecting signatures for a proposed ballot measure to strike the word "marriage" from all state laws.

Supporters of this ballot measure want to replace it with the term "domestic partnership," while keeping all the rights of marriage in place.

The proposal is in response to a voter-approved gay marriage ban that passed in November. The new measure would repeal the ban, and define domestic partnerships as unions between all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen said Tuesday that supporters must gather nearly 700,000 signatures by early August to get the initiative on the ballot.

The measure is the grassroots effort of two heterosexual college students.

I bet religion will not support it.

 

[Garfield1966]

I would rather simply dump the whole idea of marriage all together than to leave it open for further degradation.

Well, here is your chance. Not going to do it huh? lol