(12-26-2008 11:26 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-26-2008 10:58 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Like between two consenting adults...and possibly more than two in the distant future, but that's it. Animals, children, and inanimate objects can't consent.

Why in the distant future? If it's a civil right and two men are entitled, why not six? How do you say everyone is entitled to the same protection under the law, and then exclude so many until a later date? Poligamy has, off and on, been recognized. It wouldn't be a stretch to legalize it again. How could you tell those people no on the day you said yes to gays?

The lawyers aren't ready yet, and America isn't. It'll get there probably once gay marriage rights are accepted, but it may not. Numerical limits on marriage might be held valid, there's a legitimate argument there. It will take a couple decades for the legal community to decide what to do about polygamy.

(12-26-2008 11:32 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  The lawyers aren't ready yet, and America isn't. It'll get there probably once gay marriage rights are accepted, but it may not. Numerical limits on marriage might be held valid, there's a legitimate argument there. It will take a couple decades for the legal community to decide what to do about polygamy.

Why? Why would they need to wait on the legal community? That community already is on board with marriage for gays. They can only represent one plaintiff at a time? Some reason they can't do class action? If it's a right for all, than it's a right for all. A legitimate argument to deny something to one group while granting the same to another? Why would it take them decades to decide what to do if they believe in their convictions that civil rights apply to all? If they believe, there's nothing to decide.

Some famous quotes

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Unknown

The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill

A democracy is nothing more than an angry mob, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Thomas Jefferson

Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

Democracy has turned out to be not majority rule but rule by well-organized and well-connected minority groups who steal from the majority.
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
John Adams

(12-26-2008 11:06 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  As I stated some place else, is marriage a right? When applying for a license a couple can be turned down for various reasons. Gays can have their civil unions that give them all the benefits of marriage but without the name. So where is the discrimination and what right is being violated?

I'd even go as far as saying there's reverse discrimination in action across this country and here's why:

Before I got married I was unable to put my bride-to-be on my insurance even though she lived with me. However, anyone claiming to have a domestic partner got coverage - no questions asked. Oddly enough, even though I'm not gay I got it right up the pooper on that one and I didn't like it one bit.

So are you going to take up the fight to have heterosexual couples be able to insure each other or are you going to stand by while this horrible discriminating injustice and violation of my civil rights take place? Please don't tell me that just because I'm straight it means I have to sit at the back of the insurance bus.... I am not a lesser person just because I'm straight, so why can't you love me for who I am and not what I am?

What's next, two straight parents procreating in wedlock will be considered discriminatory because another group can't do it?

The reason why someone could put a domestic partner on their insurance and you couldn't put your fiancee is because they couldn't marry. If both homosexual and heterosexual couples could marry I would completely agree with you, but you keep fighting against it for any of numerous reasons. You can't have it both ways. If you don't want them to be married, then some groups are going to grant them marriage-like privileges, but those same privileges won't be available to heterosexual couples until they are married because they can get married.

(12-26-2008 10:31 PM)perunapower Wrote:  

(12-26-2008 09:33 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I find it ironic that you would use a legal opinion for promoting gay marriage but when it's mentioned that 40-something states ban or don't recognize gay marriages as legal and that during the last election 3 states voted for constitutional amendments banning them you then say it's not a legal issue but a moral one.

No, I find it moronic that states can place a minority's civil right on the ballot and let the people vote on whether they can have it. It's not a moral issue, I never said it was one. I don't want a majority to be able to strip a minority's rights away just because they disagree with them. That sets a very dangerous precedent.

Who determines what a minority group is? Why does the CHOSEN lifestyle of homosexuality merit a protected minority status? Once again IF states want to give gays legal standing they can establish laws for Civil Unions that give the same status. Marriage was first and foremost a religious institution the US government chose to use it has a legal one. Why should religious minorities be forced to change the definition of something that existed thousands of years before the US government? Where is their legal protection?

(12-26-2008 11:48 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-26-2008 11:32 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  The lawyers aren't ready yet, and America isn't. It'll get there probably once gay marriage rights are accepted, but it may not. Numerical limits on marriage might be held valid, there's a legitimate argument there. It will take a couple decades for the legal community to decide what to do about polygamy.

Why? Why would they need to wait on the legal community? That community already is on board with marriage for gays. They can only represent one plaintiff at a time? Some reason they can't do class action? If it's a right for all, than it's a right for all. A legitimate argument to deny something to one group while granting the same to another? Why would it take them decades to decide what to do if they believe in their convictions that civil rights apply to all? If they believe, there's nothing to decide.

It's important because lawyers and judges will be the ones deciding their cases. While most of the legal community is on board for gay rights, they don't know what to think about polygamy. It will take time for judges to accept their position too. Basically you can't win if the judges aren't on your side. Civil Rights questions will be decided by judges as juries aren't used when the case is a question of law.

I think the government should stay out of people's lives. As long as the 2 people concerned consent, hurt nobody, and break no laws (except laws targeting gays), why should anyone care? When we start targeting people's behavior with law, it's just a matter of time before the target moves its focus - and you could be next. And one at a time, our freedoms will be whittled away. The process has already begun...

The order of the day should be, don't rock my boat and I won't rock yours...

(12-27-2008 11:31 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I think the government should stay out of people's lives. As long as the 2 people concerned consent, hurt nobody, and break no laws (except laws targeting gays), why should anyone care? When we start targeting people's behavior with law, it's just a matter of time before the target moves its focus - and you could be next. And one at a time, our freedoms will be whittled away. The process has already begun...

The order of the day should be, don't rock my boat and I won't rock yours...

If I am not totally mistaken, just within the last couple of Decades, 'All 50 States' have "Modified or Removed Sodomy and Such Laws" from their Books to abdicate to Gay's.

So in essence, we have either Moved Forward regarding the Silent Acceptance of Gay's or have Moved Backward by taking away Legal Statutes that Protect Us from marauders that Use Sodomy as a Torture Weapon.

So that is one of the Great Contributions to Society that the Gay Parade has given us .... Less Laws to be able to put away Bad Folk.

But then to some, there "Are No Bad People, Just Bad Prisons" ...

.