Gay marriage: do you support more than gun rights?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Politically, I neither support nor am I against gay marriage. Since I am not in the military, I defer to their judgment. I do think it is ridiculous to prohibit someone from serving because of sexual orientation. However these two issues are separate and distinct.
Click to expand...

Actually, with states starting to allow marriages/civil unions the issues are becoming less separate and distinct. At this point you have gay servicemembers (who are technically allowed to serve under DADT, provided they abstain from homosexual behavior) being prevented from taking advantage of a host of benefits and services that would otherwise be available if they could serve openly. Family medical coverage for spouses, BAH, separation pay, and surviver benefits to name a few.

For those who could otherwise marry their partners, you're looking at significant and very tangible (in dollars) losses.
 
As a legal question regarding same sex marriage, how do you define the protected class. If there is no protected class, state law is not subject to strict scrutiny from the court.

Personally, race is a subjective definition, but skin color is clearly objective. Since most people equate skin color with race, we have an objective standard. Religion can be objectively measured. Either you are a member of a particular religion or not. National origin is also objective. Trying to categorize people based on behavior opens the possibility of an endless number of protected classes.
Click to expand...
I think that stems from the idea that homosexuality is a choice. In most cases it's simply not. It can be argued that in come cases an individual's environment and upbringing influences that person's sexual orientation but the majority of gays will quickly point out that their feelings are natural and instinctual.

Unfortunately some would claim that it's a disease. :rolleyes: All the while ignoring the frequent occurance of homosexuality in virtually every other species. In addition most people tend to ignore the psychology behind gender identity and sexual orientation and still believe that the only classifications are "man/woman" and "gay/straight/bi". Simply not true.

I think my point is that it's not a protected class based on behaviour, it's a protected class based on biology as much as race is. Even those who choose to be gay are no different than those who choose to belong to a certain religion. If religion - which is basically behavious - is a protected class then there's no reason gays that "chose" to be gay should not be given the same consideration.
 
The problem is the assumption of "normal" for homosexual acts, which result in "gay bowel syndrome" AIDS and other diseases.

There is also the problem of Homosexual married couples adopting children. The fear of child rape which is usually homosexual in nature. Cross reference support of the North American Man Boy Love Association, by the homosexual community.

In any case marriage is not something the Federal Government should deal with. This should be strictly a State matter, preferably decided by a vote of the people.

There should be differences between the States and moving to a place of your choosing is a freedom.

Geoff
Who notes so many people are engaged in discovering new "RIGHTS" in the constitution. :barf:
 
As applied to servicemembers of course the issue is intertwined. That is simply being obtuse. My point is the legal analysis is different.

Regardless of the origen, all sexual activity is a behavior.
 
There are certain scenarios that come up that hit to the marrow of the matter..

One is the deathbed. While a living will and normal can put some power into a same sex partner, there is still certain powers that marriage recognizes that can't fixed any other way: while living, the ability to have access to a patient and make medical decisions resides in "direct family members", and while dead, things not covered by a will or trust also fall to family.

These are legal matters that are at best difficult to handle without marriage or civil union.


The dismissal of translators pissed me off. They are critical in a time of war and ESPECIALLY in the role they were in, gender and sexuality didn't mean a thing.. they weren't showering in the front lines making bunkmates uncomfortable or anything.
 
The problem is the assumption of "normal" for homosexual acts, which result in "gay bowel syndrome" AIDS and other diseases.
Click to expand...
Gay bowel syndrome? o_O Two gay men that don't have AIDS cannot magically create it just by saving sex. Same goes for two gay women (I notice how when the issue of gay rights comes up everyone professes disgust at two men...but those same folks would cheer at seeing two pretty girls in bikinis jello'd up and making out :rolleyes: ) and gays are no less likely to have stable, commited, long lasting relationships than straights.

There is also the problem of Homosexual married couples adopting children. The fear of child rape which is usually homosexual in nature. Cross reference support of the North American Man Boy Love Association, by the homosexual community.
Click to expand...
The homosexual community does not openly support NAMBLA any more than firearms enthusaists support the Ku Klux Klan. :rolleyes: Child rape and homosexuality do not go hand in hand. I can raise a child with my partner just as well as any straight couple and that child would never be in danger.
 
Same goes for two gay women (I notice how when the issue of gay rights comes up everyone professes disgust at two men...but those same folks would cheer at seeing two pretty girls in bikinis jello'd up and making out )
Click to expand...

Two girls doing it isnt gay...its a show ;)

WildothehypocrisyAlaska
 
Since we've decided to get into it, I'll note that whether or not homosexuality is a choice isn't particularly relevant...considering that religion is definitely a choice and still protected.
 
Man you guys took the bait hook line and sinker,,,,

All of ya's trying to show how tolerant ya all are when after only reading parts here and there its is so obvious that nearly, if not all of you have a big time chip on your shoulder, and workin so hard to act like it ain't so.....

Gezzzzzz,,,,,,GET OVER IT
 
Man you guys took the bait hook line and sinker,,,,

All of ya's trying to show how tolerant ya all are when after only reading parts here and there its is so obvious that nearly all if not all of you have a big time chip on your shoulder.

Gezzzzzz,,,,,,GET OVER IT
Click to expand...

This thread's not mandatory. If you're not going to try to add anything constructive, you can stay out. If you have any rational or logical arguments they'd be appreciated. Any points in general, no matter how poorly thought out, are welcome. This crap contributes nothing.

EDIT: Also, unless you're gay and having to deal with this your whole "get over it attitude" rings hollow. Easy for you to say.

Next time ya'll are complaining about "assault weapons" bans, we'll see how you like it.
 
First off, i am gay.

I really couldnt care less about gay marriage one way or the other, i have been in a ltr for more than 3 years, if all of a sudden gay marriage was deemed ok, would i want to run out and get married? nope. I dont need a piece of paper to validate how i feel and care for another person, and over half of todays marriages arent worth the paper the license is printed on.

Now, having said all that, i just laugh when the people who are against it say "it will destroy the sanctity of marriage", well then if thats the case, then maybe we need to pass a law that says you get ONE crack at married life, if you cant keep it together then you broke the VOWS you took when you got married, and dont deserve another chance, because you broke the "sanctity" of marriage.

And as far as homosexuality being a choice/decision, i would say to all of the heteros who think it is, when exactly did you decide to be straight? you just woke up one day and decided it right? no, you didnt decide it, you just are. I sure as HELL didnt decide it, and its not about how your raised either, i never played with dolls,wasnt a mamas boy, or any other stereotypes you can think of. I was and still am big into sports, wasnt forced into it either, it was by choice. you simply are born one way or the other.

I dont agree with everything the gay community does for sure, i see no need for gay pride parades for instance, straights dont have a parade, being gay doesnt define who i am, why do i need to advertise?


People have always had thier prejudices and they always will, if someone doesnt like me because i am gay, well so what. I couldnt care less, everybody is so freaking p.c. these days its a joke. LULAC, the NAACP, and all other race/ethnic based groups get thier panties in a bunch at every little percieved slight, and yes, gay groups do it too, for instance the military guy giving his opinion on homosexuality. Thats his opinion, hes entitled to it, it doesnt bother me, i couldnt care less.

And Rosie O'donnell, just PLEASE shut the hell up already. You are an embarrasment! I know you think your some kind of spokesperson for gays everywhere, but you dont speak for me.

Anyone who cares to throw stones, P.M.'S are welcome
 
I have not read any other replies to this on purpose. Here's why. I am Canadian. We have had legalized gay marriage up here for a couple of years and guess what? The world has not yet ended. In fact it seems to be going along just like it did before. The gays I know are just like the straights I know. Some are asses, some run below the radar and some are good people. I have walked down the street and have been checked out by gay men. Did it bug me? Naw, not really. I check out chicks all the time. I figure as long as they don't try to infringe upon my personal space, no harm no foul! The only time I have ever disliked a gay person had NOTHING to do with his sexual orientation. It had to do with his poor attitude and (in my opinion) flawed character.

Do I feel they deserve the same rights I have? Damn skippy they do! They also deserve the same responsibilities too! I believe that we, as humans, have to treat our fellow humans the same way we want to be treated, regardless of ethnicity, sexual orientation or financial status. We should judge people by their character and their actions.
 
"Two girls doing it isnt gay...its a show"

I also subscribe to the Al Bundy theory

Whatever happens between two women is fine

As long as a man gets to watch
 
9mm: I agree with pretty much everything you said except for the bit about General Pace's comments. sure, he can hold whatever views he wishes but in that comment he was inferring that military policy should be dictated based on the perceived morality of homosexuality.

I do agree that the parades are just an excuse to party but then again so is the St Paddy's Day parade. :o And Rosie needs to go to a range with a Pink Pistols chapter or something, maybe then she'll realize.....oh wait, she's rich enough to afford 24 hour protection by fully armed guards. :rolleyes: Her life is important enough to defend with firearms but ours are not.
 
I really couldnt care less about gay marriage one way or the other, i have been in a ltr for more than 3 years, if all of a sudden gay marriage was deemed ok, would i want to run out and get married? nope. I dont need a piece of paper to validate how i feel and care for another person, and over half of todays marriages arent worth the paper the license is printed on.
Click to expand...

Well, a lot of times getting married isn't just about validating feelings, but also about the legal rights and privileges it provides. At which point I suppose civil unions would do just as well. I guess the first-amendment fan in me sees how hung up the conservative Christians get on legal recognition of "marriage," and doesn't want to let them define it. Again, if a church is willing to say two consenting adults are married, who is the state to say they aren't.

for instance the military guy giving his opinion on homosexuality. Thats his opinion, hes entitled to it, it doesnt bother me, i couldnt care less.
Click to expand...

Except he's not some military guy, he's the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His stance on DADT (and allowing gays to serve in general) can influence policy. And he made it obvious that his stance was based on his personal morals/"upbringing" rather than any rational argument based on benefits/drawbacks to the military.

Having seen a guy get the shaft from the DADT policy, I'm not a fan of it. He was a good soldier, and his sexual preferences didn't change that. Having the highest ranking officer in the entire US military basically confirm that the policy is based on bigotry...well, I can see how people might not be happy.

Also considering that some our allies over in Iraq and Afghanistan allow openly gay troops to serve there...well, calling our allied soldiers a bunch of immoral perverts in an interview given as the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff isn't making America look too great either.


I'm with you on everything else. And thanks for the post.
 
Redworm, while i am neutral on the marriage issue, i am very much in support of gays being allowed to serve in the military. Thank God that there are people, gay or straight who are willing to defend our country.

I just laugh at the excuses people will make as to why gays shouldnt be allowed to serve. I am quite sure that the gay men and women serving in Iraq right now are too busy worrying about doing thier jobs and surviving then they are about oggling over someone else in the shower or the person in the foxhole with them.
 
"when exactly did you decide to be straight"

I always love when someone asks that question;)

When did I decide to follow the basic premise of virtually all of nature and be attracted to the opposite sex??

I am gonna say around age 10...I am a little fuzzy on the exact date but it was around then I decided girls weren't completely "yucky"

Juan Carlos.....I support gun ownership for everyone...not just gun owners

I don't look down on gays but I certainly don't look up to them either

I support states rights on the subject of same sex unions, etc...but yes...I would not vote to call it marriage

Incidently...I love my wife but looking back (or forward) I do not see any reason for us to be married other than to procreate

We would still be together because we love each other but that piece of paper is just that except for some of the legal ramifications of sharing parental responsibilities

Mostly because I see it ( gay marriage)as a potential dodge to get benefits for your buddy without any real downside or responsibility.

It is a lot about sharing entitlements and a little about avoiding inconvenience

I had a real good buddy that was like a brother to me near death in the hospital and I had to pretend we really were brothers even to find out if he was alive

But I was not gonna marry his sister (or him) so I could get visitation rights

That is IMHO just another sob story trotted out by those with an agenda

Normalization of that which is not normal

Notice I didn;t say bad, perverted, etc....but it is not normal

We had a parade one year....the gay pride group sued to get in

NAMBLA was right behind them (no pun intended) when they won

Slippery slope...maybe so
 
Here's one I don't see too often:

Get the .gov out of the marriage business altogether. No special rights, priveleges or responsibilities for married vs not married.

That way the whole issue dries up and blows away. There's nothing to be gained so gays lose nothing by not having a marriage recognized.

Private institutions, insurance and the like, will bend to market forces as they always have. Most already recognize "cohabitation" without additional qualifiers.




disclaimer: I'm a poster child for the so-called "marriage penalty". If my wife and I divorced, our total tax liability would drop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top