Lily Tomlin married her partner of 42 years New Years Eve

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by AzCatFan, Jan 14, 2014.

  1. AndyGator
    Offline

    AndyGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,271
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +133
    So I will ask again... Why do we have separate bathrooms for men and women? Are we not "equal" in our biological functions?

    I think the fear of sexual assault supercedes the fear of sexual inequality in this case.
  2. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,150
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,926
    No, it's an easy truth.

    Someone else getting married or divorced has no bearing my marriage. Gessen's claim about wanting to do away with marriage might reflect her views, pretty extreme as they are, but it's doubtful it reflects the average gay person.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    37,685
    Likes Received:
    3,628
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +4,906
    "it's always been done that way" is a poor justification
  4. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    37,685
    Likes Received:
    3,628
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +4,906
    nah. that's not it at all. it's everything to do with men and their 'aim'.
    ;)
  5. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    Tell that to the Supreme Court. They've upheld several decisions based on nothing more than that.
  6. agigator
    Offline

    agigator Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,180
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +75
    First off, those are unprovable assertions not easy truths. Your belief that they don't affect your marriage or anyone else's doesn't really prove anything. People believe a lot of things, even about themselves, that aren't true. And did you read the rest of my post where I quoted a lesbian who also disagreed with your easy truth? In fact, she essentially called your easy truth a lie.

    Secondly, let's be more precise. "Gays" can marry a member of the opposite sex. Nobody can marry a member of the same sex. We can hold a ceremony, give them a piece of paper, and pretend that they're married but that won't make them married.

    Let's just leave it at that.
  7. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    I get that--but you're getting two things conflated right now. The current status of the law is anyone's guess about how the SC will rule. We know DOMA was struck down, but thus far, they've been pretty reluctant to get involved with the various state decisions on the subject.

    Clearly, something will need to give though. My position has always been homosexuals should have the same legal benefits as straight couples; but there are many ways to accomplish that besides absolute capitulation by those who support traditional marriage.

    But, back to the original discussion: as far as making civil unions the legal equivalent to marriages--you and several others have claimed that's still "discriminatory" without answering why.

    I've been repeatedly asked "why keep it different?"--and gave a valid legal response--even citing examples of when the court uses similar rationales in other decisions. Is it too much to ask for the same? Or, failing in that, will people stop trying to claim that arrangement is "discriminatory?"
  8. HallGator
    Offline

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    42,866
    Likes Received:
    861
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +3,085

    I really don't know how to answer any better than I have. I've given you my answer to the best of my ability. Either you are reading past it or it's not suiting what you want so you simply discount it as not an answer. Either way I am in a box since nothing I say seems to get across as being viable based on your criteria.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. AzCatFan
    Online

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +517
    It's not about capitulation. It's about equality. For you to say you need to capitulate anything suggests you have something to lose if gays get married. And that suggests you don't want to give gays full equality.

    It's been answered many times. What is your reason to keep a "No Gays Allowed" sign on marriage licenses if not for the reason of discrimination? Omission of a group is always discriminatory. And you can be sure there will be problems with people discriminating against those with only a "Civil Union License" and not a "Marriage License."

    Discrimination by the government is allowable in cases where the purpose is to create an equal playing field. Government cannot discriminate to keep or make things unequal. Ask yourself, what would be the purpose of keeping civil unions and marriages separate?

    Your court precedents don't apply. Affirmative action is discrimination for equality purposes. Keeping gays from marrying and keeping them as second class citizens? How is that equal in any way, shape, or form? And how is making gays drink from the "civil union fountain" not too discriminatory?
  10. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,150
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,926
    It is an easy truth, as in self-evident. No need to prove it. It's absurd to claim differently. As for gays pretending to be married, that it's just a piece of paper well that would then be true of all hetero marriages, including yours if you are married. Then we'd all just be pretending, like actors in a movie. And hey, there is much of that going on anyway. But legally and socially in 17 states and for federal workers it is fact. In this case they only one who is pretending about whether they are married or not would be you.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2014
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,150
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,926
    Having two separate forms would be discriminatory in practice and would serve no other purpose but to create a false division such that so-called "traditionalists" could have the law reflect their unfavorable view of gay marriage. Folks have cited a terrific legal example in Jim Crow as why only one form.

    If your position has always been that gays should have the same legal rights, it's hard to reconcile your concern about there being two different forms. Worry about so-called capitulation makes little sense and seems quite arbitrary.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2014
  12. agigator
    Offline

    agigator Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,180
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +75
    I saw this post before you edited it and thanks for taking that last line out.

    The reason I said, "leave it at that" was simply because these discussions can go on for a while and I didn't feel like going any further with it. In general, once a discussion goes past three or four posts, people have a tendency to start repeating themselves. At that point, either the person doesn't get it and isn't going to or they do get it and they're just not going to agree with you no matter what you say.
  13. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    Fair enough. Though I do have an understanding of your position and that you don't agree having separate documents with identical legal rights in them (as I've been advocating for)...I must ask here: are you of the opinion that there is only ONE solution to this issue?

    It isn't even possible to think of an alternative solution?
  14. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    How would it be discriminatory in practice though? We've established that, assuming the documents conveyed identical legal rights; that gays would be able to fill out the same joint tax returns, transfer property, make medical/legal decisions on behalf of their spouse, etc. You haven't ever even attempted to dispute that--no one has.

    There would be no government discrimination or discrimination from government services or government benefits (which is, ostensibly, what gays have been striving to achieve "equality" about).

    Would people out there still hold unfavorable--perhaps even discriminatory--views toward homosexuals? Of course. That won't change regardless of what happens with the law.

    The "capitulation" comment was made because that's how I perceive the issue. Many people don't support marriage for homosexuals on well-founded religious grounds. Homosexual behavior, according to the Christian Bible (but also the Quran and Torah, among others), is considered sinful behavior. Now, at this point, I haven't made my arguments religious in nature. Those are well-covered and well-represented by many others in this thread and in others, so I didn't see the need to add to those who have already addressed that side of the issue. Many progressives and gay rights supporters have taken to demeaning those religious beliefs when opponents try and use them as justification for why they don't support marriage rights for homosexuals. In the end, that's mostly what it boils down to...and yet, for having those beliefs and staying true to their faith, they are mocked and bullied; accused of being "homophobic." I'm not saying that anyone on here has done that. Thankfully, you and AZ and others have been more mature. But it's a very real element to the issue: hammering home that one's religious beliefs are ok--so long as they're secondary to what the state tells you. Our country was founded on something very different. Religious beliefs are protected by our Constitution, as is the belief on free speech. Supporters of traditional marriage have nothing to be ashamed about for defending their beliefs or for voicing their objections based on their religious beliefs...and yet, they are increasingly being silenced all over the country out of the fear of being labeled a "homophobe" or other insults along those lines. It's just as wrong and just as discriminatory for those who would deny rights to someone based on their gender or gender identification. And it's why I've said all along that this issue has relatively nothing to do with "gay rights"--but everything about silencing religion and morality in our country.
  15. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    I'm not addressing you on this topic anymore. You are free to read my responses to jdr, Hall, and whomever else might wish to carry on this debate if you still wish to read my opinions.

    But given your gross distortions of my position and opinions and completely ignoring anything that doesn't quite fit your agenda, I've lost my faith in your ability to continue this debate.

    I do still think highly of you as a poster though and to hearing your thoughts on other subjects.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,150
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,926
    Yeps, I edit a bit. Tend to say things I regret and would prefer to just have a conversation. As it is, I I actually agree with you on this point. Fair enough.
  17. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,150
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,926
    Just as it would with separate but equal laws. There would be plenty of legal guns for hire to come up with novel arguments to exploit the difference, including using the very existence of a different form as evidence that the government intended such a difference. If it's going to be the same, issue the same form and you diminish this opportunity for exploitation of the law. Religious organizations would still be free to believe it a sin so it would not be capitulation.

    If their voices seem silenced, it's not really for the reason you may think. Meeting speech with speech can sometimes naturally marginalize one side in a debate. This comes in part not from trying to silence, but as an effect of the minority group (gays in this case) tending to be more consonant, thus having a more coherent, unified voice, whereas an opposition majority tends to be all over the map, and not as well unified. It also comes from rapidly changing public opinion. Half the population now supports gay marriage, which will continue to grow further marginalizing opposition views.

    In any case, I interpreted your argument as arbitrary (I didn't mean it as a criticism of you personally) because it doesn't make sense to me that one would be in support of gay marriage yet still want to ensure a different form. I don't see any justifiable reason, not least of which because if one is willing to accept that gays should be able to marry, there can be no good reason for worrying about using the same form without recognizing that it could still harm.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2014
  18. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    I've already given several examples of why separate but equal doesn't apply. That law was overturned, in large part, because there were clear damages. Funding was not equal, maintenance of separate facilities was not equal, etc. Blacks were denied government services and benefits.

    None of that would apply with two different documents that convey identical legal rights. Gays and straight couples would be on equal legal footing. And it's hardly like the government is a model of efficiency either: there's different forms with identical functions in just about every area of admin law one might care to examine.

    As I've said all along, the only thing you or anyone else has been able to counter that is to say "well, it would be discriminatory...just because." You're predicting that it would somehow be viewed as lesser by the public and/or gay rights opponents would not stop at finding ways to make it unequal. Such arguments wouldn't be considered by the court because they have to deal with the current facts before them, not speculation about what will happen in the future (the fears you're presenting as issues wouldn't be considered ripe for judicial review).
  19. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,150
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,926
    My argument about something that has not happened is founded in history in which unequal and unfair treatment continued despite claims of legislation to the contrary. It's also founded on the history of people continuing to find ways to get around the law, both of which are relevant because they speak this current issue . Congress, not the courts would be creating the form. In this way, congress could and should consider the social effects of past legislation in other realms. But even if this argument were to come before the courts (e.g. if there were two forms), it's categorically false that justices would not or do not consider other cases even if not directly related to inform them about what the future might hold should the decide in a particular way. They might not state it in an opinion, or dress it up as something different, but they consider future implications.

    You don't believe that people so vested in preventing gays from enjoying equal rights would simply pick up their bat and ball and go home, do you? They'd much more likely fight to the bitter end, including trying to have two forms. Even if such a difference in other legal realms wouldn't matter, here it would provide them a facade of legal validation--even if paper thin--to continue challenging such a change.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  20. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    Really, all you're doing here is further proving my point: it isn't about equal rights. It's about forcing social acceptance for homosexuality.

    You're changing the debate from "this is needed for equal rights" to: "this is needed to prevent any discrimination against homosexuals." Those are two very different subjects my friend.

Share This Page