Why people say Gay marrage is just the tip of the iceberg

ballen0351 said:
Gay men are not equal under the law. They are protected class. If a guy walks up and hits me in the face its an assault. If he walks up says your a (insert gay slur) and hits me its a hate cries with a tougher penality. So they are not equal. So if you can have special laws for them regarding assaults then why not special laws for them regarding civil unions. We already treat them differently
Click to expand...

......

and you expect this argument to be taken seriously?

So they get a special set of 'protection' which does not keep them from being assaulted, just possibly puts the assailant away fro a longer time....and you use that as argument to deny them a set of privileges they would have if they were not gay.

it takes Archy Bunker to find that logical....

Oh, the assault on a person with hate motivated attacks caused such laws to spring into action. Since prior to that a hate motivated attack hardly warranted more than a slap on the wrist. Unequal starting point.
 
ballen0351 said:
Gay men are not equal under the law. They are protected class. If a guy walks up and hits me in the face its an assault. If he walks up says your a (insert gay slur) and hits me its a hate cries with a tougher penality. So they are not equal. So if you can have special laws for them regarding assaults then why not special laws for them regarding civil unions. We already treat them differently
Click to expand...

My argument is to -not- treat anyone differently.
 
CanuckMA said:
I'm in a protected class. So it would be OK to stop me from marrying?
Click to expand...

More like acquiring home owners insurance, denying coverage in the event of a claim on previously acquired policies....

Or getting married....but yeah, that's the general drift


(just to make sure, I am referring to a specific historical event)
 
Bob Hubbard said:
Article 4 - Section 1.
Click to expand...

Full faith and credit has never been applied to marriage laws. In the 60sway when some states outlawed inner racial marriages it was brough up and was struck diwn inthe courts. The only way it works is if congress passes a law specifically recognize the law. For example up until a few years ago protective orders were not enforcable across state lines until congress passed the domestice violence law I forget the name now protective orders issued in texas are enforcable in new york. Before they were not.
 
[
I have no idea what your talking about


granfire said:
More like acquiring home owners insurance, denying coverage in the event of a claim on previously acquired policies....

Or getting married....but yeah, that's the general drift


(just to make sure, I am referring to a specific historical event)
Click to expand...
 
CanuckMA said:
Stop being obtuse, you're better than that.

By your logic, it would be OK to not allow minorities to marry because they are also in a protected class.
Click to expand...
depends on the minority. If your question is should gays be denied a right to be married I say it should be left for the people to decide. I would vote yes to new hampshires law but I would not force other states to do the same.
 
ballen0351 said:
That has nothing to do with marriage laws
Click to expand...

no.

it has everything to do with society passing the laws under which they want to live.

Now, you want to uphold that statement?

And now we are making the journey back from racism to marriage law:

According to your reasoning, because the people did not vote it off the books, inter racial marriage ought still be illegal in the great state of Alabama.


here is the thing:
just because unequal treatment does exist, it is not an excuse to perpetuate it or - even worse - cement it into law.

Along your lines of thinking it would be a-ok to throw gays into jail. After all at one time the people thought it was the way to go.
 
granfire said:
no.

it has everything to do with society passing the laws under which they want to live.
Click to expand...
Now, you want to uphold that statement?

Every law we have was passed by society from no driving while texting to murder.
And now we are making the journey back from racism to marriage law:[/qoute]
So now im a racist ok I see where this is going.

According to your reasoning, because the people did not vote it off the books, inter racial marriage ought still be illegal in the great state of Alabama.
Click to expand...
We are not talking about inner racial marriage stick to the topic remember no whales, no toasters, no inner racial or is it only ok to stray when you do it?

But yes I think it should be up to the people of that state to decide how they want to live and the rules they want in that state. Im not a big fan of the federal govt telling states what to do. When the people in Alabama are ready they are free to change their minds and change the law themselves.

here is the thing:
just because unequal treatment does exist, it is not an excuse to perpetuate it or - even worse - cement it into law.

Along your lines of thinking it would be a-ok to throw gays into jail. After all at one time the people thought it was the way to go.
Click to expand...
Its not a crime to be gay so why would you throw them in jail? However anal sex is illegal in this state but its not enforced but it has been used in some divorce trials. Adulty is as well and it has a maximum penality $10.00
Click to expand...
 
If you don't want people to be in a special class, then we must stop treating them differently. For example, if you do not like that a criminal gets extra time for hittting a gay man in the face then we must create a society where a man does not get hit in the face JUST for being gay. We must stop treating people as if they have less rights that the rest of us, if they are a bit different than main stream. Look at it this way, changing the law does not give gays special rights, it gives them the same rights as the rest of us. No less or any more rights than the rest of us. Now gays are a protected class of people because we treat them as different than normal human beings and they need protection from people who take that thought process to the extremes. Most of us probably know people that think it is okay to not hire, deny services, or even assault people that are gay.

Would it make sense to keep a law that disabled people couldn't marry? What about people of different religions? Different races? People with mental issues, such as depression? All these things have been reasons people cannot marry and now we view such opinions as archaic and ignorant. Why is gay the defining line? Is it because gays marrying would be detrimental for society? That isn't supported by anything other than religious right opinion. There is no actual factual support for that claim. Would it be a nightmare for governmental beuracracy? No. Actually easier than civil unions AND marriage. Bad for the economy? No. Same money gets spent, if not more money if gay marriages are legal. The slippery slope arguement? That is fear mongering. No one can enter into a valid contract without informed consent. Marriage for government purposes just that, a contract. That means toasters and dolphins are out. The biggest and truest impediment to gay marriage is bigotry. Plain and not so simple. The arguement becomes a lot clearer when viewed in that light. Do we allow citizens in this country to be treated differently, given less rights, due to nothing more than an ingrained prejudice? For me that answer is simple and why I am stubborn on this issue.
 
That's the beauty of this country if you don't like the rules in one state you can move.
 
ballen0351 said:
Yes everyone that is against Gay marriage is a bigoted Redneck.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, probably. But I'm basing that call on the Texas GOP's platform, as well as comments by Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Pallen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Europe and freedom, not getting it...

Previous Thread

England, land of surveillance cameras...

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top