Homosexual Columnist Blasts Gay Marriage

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatorplank, Nov 18, 2013.

  1. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,436
    Likes Received:
    483
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,805
    myopic thinking considering that "enjoying the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to the fullest extent" is subjective for all couples

    brings back the same argument that, if you are correct, then we shouldn't allow heterosexual couples to marry who cannot or will not personally reproduce.
  2. AzCatFan
    Online

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,694
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +741
    I think you and other here need some more legal education, including Brown. Here's Warren's own words from his summary on Brown and overturning Plessy:

    And here's the end result of Brown. De jure end to all public segregation. That's why today, even though the bus is going to the same place, and the seat in the back is made of the same material as the ones in front, you cannot force anyone to sit at the back of the bus. There is no Supreme Court ruling, and Rosa Parks actually was convicted and fined for refusing to move. But with the Brown ruling as precedence, again, this kind of segregation is now illegal. Why? Because the Warren Court's "'separate but equal' has not place" now covers everything in the public sphere. The fact the court used funding as proof separate is never equal has no bearing on the reaches of the ruling.

    Affirmative action is one case where you can argue the law is making things unequal for individuals. And that's the truth. But this is the exception exists because AA is, in theory, attempting to level the playing field to make things equal between the races. Personally, I feel affirmative action as is has run its course, and should be financially based rather than purely race based, but that's fodder for another thread.

    As for rulings like baseball's antitrust exception or cable companies having legal monopolies in cities or counties, again, businesses and corporations aren't individuals. There is a whole subset of laws aimed at businesses that do not apply to individuals. For example, as an individual, if you own a 15-passenger van and aren't charging anyone for a ride, you can arrange the people sitting as you see fit. However, a for public business has to abide by Brown, and again, cannot segregate. This is why a business may be forced to participate in an event like a gay marriage that the owner may not support. Because the law(s) are directed at the business itself, and not the owner/workers. If the only flower shop in town is operating in a place with anti-gay discrimination laws, the business may be forced to comply and provide flowers for a gay wedding, even if the owner is vehemently opposed. But the owner could easily hire someone, even temporarily, to do the gay wedding and then donate all the profits to his local church, as long as the business complies with the law. The owner himself could even picket the wedding holding an anti-gay sign if he so wishes, because different laws cover businesses and individuals.

    Which brings me back to why I don't like the idea of a separate civil union, even if applied to all. It will be, as Warren understood, inherently unequal, since separation only exists to keep things unequal. And even if all civil marriages became civil unions, I believe this would be a way for many to practice de facto discrimination. Not to mention, precedence is not on the side of civil unions for all, as non-religious sanctioned marriages have been called marriages even before religion got involved in the institution. And non-religious sanctioned marriages have been legal in the US since inception.
  3. helix139
    Offline

    helix139 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,947
    Not really. There are certain benefits (such as having a biological child together or raising said child in the most ideal environment for said child) that no homosexual couple can enjoy.

    Of course it brings that argument up, which of course brings up the typical argument by homosexual "marriage" supporters that marriage should be reduced to fertility of the partners. This is, of course, not true. Given the nature of the marriage partnership, though, childrearing is overwhelmingly often the result and thus in part defines marriage as an institution.

    But again, it also illustrates the point that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different. Homosexual couples are inherently unable to have children even with 2 fertile partners. Heterosexual couples very overwhelmingly are able to conceive children and often do. One partner being infertile is not the norm, but rather an incidental or accidental characteristic. Infertile isn't even the right word when it comes to gay relationships, as fertility was never a condition that would ever apply to the relationship. It's like calling a diamond ring 'dead' rather than 'inanimate.'

    That said, you'll get no argument from me that gay couples shouldn't have all the rights that apply to them that straight couples have. However, their relationships are not a marriage anymore than they are infertile. Marriage is a term used to denote a type of union for males and females and it is inherently different than any relationship between couples of the same because of its heterosexual nature having such a bearing on the fundamental and functional aspects of the relationship.
  4. helix139
    Offline

    helix139 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,947
    Race had nothing to do with the ability to enjoy and practice full citizenship on a fundamental level. Any restrictions were artificially imposed.

    The same is not true with marriage. The nature of a marriage will always be different than that of a homosexual union even if you call said homosexual union a marriage. It's biological, not artificial. Thus the two merit differentiating insofar as they are actually different.

    Let me put it this way: for the race analogy to apply, blacks would have had to not only have wanted the same rights as everyone else, but to be called "white." You can call them white all you want, but that doesn't change the actual color of their skin.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,325
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +500
    Azcat, I get your argument here, but from a legal stand point there would be nothing separate about civil unions for all. Now I think your concern is that there could be a psychological/conceptual separation in the minds of people between straight unions and gay unions. I think you are correct about this, but I think you have to be careful about where you are going here. What you are suggesting is that government should engage in thought control. My argument is that government should pursue legal equality without suppressing free speech. George Orwell's 1984 illustrated the tyranny that can occur if the government has control over a language's dictionary, and that is the power that you would be granting to the government. "Separate but (not) equal" is not an excuse for the government to engage in thought control.
  6. Gatormb
    Online

    Gatormb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,354
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Bradenton, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +1,144
    We have:

    Well Known Members.

    Premium Members.

    Active Members.

    Wgb is listed as Sub-optimal Poster!!!!! The only one I've seen, on this thread anyway.

    What's up with that?????

    Discrimination?

    Separate but equal?

    o_O
  7. candymanfromgc
    Offline

    candymanfromgc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,510
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +495
    Government should only have limited say in marrage-primarly to prevent fraud.
  8. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    So then I take it that you didn't/don't support DOMA or any laws barring same sex marriage?
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2013
  9. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,818
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,693
  10. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,919
    Likes Received:
    644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,339

    But . . . it's all good.

    And yes, I still read old books. Some of them capture much wisdom, describing unchanged human nature over the generations of recorded history, and over generations of recorded wise sayings.
  11. AzCatFan
    Online

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,694
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +741
    I think it might behoove you to look up the term "de jure" and the "de jure" effect Brown v Board of Education had on segregation. For example, a "White Only" water fountain drawing from the exact same water supply as a "Black Only" fountain, with both fountains receiving the exact same amount of funding towards maintenance is illegal in this country. Why is that so, if Brown supposedly only deals with education funding?

    And yes, the government allows for discrimination in two cases. One, when actually correcting the effects of previous discrimination to make an equal playing field. (There's that word again). And in cases where it is in the public's best interest to allow a business/corporation to have a monopoly because competition is prohibitive (see cable companies and MLB). So how, pray tell, is allowing for separate marriage laws for straight couples and civil unions for gay couples making things equal between both groups? And how is allowing for this discrimination the best business practice for the public?

    And while yes, appellate courts don't waste words or time, de jure applications of rulings is a time honored held tradition. If segregation was legally not allowed in schools, then segregation that existed because of other laws became invalid as well (I just answered the water fountain question for you by the way). Now, the courts cannot stop all de facto segregation. For instance, if little to no African American male youth want to play hockey, the NHL would be de facto segregated. But no amount of legal rulings could change this as the talent pool to play professional hockey is limited. And if no AA athletes choose to lace them up, we cannot force them. (Just for clarification, there have been and currently are AA players in the NHL, but they have been few and far between)

    What I fear with the civil unions for all solution is de facto segregation for gay couples. And yes, there are examples of this. For example, religious groups voting down gay marriage laws to keep gay unions separate. And a general unwillingness for many to ever allow true, legal gay marriage, but instead only offering civil unions offering de jure the same protections, but while maintaining a de facto separation...which once again, is never equal.

    And while you can keep your personal discrimination and segregate as you please, the government shouldn't ever discriminate. Nor should it encourage de facto discrimination.
  12. helix139
    Offline

    helix139 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,947
    The government also allows for discrimination in cases where there is a BFOQ (i.e. requiring a clergyman to be the same faith as his congregation, or requiring a fireman to have functioning legs). Simply put, when the reason for discrimination has something to do with the job, or in this case the institution.

    Color of skin has nothing to do with the ability of a person to attend school and learn, nor the ability to drink from a fountain. I guarantee you the police would be able to discriminate against a black officer if they needed someone to go undercover within an aryan nation white supremacist compound.

    In this case, the nature of the discrimination has everything to do with the institution for which it applies. homosexual unions and heterosexual unions are, by nature, not identical and thus it is reasonable to differentiate (and thus discriminate) between them as far as it affects the union. Homosexual unions by definition cannot enjoy all of the benefits of heterosexual unions and thus we differentiate the heterosexual unions by calling them "marriage" and recognizing that one more beneficial to society where all else is equal and where all benefits of the union that can biologically be enjoyed by both partners in their normative states are enjoyed to their fullest. You can give them all the legal rights you want the same as a straight couple and some still will not apply to ALL homosexual marriages while applying to 99% of heterosexual marriages.
  13. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,880
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,176
    They seem more or less identical to me and able to fully enjoy the same benifits/obligations, and I think public opinion is moving in that direction too. There really isnt a strong case for a legal distinction, IMO.
  14. AzCatFan
    Online

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,694
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +741
    If the ability to have children, the only biological difference between homosexual and straight unions, is so important, please point out to me where having children is in standard marriage vows. Or where is it in a standard marriage license? And what about people we know for certain cannot have children, such as elderly women. Discrimination against the elderly is too permitted, such as in the case of driver's license renewal, as those over a certain age are often subject to more stringent renewal policies. If the ability to bare a child is tantamount to enjoying marriage to their fullest, why aren't all those who cannot have children not restricted?
  15. helix139
    Offline

    helix139 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,947
    More or less =/= identical. That said, I've said repeatedly that they should have the rights that apply to them. However, that does not make what they have a marriage. A marriage is the union of a man and a woman, which is unique biologically

    And there you go again with those tired arguments that I've swatted down repeatedly. Marriage is not ONLY about the ability to have children, but children are produced so often from a marriage it is rather assumed that they will happen. Marriage is the ONLY union where a child is legally bound to the single unit consisting of both of his or her biological parents as the default. There is something to be said for that, and the benefit is not just for the two partners but for the resulting child. That benefit is recognized in part through the term marriage. It isn't all of marriage, but it is a big benefit that homosexual relationships cannot enjoy. Just like sex isn't the ONLY part of a marriage but is a foundational leg to the point it is assumed it is happening.
  16. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,880
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,176
    As I said, there really is no compelling reason legally for the state to make the distinction especially if you agree that the same rights should be afforded to both arrangements. The only reason to have distinct categories would be to discriminate if thats the case.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. helix139
    Offline

    helix139 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,947
    There is a compelling reason to legally discriminate and that is that gay unions and marriage are not actually completely equal as it relates to the institution in question due to the biology of the partners.

    The government discriminates all the time and allows discrimination all the time. Discrimination is only bad when it is arbitrary and not related to the right in question (i.e. black people with water fountains).
  18. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,880
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,176
    So what is an example of "good" discrimination explicitly sanctioned by the government that pertains to a civil right enjoyed by its citizens?
  19. helix139
    Offline

    helix139 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,947
    There are plenty: discrimination against the physically disabled is allowed when being able-bodied is a necessary part of the job, discrimination against those of other faiths is allowed when hiring clergy or other faith-based positions in faith-based organizations, affirmative action is thought by many to be "good" though I would disagree, people with epilepsy are discriminated against when it comes to obtaining driving licenses, felons are disciminated against when attempting to buy or own firearms, sex offenders are discriminated against when it comes to where they are allowed to live, people of size are discriminated against when it comes to buying airline tickets....I could go on and on here, but the point being that the government sanctions many forms of discrimination. Not all of those are suspect classes or even quasi-suspect, but many relate to immutable conditions that are no fault of the person. Point is, it's allowed where reasonable.

    While we afford all the same rights to those who are black as those who are write, we don't refer to them both as caucasian, do we? That's effectively what the LGBT lobby is asking for here.
  20. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,880
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,176
    Well, I asked where it was explicitly sanctione WRT to civil rights, of which employment or driving are not. Indeed the only examples I can (and you) think of are situations where felons or other "unfit" people are denied the vote or guns as they have been adjudicated as such, for reasons of public safety. Simply deeming homosexuals "unfit" for marriage and therefore needing a second class status seems like the kind of discrimination that will not hold up under a 14th Amendment review, as there is really no compelling evidence that homosexuals are unfit for marriage or a danger to public safety other than the religious beliefs of some people, which are not really the kind of evidence to build strong legal case around.

Share This Page