My conservative perspective on gay rights

[dixon76710]

you probably support interracial marriage bans.

??? Actually, interrracial couple procreates, just like a same race couple does. Government has just as much interest in the wellbeing of children of interracial couples as they do same race couples. Children of interracial couples benefit equally to children of same race couples by having the benefit of both their mother and father to provide and care for them. No justification whatsoever for treating them differently.
Now, why dont you explain to me what justifies extending marriage to two 18 yr old gay boys, young, dumb and full of cum, while denying it to the single mother and grandmother down the street, raising their 3 children, grandchildren in a home they share together for nearly a decade now. Any suggestions other than you dont "think" they should receive the benefits, while you "think" the gays should? That doesnt make the constitutional grade.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Special, as in not available to any two consenting adults. Marriage is made available to heterosexual couples, the only couples who procreate. If you only want to extend the current marriage limited to heterosexual couples, to gay couples, NOT to any two consenting adults, Youll need some justification for doing so. Any suggestions.

Uhhh gays can marry each other so long as they are of the opposite sex, so no, it's not special treatment. A gay man can marry a lesbian, both of whom will not procreate.

 

[dixon76710]

Uhhh gays can marry each other so long as they are of the opposite sex, so no, it's not special treatment. A gay man can marry a lesbian, both of whom will not procreate.

Actually a gay man and a lebian woman procreate just fine. Of course, we were talking about a "gay couple" as in two people of the same sex. No doubt why you now run to this absurd tangent.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Its not a religious argument, Yurt. And I know no Christian personally who bashes gays.

i'm glad you agree the issue is not a religious issue under our current government and its laws.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

76710;930386]Where you getting lost. If its not made available to any two consenting adults its special treatment, yet you have no justification for such special treatment.

you seem to not understand the position you're arguing. on the one hand, you claim that gay marriage is special treatment, yet claim that heterosexual marriage is not special treatment. this is a contradiction in your argument. i also don't think you understand what "legal" consent means. it is far different than ordinary consent. that is what the law cares about. for example, a 17 year old can consent to buy a car, however, the law does not recognize his consent, thus, the contract is not valid. here, homosexual relationships, as opposed to incestual for example, are legal under our laws, thus, there is nothing in our laws that says they cannot legally consent to be married.

Equal protection requires at a minimum, that any distinction that discriminates between people, must be rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental interest. Marriage limited to heterosexual couples is rationally related to serving the legitimate governmental interest in more kids with their mom and dad together to provide and care for the kids they create and fewer kids dependent on one or neither of those parents.
You want to limit marriage to sexual couples. Whats your legitimate governmental interest that is only served in the case of sexual couples? Youve offered nothing other than your personal desire that it be so

while you have part of the EP test, you are incorrect on the test that applies to marriage. marriage is a fundamental right according to scotus. i suggest you read up on loving v. virginia in order to better understand the legal argument.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

in california the issue has already been decided using the highest level of scrutiny, not the lowest as you want. while the matter is not exactly settled in federal courts, it is clear that scotus has repeatedly held that marriage is a fundamental right, like voting and as such, strict scrutiny would apply. since that is most likely the case, the burden is on you and the state to prove your point.

your state interest lacks merit as couples who cannot procreate are allowed to marry, so long as they are not homosexual. further, there is a compelling interest in allowing homosexuals equal protection under laws. homosexuals can adopt. procreation is a red herring. further, numerous couples have children out of wedlock. we have thousands of kids who need adopting.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Actually a gay man and a lebian woman procreate just fine. Of course, we were talking about a "gay couple" as in two people of the same sex. No doubt why you now run to this absurd tangent.

you seem to be arguing that the state's main interest is in procreation. you don't need marriage for that.

 

[Disillusioned]

you seem to be arguing that the state's main interest is in procreation. you don't need marriage for that.

Must...Resist...Urge...Ethnic joke...

Ok I made it. The state's interest is in prolonging the state, for that one needs to convince the populace that they need the state(which they do, but not nessearily in the form they have) and therefore the state sticks it's little fingers into everything. Marriage being the topic up for discussion right now.

 

[dixon76710]

you seem to not understand the position you're arguing. on the one hand, you claim that gay marriage is special treatment, yet claim that heterosexual marriage is not special treatment. this is a contradiction in your argument.

It should be no surprise that the part you made up, contradicts what Ive said. Of course that was by your design. Now go forth and slay that strawman. I promise, we will all be impressed.

 

[dixon76710]

Must...Resist...Urge...Ethnic joke...

Ok I made it. The state's interest is in prolonging the state, for that one needs to convince the populace that they need the state(which they do, but not nessearily in the form they have) and therefore the state sticks it's little fingers into everything. Marriage being the topic up for discussion right now.

The gays are INSISTING that the government stick its nose into their relationships, even though they had never stuck their nose in there before

 

[dixon76710]

you seem to be arguing that the state's main interest is in procreation. you don't need marriage for that.

The wellbeing of children that result from that procreation.

 

[dixon76710]

while you have part of the EP test, you are incorrect on the test that applies to marriage. marriage is a fundamental right according to scotus. i suggest you read up on loving v. virginia in order to better understand the legal argument. .

Dont be silly. Marriage to someone of the opposite sex is a fundamental right.

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0316_0535_ZO.html

Under a federal constitutional analysis, for a fundamental right to exist it
must be “objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ . . . and
‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither liberty nor justice
would exist if they were sacrificed.’”
Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be
a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation,
childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

Silly to make such an assertion in the case of gay marriage. And of course, if you want to use heightened scrutiny, you will need a COMPELLING governmental interest that is served in the case of two 18 yr old gay boys, that is not served in the case of the single mother and grandmother down the street, raising their 3 children/grandchildren for nearly a decade. What is it?

heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis...

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .

t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=434&invol=374

 

[Mott the Hoople]

God never said homosexuality is a sin.

So, you're wrong there.

Damn Yankee did and he's pretty close to being God.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Your last sentence is nonsense. It would only make sense if every available woman was heterosexual.

and none of the hetero women were frigid....or look like Damo!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yep, I believe the Bible is a compilation of the works of men.

I view it as a guide for morality and ethics for the illiterate but then I'm not big on the spirituality thing. I agree with dissilusioned, I'm primarily an apathist. I mean no disrespect towards any religion, it's just something I'm not really interested in.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It should be no surprise that the part you made up, contradicts what Ive said. Of course that was by your design. Now go forth and slay that strawman. I promise, we will all be impressed.

so your claim is that heterosexual marriage is special treatment? if so, you need to be more clear in your arguments.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Dont be silly. Marriage to someone of the opposite sex is a fundamental right.






Silly to make such an assertion in the case of gay marriage. And of course, if you want to use heightened scrutiny, you will need a COMPELLING governmental interest that is served in the case of two 18 yr old gay boys, that is not served in the case of the single mother and grandmother down the street, raising their 3 children/grandchildren for nearly a decade. What is it?

again.....under strict scrutiny is you or the state that must provide the compelling interest. you keep trying to put the oneous on me, however, that is not how scrutiny works. the state must prove the compelling interest and so far you have not, imo, provided a compelling interest. you might pass under rational basis scrutining, but you will not pass under strict scrutiny as the scotus (interracial marriage, privacy issues) has held that marriage is a fundamental right.

you will need a COMPELLING governmental interest that is served in the case of two 18 yr old gay boys, that is not served in the case of the single mother and grandmother down the street, raising their 3 children/grandchildren for nearly a decade. What is it?

i don't understand what you mean here or what point you are trying to make. and again, you should study up on how the court analyzes cases under scrutiny. the burden is on the state or here, you, to make the compelling the government interest that gays should not be allowed to marry. i've tried to explain it to you, however, you either don't understand or simply cover your eyes.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The wellbeing of children that result from that procreation.

what does that have to do with gays being allowed to marry? your claim necessarily means that if gays are allowed to marry, then hetorosexuals would no longer procreate. such a claim lacks any merit as homosexuals already are in relationships, many for life and this has had zero effect on procreation. even if gays are not allowed to marry, the entire population could turn gay and then your procreation argument is thrown out the window. you must show that allowing gays to marry will substantially burden the state's interest in procreation. you must show that allowing gays to marry will result in fewer heterosexual marriages and procreation. further, your argument supports the theory that the state should not allow couples who cannot procreate to marry.

 

[Damocles]

and none of the hetero women were frigid....or look like Damo!

If there are hetero women who look like me, they'll need more help than they can afford...

 

[Mott the Hoople]

If there are hetero women who look like me, they'll need more help than they can afford...

Not if they can cook!

 

[Phyllis Diller]

God never said homosexuality is a sin.

So, you're wrong there.

Right. he just said men having sex with each other is only wrong inside the pagan temples. Everybody knows that.