TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Major Victory for Gay Rights
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Major Victory for Gay Rights

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/s...ling/index.html

I wonder how this is going to affect DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and whether people are going to go to Massachussets, get married, then move back home and sue the home state to recognize the marriage.

Re: Major Victory for Gay Rights

quote:

Originally posted by occrider http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/s...ling/index.html I wonder how this is going to affect DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and whether people are going to go to Massachussets, get married, then move back home and sue the home state to recognize the marriage.

ya i read about that, though they said the courts fell short of allowing marriage liscences to gay couples, the court sent their desicion to the Mass. legislature to hammer out the implications and technicalities of it.

Without even reading it, I know Barney Frank had a hand in it. Not that Massachussetts isn't already liberal enough!

Re: Major Victory for Gay Rights

quote:

Originally posted by occrider http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/s...ling/index.html I wonder how this is going to affect DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and whether people are going to go to Massachussets, get married, then move back home and sue the home state to recognize the marriage.

Is there really a DOMA? Thats just fucking pathetic. Oh yea and I love hearing all the conservative talking heads(Orielly etc.) blab about how legalizing gay marriage threatens the instutition of marriage in america. With arguments about there going to have to also allow people to have multiple marriages and stuff.

Personally I don't think marriage should be state sponsered. You can be married in your church/temple/place of worship/Mcdonals/wherever else you want in my opinion. Doesnt seem to serve any real purpose.

Re: Re: Major Victory for Gay Rights

quote:

Originally posted by Nadi Is there really a DOMA? Thats just fucking pathetic. Oh yea and I love hearing all the conservative talking heads(Orielly etc.) blab about how legalizing gay marriage threatens the instutition of marriage in america. With arguments about there going to have to also allow people to have multiple marriages and stuff. Personally I don't think marriage should be state sponsered. You can be married in your church/temple/place of worship/Mcdonals/wherever else you want in my opinion. Doesnt seem to serve any real purpose.

Yes there really is a DOMA. And unfortunetly the complication of marriage rights extends beyond mere "recognition" alone. If you've ever filed a tax return, you would realize the importance of increasing the number of "dependants" in your household. Simply put, the larger your household/spouses, the bigger the tax break you get. These acts were of course taken under the premise of promoting family values of a stabilized hosehold where children could be raised. Many rights are taken for granted in assuming that the "female" would be the designated individual to take care of the children/husband, forgo careers, and essentially sacrifice their livlihood for the sake of the children/husband. However, once gay marriages become legal, one must ask whether gay couples should be afforded the same rights and privelidges that hetersexual couples are afforded ... given that the end result of the program is rendered invalid.

^^^ I havnt filled tax returns because I havnt really worked(im 17 blah blah blah), But it seems to me that you should still be able to determine dependents without marriage. And there should be no tax breaks just to promote marriage.

quote:

Originally posted by Nadi ^^^ I havnt filled tax returns because I havnt really worked(im 17 blah blah blah), But it seems to me that you should still be able to determine dependents without marriage. And there should be no tax breaks just to promote marriage.

Ouch ... that would not sit well with the majority of americans

I'm just saying that if the entire issue were about 'recognizing' marriages than the whole debate would not be nearly half as complex.

I don't think the government has any business recognizing marriages at all. It's a rather overt attempt to coerce individuals into choosing a specific lifestyle which has been arbitrarily denoted as desirable by the state.

Besides, my nostrils still detect that peculiar stink of theology wherever the issue of marriage is raised.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I don't think the government has any business recognizing marriages at all. It's a rather overt attempt to coerce individuals into choosing a specific lifestyle which has been arbitrarily denoted as desirable by the state. Besides, my nostrils still detect that peculiar stink of theology wherever the issue of marriage is raised.

I agree 100% ... although that should not be surprising since we are both antagonists to affirmative action measures.

I'm sure the two gay "heros" of flight 93 that may have saved the whitehouse, would be happy.

quote:

Originally posted by rizen I'm sure the two gay "heros" of flight 93 that may have saved the whitehouse, would be happy.

Were they really gay? I hadn't heard that. I thought that one of them was talking to his wife on his cell phone or something and that's where the whole "Let's Roll" catch phrase came from.

I went to a gay/lesbian rights meeting here at my school, and found out some interesting facts about why they want the right for marraige so bad. In becoming married, 1,500 rights become opened to a person, the option that are for gays/lesbians, warrant 10-15 rights. ffs! That's a rip off.

Was a good meeting though. I was impressed.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Were they really gay? I hadn't heard that. I thought that one of them was talking to his wife on his cell phone or something and that's where the whole "Let's Roll" catch phrase came from.

Yes, the plane was heading towards SF, so it shouldnt be a surprise

I dont like to discriminate, but I find it rather unconftable to start seen gays all over the place kissing and stuff...

President Bush waded into the debate with a statement criticizing the ruling.

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said. "Today's decision ... violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

^^^^
what a twat.

since i've lived in boston for a long time, i have to say: good job Massachusetts! Anti-gay stuff is such a stupid thing anyway, I can't believe responsible people would be given a hard time just because of who they like to have sex with (unless it's with kids, that's just wrong)

LiquidX: gay people have as much right to be kissing each other in public as you have to be kissing your gf in public...

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX I dont like to discriminate, but I find it rather unconftable to start seen gays all over the place kissing and stuff...

I don't like to discriminate, but I find it rather uncomfortable to start seeing Chileans all over the place kissing and stuff... That's why we need to pass a constitutional amendment barring Chileans from obtaining equal protection under the law to carry out their obscene acts.

Yes. The Chilean kissing problem is starting to get waaaaayyyy out of hand.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Yes. The Chilean kissing problem is starting to get waaaaayyyy out of hand.

for real! just the other day i saw a couple of chileans kissing each other, and get this, they were doing in public!

LoL you people funny.. I guess that shows my conservative side, and I can see the liberal side in Izzy .. w/e. Its my opinion. I wont go and knock off a GAY couple for kissing, nor would discriminate them.. its just not pleasent for me to see them acting out their things.. not my thing.. but w/e... thats society now, and one has to get used to watching that.. and jeez.. you guys went out to extremes with it.. as If you guys were gay and were offended by it. Im in no means trying to offend people, just speaking out of my "unconftable" conditions hehehehe..but its not like Im going to the senate and try to pass out laws..

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX LoL you people funny.. I guess that shows my conservative side, and I can see the liberal side in Izzy .. w/e. Its my opinion. I wont go and knock off a GAY couple for kissing, nor would discriminate them.. its just not pleasent for me to see them acting out their things.. not my thing.. but w/e... thats society now, and one has to get used to watching that.. and jeez.. you guys went out to extremes with it.. as If you guys were gay and were offended by it. Im in no means trying to offend people, just speaking out of my "unconftable" conditions hehehehe..but its not like Im going to the senate and try to pass out laws..

i understand you liquidx, we're just goofing around...
it's analogous to seeing a overly obese woman in a bikini, she has all right, liberty and freedom to do it, but that doesnt mean that for me it is an unpleasant sight and that i am disgusted by it.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy i understand you liquidx, we're just goofing around... it's analogous to seeing a overly obese woman in a bikini, she has all right, liberty and freedom to do it, but that doesnt mean that for me it is an unpleasant sight and that i am disgusted by it.

LoL true! .. well, you see, I come from a place where gays didnt exist.. literally, and it just contasts to see all off the sudden this couples everywhere.. been leaving here for some years, and still not used to like everyone else in here to watch that and still feel conftable.- In my school, there was this trasvesty.. he used to go inside the bathrooms and try on watching guys all the time.. then he just started going inside the girls bathroom.. hehe the principal got mad at him, and told him or her to decide and just be able to go to either man or ladies bathroom..

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX LoL true! .. well, you see, I come from a place where gays didnt exist.. literally, and it just contasts to see all off the sudden this couples everywhere.. been leaving here for some years, and still not used to like everyone else in here to watch that and still feel conftable.- In my school, there was this trasvesty.. he used to go inside the bathrooms and try on watching guys all the time.. then he just started going inside the girls bathroom.. hehe the principal got mad at him, and told him or her to decide and just be able to go to either man or ladies bathroom..

There are gays in the country you come from, but they are too afraid to admit it out of fear and shame. At least there are some places in the USA (mostly in the cities) where they can be open and honest with themselves without fear. Yeah I was just fucking with you earlier hehe.

So we're not going to round up all the Chileans and put them in camps where they can be concentrated together under a watchful eye but where they can be free to gett hos and kiss in public???

I think they already do put them in hot sweaty camps Occ...they are secretly disguised as restaurant kitchens stratigically placed all across the country.

I don't mind gay rights nor the rights they receive with "marriage"...I just don't think it's right for a child to be raised by 2 people of the same sex. (Nor do I think it's much better for a child to be raised by a single parent either). It's just the way I was raised, and I'm sticking to it.

I just thought of this one;

Marriage is supposed to be a sacred bond between a man and a women.
If we now allow this bond to be between a man and a man, or women and women, then how come we can not allow this bond to be made between say two men and one women, or perhaps one man and three women?

Won't this be the same logic, we are discriminating against polygomous people? After all they are consenting adults as well?

I'm curious what logic one could use to agree with the first instance but not the latter. I guess you would have to give up to both.


----------------

Now for the real rant:

Now, I hate to bring the conservative angle in, but I will, and first let me state that I am perfectly cool with gays. I have no problems with their lifestyle, and don't mind if they have lifepartners or what not. My boss is gay, and one of the coolest bosses I know.

Marriage is the historical fundamental building block of society. I do believe in a strong family is essential to create well minded educated and proper individuals and citizens. Marriage creates the strength of the family, this strength was historically explained by religious or cultural authority.

Marriage's purpose is to provide a strong stable structure for the production ()and raising of children. Without marriage, I believe the environment a child grows in is detremental. This strong stable structure is also provided by the monogomous relationship between man and women.

When you look at it from this perspective - that marriage is the institution of family it brings context into who should have a "right" to marriage.

The government interest should be to create well educated proper citizens, this is best done by re-enforcing the strength and institution of marriage. As such, as Occrider noted many benifits are given to married couples as to support this instiution.

Now if the government were to bestow the "right" (is it really a right?) to marry between man and man, and women and women, it would weaken any significane of the insitution. No longer will it stand for what it has historically, if it simply a symbol of "love" and not the institution of family. From here you are on a dangerous path to a cultural forgetfulness of the value and utility of this institution of marriage; I will believe marriage will continue in its high divorce rates and pathetic understanding of its vows if such a hypocratic allowance as to allows gay marriage is added to it.

The only exception to this rule I can forsee is of a gay couple who intends to adopt or has adopted, in this regard I believe it as vital for that couple to marry as any other to reinforce their strength and provide a stable environment for the child. Still one can either make an exception in allowing gays with children to be allowed to marry (I wouldn't do this as it would introduce some great legal loopholes I am sure), or simply ignore this problem hoping a personal ceremony of lifelong commitment between the two individuals will suffice.

To recap, marriage is a vital instution for a society - without it the value of family degrades and in such the value of the well educated, stable, and proper indivdual, in turn the degredation of the society itself. To avoid degradation to marriage and hence society, don't degrade it.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.