Constitutional ban on same sex marriages?

[sam h]

Well, the cost is something to think about but I'm not sure we want to put a price on equality in this respect. To say X shouldn't get equal treatment under the law because its too costly to make the system fair seems like fundamentally a dubious rationale. Plus, we've both looked at the SS and deficit numbers enough to know that the "hundreds of millions" she refers to is basically chump change in the larger fiscal scheme of things.

I don't understand why she thinks gay childless couples will receive benefits straight childless couples will not. That's completely unclear. Nor do I understand this retroactive survivor thing. Nobody is going to be getting retroactively married to their dead gay lover. At least I assume not.

"In marriage-preparation and sex-education classes, children will have to be taught about homosexual sex."

Oh no! It's ok that kids are smoking weed and sleeping with each other at 14, but exposing them to the existence of gay sex is way too much. That might corrupt them. Or - cue especially scary music - maybe even turn them gay...

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
How is the US Gov't (and society in general) discriminating against gays? I am neither arguing that we do or do not, but you have stated that we do, so I would like to know the basis for your belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

unfortunately i'm a tall white anglo saxon male living in a wealthy western country working in a professional occupation - spotting discrimination doesnt come so easy

as it happens i have had some small understanding/involvement in changing laws in my state (i cant comment in any detail about the US) to abolish all discrimination against same sex couples - our legislature changed 52 acts

how about superannuation rules - retirement funds are usually heavily regulated animals - if you have been in a same sex relationship for say 25 years and your partner who is still working suddenly dies thier retirement fund doesnt go to you - it goes to thier next of kin - it may be that your partner should of specified you as the beneficiary although in some jurisdictions i'm told that is not possible - in any event the default position should not discriminate against same sex couples

how about organising changes to your phone account - the main carrier here is primarily government owned - to have a joint account you have to be in a married or in a "marriage type" relationship - too bad the latter is not possible if you are the same sex

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't throw that word around lightly, but I do throw it around often. This is because, like racism, homophobia is something that most people - including myself - are somewhat susceptible to because of the culture that we live in. If we want to make more progress in stamping out these types of discrimination and prejudice, then we have to be honest about these things. I really feel that one of the impediments to this type of progress is that so many people will say "No way. I'm no racist. I'm no homophobe" when that is basically just not true on a subconscious level

[/ QUOTE ]

so right - there is a big flashing neon sign above my bottom that says NO ENTRY - i'm definately a homophobe - i have a gay freind at work who knows my sense of discomfort about the homosexual sex act - when i see him on a monday and ask how his weekend was he has often said "phil, it was so good i cant tell you"

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[KJS]

TSC

I don't know what color eyes you have, but for the sake of argument, let's assume green.

If I (a blue eyed person) started a movement whereby everyone without green eyes could be married, and everyone with green eyes could only have a civil union, how would you feel? Would you be content with this "separate but equal" (heard that before) arrangement? Or would you perhaps join together with other green eyed people to press for "marriage and marriage only", not an alternative decided upon by non-green eyed people.

If you chose the latter I would think you were acting on a very sound principal--that people of your eye color should not be denied marriage based on your eye color. Same goes for gays who eschew the separate but equal alternatives given them by straight people.

There is an agenda, and its the same agenda as every other civil rights movement in this country: be treated like everyone else.

KJS

[KJS]

"Indeed, the American people should have the opportunity to deliberate the economic and social costs of this radical social experiment."

Good thing Lincoln never had this thought.

KJS

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Do they want the legal rights that marriage allows? or do they simply want it to be called marriage?

[/ QUOTE ]

They want both.

Being able to marry their loved ones is more important to them than just the sum of the legal rights that marriage confers.

[HDPM]

Why ban polygamy? I don't see the problem. What if someone wants a gay marriage and a straight marriage? If all their spouses consent who cares? I just don't see why people get worked up. Of course, I don't want to pay for their kids through welfare if they have 10 wives and 80 kids. That's all I care about.


Banning bestiality is constitutional tho. That's where I draw the line (that and kids of course) The issue there is really a consent issue. Different rules for consenting adults. The only problem with bestiality being illegal is that I hear about some of the cases (the few that are caught) in court. Some nasty stuff goes on. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]


P.S. If some aliens come do you think there will be any bestiality issues for inter-species goings on? Perhaps humans would be the beasts. That one would get interesting, although all the hot alien chicks on Star Trek have changed the attitudes I think.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Gay Marriage
this is an article I just read from the San Francisco News paper, I'm not really trying to prove anything with it, however there is one thing I found interesting, and you guys may want to check it out.
It seems that the gay rights advocates are giving the Dem. candidates a pass for their views on the issue. I found that very odd.
thoughts?

[elwoodblues]

The difference is that DOMA was an act, and what Bush et. al. are proposing is an amendment to the constitution. I think politicians will be much less likely to make the Amendment to the Constitution than they were to vote for DOMA. Additionally, the amendment process is a slow one (which might be part of the reason the President supports it) so many of the passions on the issue will die down by the time it finally comes to a vote.