U.S. Supreme court overturns anti gay marriage laws.

[beebskadoo]

But there is marriage equality in this nation.

I'm a heterosexual male. I can marry the same people homosexual males can. The same applies with women.

I look at it on an individual basis.

And if your concern is by couple, well, legally, love has no definition as far as I know. It isn't a part of the equation. The only time I think I've ever heard emotions or anything subjective mentioned legally is in respect to probably cause with a police officer.

If you look at it on an individual basis, shouldn't i be allowed to marry whatever consenting adult that I wish? Regardless of gender?

[calarahil]

You sir are from Texas, the state with the most backward education system, the highest abortion rate and the highest rate of teen pregnancy and reoccurring teen pregnancy. Some schools if not all in your state teach abstinence only education which is proven to fail.

 

I fail to understand how any of that has anything to do with ones stance on gay marriage.

 

I'm not necessarily for it or against it. I think whats becoming more popular opinion wise is not so much that people are for or against but that they feel that its non of there business really to push there views on others. And I agree. This country was founded upon the freedom of belief.

 

However, that being said as long as religious institutions aren't forced to marry people I don't care. I can think of a few religions that there religious beliefs would never permit them to wed anyone of same sex.

[eshbop]

But there is marriage equality in this nation.

I'm a heterosexual male. I can marry the same people homosexual males can. The same applies with women.

 

In the US in most states, yes, as long as that person is of the opposite sex.

 

EDIT; in my books, that's not equality

[beebskadoo]

I fail to understand how any of that has anything to do with ones stance on gay marriage.

 

I'm not necessarily for it or against it. I think whats becoming more popular opinion wise is not so much that people are for or against but that they feel that its non of there business really to push there views on others. And I agree. This country was founded upon the freedom of belief.

 

However, that being said as long as religious institutions aren't forced to marry people I don't care. I can think of a few religions that there religious beliefs would never permit them to wed anyone of same sex.

He previously was referencing education.  

[Vitalius]

If you look at it on an individual basis, shouldn't i be allowed to marry whatever consenting adult that I wish? Regardless of gender?

I was speaking of whether the rights are equal or not. Not whether it is right, morally, not legally, for same sex marriage to happen.

As calarahil pointed out, all that you said had nothing to do with this. I don't see how me referencing education has anything to do with what you said. Short of an attempted slight at me perhaps.

You seem to like to connect two things and talk about them as if they are the same when they are only slightly related as topics of conversation. This is called misdirection or perhaps a straw man, if this were a debate.

 

In the US in most states, yes, as long as that person is of the opposite sex.

Edit: that's not equality in my books.

True. Out of curiosity, what states are the exception and why? 

Edit: Legally, it is. 

[calarahil]

He previously was referencing education.  

Got it with the re redistricting comment. He is right though you know? However I think its more of a political grab more then anything to move schools around different cities, and counties have different political undertones. For example I live in Orange County California and we may have more  conservative views versus Los Angeles which will always have more of a liberal viewpoint. You start mixing the two and that starts to change.

[eshbop]

True. Out of curiosity, what states are the exception and why? 

Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Maine, Maryland, Washington, Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota. Not knowing the details of all of them but likely because the deemed it unconstitutional.

[Vitalius]

Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Maine, Maryland, Washington, Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota. Not knowing the details of all of them but likely because the deemed it unconstitutional.

Oh, so the exceptions are states that have legalized same sex marriage? 

[beebskadoo]

Got it with the re redistricting comment. He is right though you know? However I think its more of a political grab more then anything to move schools around different cities, and counties have different political undertones. For example I live in Orange County California and we may have conservative views versus Los Angeles which will always have more of a liberal viewpoint. You start mixing the two and that starts to change.

He also was saying there is still segregation in schools, it only appears so because there are large populous groups of race that can completely encompass a school district. What are they supposed to do, bus in white kids from other outside districts to make it less segregated? See I lean more libertarian and I truly believe that government shouldn't get in the way of love. If i love someone, who is to dictate if i may or may not marry them because they are the same gender as me. Keep in mind it wasn't until 1967 that interracial marriage was legalized due to a supreme court decision. See when it comes to certain Civil issues like this due to how our government operates it is sometimes a better choice to make supreme court decisions rather than a state vote. I just know it's going to turn into some sort of morale/religious debate. hope it stays civil because the mods are touchy. 

[eshbop]

Oh, so the exceptions are states that have legalized same sex marriage? 

Considering the definition of exception, the previous laws in these states and the continued existence of these overturned laws in the other states, yes.

[beebskadoo]

Oh, so the exceptions are states that have legalized same sex marriage? 

Why should the Govt be involved in marriage in the first place? It is no longer just a religious affair it is also a civil affair too. Also there are laws in my state that make it perfectly ok for an employer to fire me because I am gay, but in other states there are laws in place that protect gender and racial discrimination in the work force. 

[ofr057]

I didnt relises in the USA they dont even recognize gay couples as partners for tax purposes?, wow makes Australia seem abit less stone age

[calarahil]

He also was saying there is still segregation in schools, it only appears so because there are large populous groups of race that can completely encompass a school district. What are they supposed to do, bus in white kids from other outside districts to make it less segregated? See I lean more libertarian and I truly believe that government shouldn't get in the way of love. If i love someone, who is to dictate if i may or may not marry them because they are the same gender as me. Keep in mind it wasn't until 1967 that interracial marriage was legalized due to a supreme court decision. See when it comes to certain Civil issues like this due to how our government operates it is sometimes a better choice to make supreme court decisions rather than a state vote. I just know it's going to turn into some sort of morale/religious debate. hope it stays civil because the mods are touchy. 

I personally feel that religion will remain a thing that the supreme court was nothing in. It's still a very heated conversation for a lot of people. I feel the reason its political is because when you throw in religion it becomes a bit more political. For example my parents are LDS if a gay people wanted to be married it just wouldn't happen whether there was a law or not. However, if the government were to force it through that religious institutions had to wed people can you see how that would really get people really upset.

I'm not sure so much on segregation in schools however I kind of feel that districts try to mix in kids from poor areas with more middle class areas. Which kind of gets people a little concerned because there schools safety takes a nose dive. I used to live in Lakewood California and I would of gone to a high school where they were busing in kids from a bad part of long beach. I guess that's an example of possible segregation kinda.

[orangecat]

Thats great and all but it does not solve the problem still but it is progress. I don't understand why that law is up to the government it should be up to the people who live in America.

[beebskadoo]

I was speaking of whether the rights are equal or not. Not whether it is right, morally, not legally, for same sex marriage to happen.

As calarahil pointed out, all that you said had nothing to do with this. I don't see how me referencing education has anything to do with what you said. Short of an attempted slight at me perhaps.

You seem to like to connect two things and talk about them as if they are the same when they are only slightly related as topics of conversation. This is called misdirection or perhaps a straw man, if this were a debate.

 

True. Out of curiosity, what states are the exception and why? 

Edit: Legally, it is. 

You had mentioned there is still segregation in schools. Which is a half truth as i pointed out to calaharil

[Vitalius]

Considering the definition of exception, the previous laws in these states and the continued existence of these overturned laws in the other states, yes.

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

Why should the Govt be involved in marriage in the first place? It is no longer just a religious affair it is also a civil affair too. Also there are laws in my state that make it perfectly ok for an employer to fire me because I am gay, but in other states there are laws in place that protect gender and racial discrimination in the work force.

Note that this is directed at your last two posts (this one that's quoted and the one directly before it).

Well, that was what I was trying to point out. The "importance" or "power" that a Supreme Court decision has to really change things is based on two things:

1. Unanimity. If it's unanimous, it has great weight.

2. The dissent and the logic behind it's reasoning.

If the dissent isn't based in something strong and specific, it has no power and won't cause things to change.

Since this dissent was focused purely on DOMA and stereotyping rather than the idea of unequal rights, I am going to safely guess that nothing will come of it.

They basically side-stepped the issue.

Also, I would not equate marriage to love. They are not the same thing. Neither are sex and love. They are all related, but not the same, and by that not interchangeable. Who you love, who you marry, and who you have sex can all easily be different people. It's just assumed, unhealthily, I might add, that they are all the same person.

Government is involved with marriage because of tax reasons. When I get married, if I do, my wife will get money, insurance, and other things because our marriage is recognized by the state/government and thereby, benefits are shared between us as we are considered a single entity.

That's a major contention with same sex marriage. Most states don't recognize this for same sex marriage as they define marriage as between one man and one woman. The Mormons also have a tough time due to polygamy (which is illegal, but eh).

Not sure on the whole "fire you if you are gay" thing. I don't know much about that.

Edit: Yes, but my point was to show how important Supreme Court decisions can be, and can fail. Not to talk about education.

[calarahil]

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Note that this is directed at your last two posts (this one that's quoted and the one directly before it).

Well, that was what I was trying to point out. The "importance" or "power" that a Supreme Court decision has to really change things is based on two things:

1. Unanimity. If it's unanimous, it has great weight.

2. The dissent and the logic behind it's reasoning.

If the dissent isn't based in something strong and specific, it has no power and won't cause things to change.

Since this dissent was focused purely on DOMA and stereotyping rather than the idea of unequal rights, I am going to safely guess that nothing will come of it.

They basically side-stepped the issue.

Also, I would not equate marriage to love. They are not the same thing. Neither are sex and love. They are all related, but not the same, and by that not interchangeable. Who you love, who you marry, and who you have sex can all easily be different people. It's just assumed, unhealthily, I might add, that they are all the same person.

Government is involved with marriage because of tax reasons. When I get married, if I do, my wife will get money, insurance, and other things because our marriage is recognized by the state/government and thereby, benefits are shared between us as we are considered a single entity.

That's a major contention with same sex marriage. Most states don't recognize this for same sex marriage as they define marriage as between one man and one woman. The Mormons also have a tough time due to polygamy (which is illegal, but eh).

Not sure on the whole "fire you if you are gay" thing. I don't know much about that.

Edit: Yes, but my point was to show how important Supreme Court decisions can be, and can fail. Not to talk about education.

 

This is where I'm going to take the defense here. You really ought to do your research with polygamy with the LDS (mormon) faith. polygamy does not transpire within our religion. There is another faith that used to be called the reorganized church or latter day saints which you saw on the news from Arizona but that isn't the church of latter day saints (LDS aka Mormons) We do not practice that. People of that faith have to be interviewed by there pastor and they have to be found worthy.  I'm not saying this to really make you upset really just that people need to understand the difference because frankly its offensive to me well my family really I'm not a practicing member.

[beebskadoo]

I personally feel that religion will remain a thing that the supreme court was nothing in. It's still a very heated conversation for a lot of people. I feel the reason its political is because when you throw in religion it becomes a bit more political. For example my parents are LDS if a gay people wanted to be married it just wouldn't happen whether there was a law or not. However, if the government were to force it through that religious institutions had to wed people can you see how that would really get people really upset.

I'm not sure so much on segregation in schools however I kind of feel that districts try to mix in kids from poor areas with more middle class areas. Which kind of gets people a little concerned because there schools safety takes a nose dive. I used to live in Lakewood California and I would of gone to a high school where they were busing in kids from a bad part of long beach. I guess that's an example of possible segregation kinda.

Well I haven't seen any hint of evidence of government forcing churches to wed gays. See the founding fathers understood how religion corrupts political policies. I know Gay rights are a 'touchy' subject but I DO BLAME RELIGION for that and it's showing it's ugly head in our government. But the facts are LGBT rights are not equal to others. Not that we are different in any way. It's a fact that in my state and in several other states that if i were fired because i was gay, there isn't any legal action i can take because there are no laws that protect me. 

[Vitalius]

This is where I'm going to take the defense here. You really ought to do your research with polygamy with the LDS (mormon) faith. polygamy does not transpire within our religion. There is another faith that used to be called the reorganized church or latter day saints which you saw on the news from Arizona but that isn't the church of latter day saints (LDS aka Mormons) We do not practice that. People of that faith have to be interviewed by there pastor and they have to be found worthy.  I'm not saying this to really make you upset really just that people need to understand the difference because frankly its offensive to me well my family really I'm not a practicing member.

Sorry, but I just want to point out that both LDS and this other sect are both considered Mormons. Much like Baptists and Methodists are both considered Christians. 

I'm not saying you or they practice polygamy, but some Mormons do. 

[beebskadoo]

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Note that this is directed at your last two posts (this one that's quoted and the one directly before it).

Well, that was what I was trying to point out. The "importance" or "power" that a Supreme Court decision has to really change things is based on two things:

1. Unanimity. If it's unanimous, it has great weight.

2. The dissent and the logic behind it's reasoning.

If the dissent isn't based in something strong and specific, it has no power and won't cause things to change.

Since this dissent was focused purely on DOMA and stereotyping rather than the idea of unequal rights, I am going to safely guess that nothing will come of it.

They basically side-stepped the issue.

Also, I would not equate marriage to love. They are not the same thing. Neither are sex and love. They are all related, but not the same, and by that not interchangeable. Who you love, who you marry, and who you have sex can all easily be different people. It's just assumed, unhealthily, I might add, that they are all the same person.

Government is involved with marriage because of tax reasons. When I get married, if I do, my wife will get money, insurance, and other things because our marriage is recognized by the state/government and thereby, benefits are shared between us as we are considered a single entity.

That's a major contention with same sex marriage. Most states don't recognize this for same sex marriage as they define marriage as between one man and one woman. The Mormons also have a tough time due to polygamy (which is illegal, but eh).

Not sure on the whole "fire you if you are gay" thing. I don't know much about that.

Edit: Yes, but my point was to show how important Supreme Court decisions can be, and can fail. Not to talk about education.

Why is it so bad if we change the law to make it OK for a group of people that have been demonized and outcast from society to be allowed to marry? I love my boyfriend and would enjoy the fact that i was able to further cement my love by marriage. Thus entitling me to be able to make decisions regarding him if he gets sick and is in the hospital. just as an example. 

[Vitalius]

beebskadoo, on 26 Jun 2013 - 3:14 PM, said:

Well I haven't seen any hint of evidence of government forcing churches to wed gays. See the founding fathers understood how religion corrupts political policies. I know Gay rights are a 'touchy' subject but I DO BLAME RELIGION for that and it's showing it's ugly head in our government. But the facts are LGBT rights are not equal to others. Not that we are different in any way. It's a fact that in my state and in several other states that if i were fired because i was gay, there isn't any legal action i can take because there are no laws that protect me.

And I fully agree such laws that allow this should be repealed or laws should be made to protect you based on your sexuality.

However, that doesn't extend to marriage, unless it's something like DOMA. If it's specifically targeting a demographic, I'm against it.

Simply put, I'm fine with negative rights (those are rights which prevent the government from doing something) and am completely against positive rights (rights which require the government to actively do something) with few exception.

I haven't gone over all of them, so YMMV with that statement.

Edit: As to your latest post (just above this one), that's talking about the moral/ethical aspect and I won't talk about it beyond "I'm against it." Call me close minded if you wish, but I do this so the thread won't be locked and so that it doesn't devolve to a religious/moral debate.

I've actively avoided that this whole time.

[beebskadoo]

And I fully agree such laws that allow this should be repealed or laws should be made to protect you based on your sexuality.

However, that doesn't extend to marriage, unless it's something like DOMA. If it's specifically targeting a demographic, I'm against it.

Simply put, I'm fine with negative rights (those are rights which prevent the government from doing something) and am completely against positive rights (rights which require the government to actively do something) with few exception.

I haven't gone over all of them, so YMMV with that statement.

Edit: As to your latest post (just above this one), that's talking about the moral/ethical aspect and I won't talk about it beyond "I'm against it." Call me close minded if you wish, but I do this so the thread won't be locked and so that it doesn't devolve to a religious/moral debate.

I've actively avoided that this whole time.

I have noticed there was some tiptoeing going on there. But i understand this forum doesn't like that. But there are people that are more overbearing with what there favorite Gpu maker is and they don't get shut up. I would love to delve into that side of this argument because i'm a lot more articulate about that than I am on the legal side. 

[beebskadoo]

Why is it so bad if we change the law to make it OK for a group of people that have been demonized and outcast from society to be allowed to marry? I love my boyfriend and would enjoy the fact that i was able to further cement my love by marriage. Thus entitling me to be able to make decisions regarding him if he gets sick and is in the hospital. just as an example. 

However I extend the offer if you would like to PM me

[beebskadoo]

ANYWAYS............To all of our LGBT members in the forums, hopefully it's going to get a lot better from here. 

[calarahil]

Sorry, but I just want to point out that both LDS and this other sect are both considered Mormons. Much like Baptists and Methodists are both considered Christians. 

I'm not saying you or they practice polygamy, but some Mormons do. 

Yea don't worry about it I didn't sense you were being mean spirited. I actually on a side  don't know if the RLDS people want to be considered mormon anymore. I know its really ticked off the LDS church.

 

I don't see anything really wrong with this discussion really.

 

The one thing I really like about linustechtips forums is people seem very nice and kind. And I've been on forums were people are mean spirited from time to time.

 

It's not a crime to talk about things that have value in todays world. And to have an opinion as long as others opinions are respected in which case I think they are. Just my 2 cents really.