lol
I can see you dont even pay attention to your own statements, their wording or content.

isadore;424784 wrote:
“Friends, homosexuals have every right any other American has. I don't have the right to live anywhere I want. I don't have the right to be employed by anyone I want. I don't have the right to marry anyone I want. There are laws and rules and moral restrictions that govern all of those things. “
The problem is when a person is denied those rights because of the sexual orientation.

Denied what rights?

isadore;424888 wrote:lol
I can see you dont even pay attention to your own statements, their wording or content.

It's not a matter of paying attention, there's alot of words in that article. I should have, on my behalf, read your statement closer which is my mistake.

The quote feature, like I said, would have eliminated any confusion.

isadore;424740 wrote:^^^^^
thank you for your informed opinion, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
Loving v Virginia 1967

Thank you. I was not aware of that. It seems an odd "basic right" to me though.

WebFire;425029 wrote:Thank you. I was not aware of that. It seems an odd "basic right" to me though.

I am sure many people would agree with you. The above statement though will in all probability have an effect on the court deliberation on the issue of gay marriage.

isadore wrote:

“Friends, homosexuals have every right any other American has. I don't have the right to live anywhere I want. I don't have the right to be employed by anyone I want. I don't have the right to marry anyone I want. There are laws and rules and moral restrictions that govern all of those things. “
The problem is when a person is denied those rights because of the sexual orientation.

ralphus33;424934 wrote:Denied what rights?

1. The statement makes a little more sense in the context of the earlier discussion.
2. Examples today would be the right to employment in the military without hiding your sexual identity and the right to marry the consenting adult of your choice. One of the those limits is about to be done away with and hopefully the other by legislation or court decision.

isadore;425061 wrote:1. The statement makes a little more sense in the context of the earlier discussion.
2. Examples today would be the right to employment in the military without hiding your sexual identity and the right to marry the consenting adult of your choice. One of the those limits is about to be done away with and hopefully the other by legislation or court decision.

1. I'm with you on the military thing.
2. Even though I'm "for" civil unions/gay marriage, homosexuals have the exact same rights as any heterosexual when it comes to marriage. They can marry the exact same "lot" of the population.

jmog;425992 wrote:1. I'm with you on the military thing.
2. Even though I'm "for" civil unions/gay marriage, homosexuals have the exact same rights as any heterosexual when it comes to marriage. They can marry the exact same "lot" of the population.

Jmog, you have very enlightened opinions on gays in the military and gay union, But consider this, what if had a law that said that you could marry only redhead. . Everybody would have the same right to marry a redhead. But it is oppressive, especially to those not attracted to redhead.

isadore;426258 wrote:Jmog, you have very enlightened opinions on gays in the military and gay union, But consider this, what if had a law that said that you could marry only redhead. . Everybody would have the same right to marry a redhead. But it is oppressive, especially to those not attracted to redhead.

However, such a law does not exist so your hypothetical makes zero sense.

Especially since in your situation it means that all blondes and brunettes can never get married. Your hypothetical law would be oppressive to the blondes and brunettes, not to the men who can only marry redheads.

So, your analogy to homosexuals doesn't fit. Homosexuals are allowed to marry the exact same people that I am, and there is no part of the population that would be left out of marriage all together as it would in your hypothetical "law".

jmog;426389 wrote:However, such a law does not exist so your hypothetical makes zero sense.

That's what hypotheticals are...descriptions of situations that could "hypothetically" exist. You imagine a world wherein the only women whom males can marry are red heads...it's a hypothetical world. Because no such world doesn't exist in no way means that the hypothetical "makes zero sense"

jmog;426389 wrote:However, such a law does not exist so your hypothetical makes zero sense.

Especially since in your situation it means that all blondes and brunettes can never get married. Your hypothetical law would be oppressive to the blondes and brunettes, not to the men who can only marry redheads.

So, your analogy to homosexuals doesn't fit. Homosexuals are allowed to marry the exact same people that I am, and there is no part of the population that would be left out of marriage all together as it would in your hypothetical "law".

To me it seems like you think the trump is that not allowing a man to marry a man is not in fact discrimination because man X, even though he feels attracted to other men can still marry women just as Man Y who is indeed attracted women. All it means to "discriminate" is to favor or disfavor or allow or disallow someone to do X based upon their belonging to some particular group or class and not based upon merit. We discriminate all the time and rightfully so. Although Dale Earnhardt might have been perfectly capable of driving at 12 years old, society still discriminated against him based on his age.

It is undoubtedly discrimination. Two men are disallowed engaging in a particular type of contract based upon their belonging to certain classes, and not on their merit. The more important question, is whether or not this discrimination is justified as many types of discrimination seem to be.

The true "crime" is not that we disallow anyone from being married but rather the we force anyone to gain governmental approval to become married.

The above defined discrimination would not exist if we did not force State sanction marriages to exist. There is no reason for the State to require a license for a marriage to occur. End that and said discrimination ends with it.

The state should not be involved in the institution of marriage -- via granting "rights" or otherwise.

But it is.

That said, TECHNICALLY, gays are not being denied the right of marriage because they have the same opportunity as everyone else.

That's my legal interpretation.

Now, does that mean the law is fair given how society has changed, especially in the last 40 years or so?

Nope.

I say all this as someone who think gays should be allowed to marry via state sanction the same way straight folks do. If there's going to BE a state sanction, then let's have it be equitable.

BoatShoes;427341 wrote:To me it seems like you think the trump is that not allowing a man to marry a man is not in fact discrimination because man X, even though he feels attracted to other men can still marry women just as Man Y who is indeed attracted women. All it means to "discriminate" is to favor or disfavor or allow or disallow someone to do X based upon their belonging to some particular group or class and not based upon merit. We discriminate all the time and rightfully so. Although Dale Earnhardt might have been perfectly capable of driving at 12 years old, society still discriminated against him based on his age.

It is undoubtedly discrimination. Two men are disallowed engaging in a particular type of contract based upon their belonging to certain classes, and not on their merit. The more important question, is whether or not this discrimination is justified as many types of discrimination seem to be.

See, you are wrong. They are not disallowed to engage in the contract based upon them belong to a certain "class". A heterosexual is not in said "class" and they are not allowed to engage in the exact same type of contract. A heterosexual can not marry the same sex either.

BoatShoes;427341 wrote:To me it seems like you think the trump is that not allowing a man to marry a man is not in fact discrimination because man X, even though he feels attracted to other men can still marry women just as Man Y who is indeed attracted women. All it means to "discriminate" is to favor or disfavor or allow or disallow someone to do X based upon their belonging to some particular group or class and not based upon merit. We discriminate all the time and rightfully so. Although Dale Earnhardt might have been perfectly capable of driving at 12 years old, society still discriminated against him based on his age.

It is undoubtedly discrimination. Two men are disallowed engaging in a particular type of contract based upon their belonging to certain classes, and not on their merit. The more important question, is whether or not this discrimination is justified as many types of discrimination seem to be.

I could not agree more. I brought up this same point awhile back in this thread. Governments discriminate for all sorts of reasons. Age, sex, marital status, whether or not one has children, income level, physical ability, and yes race, to name just a few.

As Boat dually noted the question is not one of discrimination, but which types of discrimination are justified and which ones are not. In a free society we elect officials at various levels of government to decide which types of discrimination are just and which are not. It is my opinion that most of these decisions are best made at the state an local level.

Con_Alma;427351 wrote:The true "crime" is not that we disallow anyone from being married but rather the we force anyone to gain governmental approval to become married.

The above defined discrimination would not exist if we did not force State sanction marriages to exist. There is no reason for the State to require a license for a marriage to occur. End that and said discrimination ends with it.

You are correct if we take state laws governing marriage out of the equation we would remove all government sanctioned discrimination. As one who espouses limited government the idea would be nice. But in reality it is impossible. The depravity of man would not permit it.

You yourself would at some point draw a line and demand some level of government intervention. Lets say we limited government to defining the rules governing civil contracts and left religious institutions with the freedom to define and conduct marriage as they see fit. Will we as a society except plural marriages? What about the marrying of underage teenage girls? Or marrying 1st or 2nd cousins? And yes there are some people that would go even farther than these examples.

As I have stated before, we all know too well there are religious institutions as well as secular groups in this country that would engage in these types of immoral practices of marriage. They are doing so today outside of existing laws. How much more so these types of marriages flourish absent of involvement of some level of government? Unless we as a society are to accept these types of marriages some form of governance has to step in and by force of law define what a legal moral marriage is.

majorspark;427682 wrote: You yourself would at some point draw a line and demand some level of government intervention. Lets say we limited government to defining the rules governing civil contracts and left religious institutions with the freedom to define and conduct marriage as they see fit. Will we as a society except plural marriages? What about the marrying of underage teenage girls? Or marrying 1st or 2nd cousins? And yes there are some people that would go even farther than these examples.

Exactly the point I was trying to make early on in this thread by asking if I should be able to marry my sister. Of course, I conveniently never got an answer.

Majorspark...It is not impossible. You can't really mean that.

The protection of actions from a legal perspective has nothing to do with requiring an individual to obtain permission from the State in order to be married. Marriage is what we define it as. The State can still have protective measures in place.

It is illegal for a minor to purchase alcohol yet a 21 year old doesn't need to seek out a license to do so.

WebFire;427751 wrote:Exactly the point I was trying to make early on in this thread by asking if I should be able to marry my sister. Of course, I conveniently never got an answer.

You will only get a "well incest can cause deformities" is the reason. To which I reply this...

It is a proven fact that the chances of contracting HIV goes WAY up in unprotect male homosexual sex, than it does in heterosexual sex. Why yes, one could say "well we can be tested/use protection".

Same could be said for marrying your sister. You could be genetically tested to see if any predisposed conditions are possible and just use contraceptives of some sort to never get pregnant (even sterilized if you are that serious).

Just being devils advocate for what your first response will be Webfire.

jmog;427788 wrote:You will only get a "well incest can cause deformities" is the reason. To which I reply this...

It is a proven fact that the chances of contracting HIV goes WAY up in unprotect male homosexual sex, than it does in heterosexual sex. Why yes, one could say "well we can be tested/use protection".

Same could be said for marrying your sister. You could be genetically tested to see if any predisposed conditions are possible and just use contraceptives of some sort to never get pregnant (even sterilized if you are that serious).

Just being devils advocate for what your first response will be Webfire.

As far as incest goes the risk for birth defects comes not from predisposed to birth defects but from the offspring necessarily having more congenital birth defects because of an increase in the frequency of homozygotes. 1/4 a brother/sister's offspring's alleles will be identical. Any number of these allele pairs will be recessive. If you could find two brother's and sisters who were both homozygous dominant for all of their genes then you might have something but those people don't exist.

FWIW, I think a incestuous marriage should be allowed so long as they agree not to have children and get their tubes tied and/or nuts cut.

Con_Alma;427758 wrote:Majorspark...It is not impossible. You can't really mean that.

Yes I do. And so do you. Your requirement of the state governance of marriage is based solely on age. And how will the state regulate no one underage (as defined by the state) is married? Those wanting to marry will have to provide any institution that would marry them proof that they meet state age requirements. This proof would be with state sanctioned documents. Likely a state photo ID. Or local government certified birth certificate. Whatever it takes to protect them from the force of law that the state will bring if they violate state age laws.

Also have you ever taken a look at all the varying age laws that exist from state to state. All states require parental permission for underage marriages. But many states allow them. Some have age limits and some do not.

http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm

Con_Alma;427758 wrote:The protection of actions from a legal perspective has nothing to do with requiring an individual to obtain permission from the State in order to be married. Marriage is what we define it as. The State can still have protective measures in place.

Like I said above. Those "protective" measures will be defined by the state. It is by default a state definition of legal marriage. You just want it liberally defined to just age. And those non state institutions will be required by the state by nature of state law to prove to the state that everyone they marry meets the state definition of legal.

Con_Alma;427758 wrote:It is illegal for a minor to purchase alcohol yet a 21 year old doesn't need to seek out a license to do so.

Its funny you mention alcohol. I would not use it as an example of freedom from state authority. It is highly controlled by all levels of governance. Who can sell it and when (state liquor license), how much and what kind (state license), who it can be sold to (age), and how much one pays to consume it (high taxes). In my local community it is not permitted to be bought or sold within its jurisdiction. It can however be brought in and consumed on privately owned property.

And yes many of those purchasing alcohol have to provide state sanctioned ID. Yes that would be a license provided by the state. The government has so much control over alcohol that it can tell young people between the ages of 18-20 that they have not reached a level of maturity to consume it. But yet on the other hand government can trust young people in the said age group with determining who lives and who dies on the field of battle.

Writerbuckeye;427364 wrote:The state should not be involved in the institution of marriage -- via granting "rights" or otherwise.

But it is.

That said, TECHNICALLY, gays are not being denied the right of marriage because they have the same opportunity as everyone else.

That's my legal interpretation.

Now, does that mean the law is fair given how society has changed, especially in the last 40 years or so?

Nope.

I say all this as someone who think gays should be allowed to marry via state sanction the same way straight folks do. If there's going to BE a state sanction, then let's have it be equitable.

So according to you people in wheelchairs TECHNICALLY aren't discriminated against if we build buildings with only steps because they have the same opportunity as everyone else?

To me, it seems the only real reason people have as far as saying gays shouldn't be allowed to have legit marriages is that "I'm straight, I don't like it and by gosh, it should be kept to men vs. women! What's next? Man and dog?!?!?"

I mean, let's be real. Marriage ain't shit in the grand scheme of things. Who SHOULD give a damn about the "sanctity" of it? Let's see...I remember saying the "Till Death Do We Part" line and like what...50+ percent, that ended in divorce. So, where's the same energy in trying to force people to NEVER end a marriage?

Or...go to the Pro Sports forum. There's a thread saying that the two most popular athletes in America are Kobe and Tiger. Let's see...one committed adultery and was accused of rape in the process. The other wound up with nearly a mistress for every day of the month before allegations stopped coming. And the former holder of the "GOAT of Ohio" title (now holding the "most hated title")...doesn't he have a couple of out-of-marriage kids with his live-in girlfriend? Yeah...letting two same-sex people legally get married really's going to besmirch this joke of an institution.

Majorspark....it is my opinion that's it not impossible.

The State can regulate many things that may relate to marriage but has no business in regulating marriage itself and certainly no business in sanctioning it.

The State can restrict minors from living independently or engaging in sexual relations if you will but there is absolutely no reason for them the oversee or be involved in who can or who cannot marry at all...even at what age it may occur. Those actions are not marriage itself and that's the difference. There's nothing to protect someone from ...even a minor as it relates to marriage.

People should be able to be married on their owns terms and without the State. In addition, people can carry out many of the actions that married folks do yet not be married at all. There's a big difference and by addressing or overseeing the actions does not constitute regulations by default.

I can't think of one single reason we need the State involved.

I Wear Pants;428659 wrote:So according to you people in wheelchairs TECHNICALLY aren't discriminated against if we build buildings with only steps because they have the same opportunity as everyone else?

Physical disabilities and homosexuality are not even close to being in the same realm, unless you are suggesting that homosexuals are disabled? That's kind of discriminitory on your part is it not?

And no, to answer your retarded question, the person in the wheelchair does NOT have the same opportunity as everyone else, they physically can't get up out of the chair and walk up steps. So no, its not the same even in your twisted analogy.