U.S. Issues SCOTUS to take on allowing Gays to marry. What say you? - Page 9

**BigRedChief** · 12-09-2012, 09:03 AM

There are two cases(DOMA and Proposition 8) to be heard by the SCOTUS this session.

At the base of the question is do gay Americans have the same rights as heterosexual Americans? And if so, do they need their constitutional rights protected at the federal level.

I've never had an openly gay friend, co-worker or family member. I did coach a little league baseball team. On that team I had a player with two Mom's. The players and the parents accepted the kid of the two Mom's as any other player. The other parents let their kids go over to the two Mom's house for sleepovers etc. It wasn't a factor to consider in the slightest.

I don't have any personal experience to know what rights is actually being denied. However, I believe that for whatever reason they were born that way. It's not a choice. You can't pray it out of them. You can't give them therapy and turn them into heterosexuals. They are what they are naturally and we should just accept them.

IMHO, the government/city/state/society have no right to tell it's citizens what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. some of our citizens who they can and who they can't love. Who they can and can't marry. History will not be kind to the discrimination of gays, with cause. It's time to end this era of gay discrimination.

Baby Lee · 12-09-2012, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

It's not? Says who?

What is you theory? they see gay porn and decide hey, that looks good to me?

That's actually a two-edged sword. If it's nature, it might some day be cured, and I'm talking pharmaceuticals and in utero diet not prayer sessions in your 40s.

If it's nurture, we can work to ID behaviors and stimuli to eradicate.

Whether we should even try is another conversation, but the possibility of reversibility is pertinent to analogies to race or gender.

Baby Lee · 12-09-2012, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Flawed poll. Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals. They want different rights, but I'm fine with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

BS. If they have the same rights why are there law suits and why is the SCOTUS considering the cases?

Begging the question. CB is clearly making his remarks as evidence that the suits have no merit.

You seek to refute that by asking why these suits exist, seemingly assuming that suits that exist must have merit.

WoodDraw · 12-09-2012, 05:35 PM

It's worth noting that it's incredibly unlikely the a right to gay marriage will come out of any of these cases. One issue is a section of DOMA, the other case has to do with California Prop 8.

The big question is what level of scrutiny they decide the case on, as it'll become precedent for a lot of state challenges and fix the circuit split we're seeing now.

Garcia Bronco · 12-09-2012, 05:36 PM

My vote is to remove any and all martial benefits from government recognition.

Baby Lee · 12-09-2012, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

My vote is to remove any and all martial benefits from government recognition.

Even ninjas? Those guys are stealthy.

Brock · 12-09-2012, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

My vote is to remove any and all martial benefits from government recognition.

That works too.

ClevelandBronco · 12-09-2012, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

BS. If they have the same rights why are there law suits and why is the SCOTUS considering the cases?

I'm not allowed to marry a man, and neither is a homosexual man. I was allowed to marry any woman who would agree to marry me, and so is a homosexual man. Our rights are exactly equal.

I'm happy to grant special rights to homosexuals to marry someone who's not currently on the menu, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm merely recognizing some sort of equal right that they've heretofore been denied. THAT would be BS.

listopencil · 12-09-2012, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

I say the government should have no laws respecting marriage one way or another, stay out of it.

They need to function as a record keeping body. There are laws/rules/considerations that revolve around marriage. As long as those exist you can't really keep the government out of it.

listopencil · 12-09-2012, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

I'm not allowed to marry a man, and neither is a homosexual man. I was allowed to marry any woman who would agree to marry me, and so is a homosexual man. Our rights are exactly equal.

I'm happy to grant special rights to homosexuals to marry someone who's not currently on the menu, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm merely recognizing some sort of equal right that they've heretofore been denied. THAT would be BS.

Here's the thing: Why are heterosexuals allowed to marry?

ClevelandBronco · 12-09-2012, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by listopencil

Here's the thing: Why are heterosexuals allowed to marry?

To shut their damned mothers up.

Serious answer: It's just another thing that government stuck its nose into for no compelling reason, IMO.

Dave Lane · 12-09-2012, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcan

Where are all the pro slavery people today?

Its their day off. Sunday. They will be back at it tomorrow. Check in then.

Dave Lane · 12-09-2012, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

well sure, just like how the plaintiff in McDonald vs Chicago tried to throw a Hail Mary pass with the privileges and immunities clause argument, asking the SCOTUS to overturn the Slaughterhouse cases and over 130 years of precedent. That went nowhere except to generate some hilarious mockery from Scalia. (Clarence Thomas, who does not believe in the concept of stare decisis at all, was the only vote for that argument)

Al, you should definitely post more. I really enjoy your posts even when I don't agree, which is fairly rare.

**patteeu** · 12-09-2012, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

well sure, just like how the plaintiff in McDonald vs Chicago tried to throw a Hail Mary pass with the privileges and immunities clause argument, asking the SCOTUS to overturn the Slaughterhouse cases and over 130 years of precedent. That went nowhere except to generate some hilarious mockery from Scalia. (Clarence Thomas, who does not believe in the concept of stare decisis at all, was the only vote for that argument)

We're not talking about overturning precedent here. Sexual preference has never been a suspect class granted strict scrutiny in the past.

**patteeu** · 12-09-2012, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

It's not? Says who?

What is you theory? they see gay porn and decide hey, that looks good to me?

Why do you want to reject science and base policy on your beliefs? Isn't that supposed to be the province of those extreme right wing bible beaters?

My theory is that sexual preference might as well be congenital because it doesn't seem to be a conscious decision, but I recognize that science hasn't established the cause (nature vs nurture) at this point.

HonestChieffan · 12-09-2012, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

That works too.

That is exactly what the rest of us want....amazing you agree with rednecks

View Poll Results: Should we allow gays the same rights as hetrosexuals?
Yes	68	72.34%
No	8	8.51%
Leave it to the states. Not a federal issue.	17	18.09%
GAZ says FU BRC, you are gay	1	1.06%
Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll

12-09-2012, 09:03 AM
BigRedChief Brainwashed Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Swims with fishes Casino cash: $2265132	SCOTUS to take on allowing Gays to marry. What say you? There are two cases(DOMA and Proposition 8) to be heard by the SCOTUS this session. At the base of the question is do gay Americans have the same rights as heterosexual Americans? And if so, do they need their constitutional rights protected at the federal level. I've never had an openly gay friend, co-worker or family member. I did coach a little league baseball team. On that team I had a player with two Mom's. The players and the parents accepted the kid of the two Mom's as any other player. The other parents let their kids go over to the two Mom's house for sleepovers etc. It wasn't a factor to consider in the slightest. I don't have any personal experience to know what rights is actually being denied. However, I believe that for whatever reason they were born that way. It's not a choice. You can't pray it out of them. You can't give them therapy and turn them into heterosexuals. They are what they are naturally and we should just accept them. IMHO, the government/city/state/society have no right to tell it's citizens what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. some of our citizens who they can and who they can't love. Who they can and can't marry. History will not be kind to the discrimination of gays, with cause. It's time to end this era of gay discrimination.
Posts: 37,930

12-09-2012, 05:35 PM	#123
WoodDraw Veteran Join Date: Mar 2004 Casino cash: $33795	It's worth noting that it's incredibly unlikely the a right to gay marriage will come out of any of these cases. One issue is a section of DOMA, the other case has to do with California Prop 8. The big question is what level of scrutiny they decide the case on, as it'll become precedent for a lot of state challenges and fix the circuit split we're seeing now.
Posts: 3,734

12-09-2012, 05:36 PM	#124
Garcia Bronco No Keys, No Problem Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Denver Casino cash: $59563	My vote is to remove any and all martial benefits from government recognition.
Posts: 20,358

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode