Over on Family Scholar’s Blog, Elizabeth writes:
If the state says marriage is just between two people that’s a fundamentally different understanding of marriage, one that affirms loud and clear that children do not necessarily need their mother and father. […] then the idea that children need their mother and father becomes not something supported and affirmed by the state, but instead a marginalized idea, declared off-sides from secular debate. The result? More children growing up without their own mother and father, and exposed to the risks and losses that come with it.
The truth is, our society regularly and routinely accepts that not every child needs their own mother and father. Divorce is legal even for parents with young children. Single parenthood is legal; no law forces heterosexual parents to marry, and no law forces parents to live with or even know their child, so long as its physical needs are provided for. There used to be laws and traditions punishing single mothers and their bastard children, but I assume you’re not wanting those punitive measures reinstated. Sperm donation is legal, and so is egg donation (Elizabeth may want these procedures banned). There is absolutely no legal barrier preventing capable parents from giving up their kids for adoption, if the parents want to.
In short, under our current system, there is barely any legal practice implying that “children do not necessarily need their [biological] mother and father” that is not legal and acceptable – except, of course, for same-sex marriage. Why is it acceptable to single out same-sex couples and punish them, and them only, in order to send a pro-mom-and-dad message?
No matter how you sugar-coat it, your arguments imply that it’s acceptable to consider same-sex couples and their children tools used to benefit heterosexuals. The idea that the well-being and legal equalities of queers and their children are worth supporting in their own right – rather than just garbage to be thrown away whenever, in some dubious and unproven theory, denying them equality assists heterosexual families – is completely absent from your arguments.
Children of same-sex couples are not tools used to benefit heterosexual families.
Lesbians are not tools to be used to benefit heterosexual families.
Gays are not tools to be used to benefit heterosexual families.
How many times do we have to repeat this before SSM opponents get the message? Get it so completely so that they don’t just agree in words, but so that they stop making arguments based on the unspoken premise that any amount of harm to queers and their families, however extreme, is justified by the prevention of any theoretical harm to a heterosexual, however small?
If the state says marriage is just between two people that’s a fundamentally different understanding of marriage, one that affirms loud and clear that children do not necessarily need their mother and father.
I’m skeptical of the “hey, kids, let’s send a message!” approach to lawmaking. The idea that equality matters so little that it should be circular-filed so that Elizabeth and her allies can send a pro-mom-and-dad telegram is not persuasive to me.
But let’s accept for a moment that laws send a message. What message is sent by keeping marriage cross-sex only? Refusing to allow same-sex marriages “affirms loud and clear” that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals as human beings, and that the children raised by same-sex couples are bastards, low things who deserve lesser rights and lesser protections. What effect will that message have on children raised in same-sex households? (Judging by what they write, when Elizabeth and her allies say “think about the best interests of children,” they are refering only to children raised by heterosexuals).
Elizabeth, I don’t oppose your goal of seeing more children raised by their own mom and dad. I don’t have any emotional attachment to that model, but I think social science indicates that for most children it’s probably the best way to be raised (assuming that the parents are loving, that there’s no abuse, etc). But there are so many ways to support and encourage mom-dad families that don’t involve making common cause with the worse, most hateful homophobes in the nation, and attacking the civil rights of a group of people who have already been under attack for decades and decades.
The fact that divorce rates nationwide have gone down even as homosexuals have reached a level of acceptance never before seen in the USA, is clear evidence that the goal of equality and the goals of the marriage movement do not have to be in opposition.
You wouldn’t support bringing back the traditional marriage in which husbands are the owners and controllers of all their wives’s property – even though such a change might lower the divorce rate, and thus raise the odds of children raised by mom and dad. You wouldn’t support benning cross-racial or cross-religion marriage – even though such laws might reduce the divorce rate and thus raise the odds of children raised by mom and dads.
Why is it that only same-sex parents’ rights are disposable in this battle of yours? When are you going to put your own rights on the chopping block, rather than demanding that families that already have so much less privilege than your own be the ones sacrificed to benefit families that look like your own?
…that affirms loud and clear that children do not necessarily need their mother and father.
And that should be affirmed loud and clear, because it is the truth. Children do not necessarily need their own mothers and fathers.
The vast majority of individual children do need their moms and dads, of course; and I’m happy to support non-bigoted policies to encourage and support such households.
But some children get along just fine with a mom and a mom, or a dad and a dad. There are plenty of well-adjusted children of same-sex couples who are no more neurotic or suffering from angst than the rest of us are, and you constantly try to make them invisible in your approach to discussing these issues. What’s best for “most” is not what’s best for “all.” Why is admitting that not all households are, or should be, identical so threatening to you?
The problem is Jesurgilsac, you aren’t trying at all. And we can all see that.
You say you don’t play insulting games, and you simply say “I’m not very good at it”. Well if I’m not very good at it, explain why my points not only demolished your position but that you haven’t even been able to mount any sort of recovery?
Starting over with the same discredited points is not a recovery. Why haven’t you answered the points raised? Because you can’t.
You should simply admit it and quit this documented campaign of abusive behavior.
Seriously Jesurgilsac, why do you think that plugging your ears and chanting the same discredited points over and over will earn you any respect?
Caslim: Well if I’m not very good at it, explain why my points not only demolished your position but that you haven’t even been able to mount any sort of recovery?
I’m sorry, were you under the impression that your post “demolished my position”?
The only case that Op-ed and various others have tried to make against same-sex marriage is that, they claim, procreation is the be-all and end-all of marriage, and as a same-sex couple aren’t interfertile, that means they can’t be allowed to get married.
As I’ve pointed out:
1. Mixed-sex couples who can’t have children can get married.
2. Nothing in marriage law says that a couple must be interfertile in order to get married: indeed, nothing in marriage law even says a couple must intend to have children.
3. In US divorce law, sterility or a decision not to have children isn’t an automatic reason for divorce.
And finally,
4. Op-ed opposes same-sex marriage even in cases where a same-sex couple have children.
The case for same-sex marriage is dead simple: equal civil rights for gay and straight couples. (Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero makes the case far more eloquently: you should read it. But it’s still the same case.)
No one on this thread has tried to make a real case against it: several people have tried, but have kept harping on the idea that a couple can’t get married unless they can procreate together, and as that case can be readily demolished – and has been, several times over now – there seems no reason to keep going over it.
If you want to make a case against same-sex marriage, do so.
were you under the impression that your post “demolished my position”??
Lets review.
So, if that is where you want to leave it.
Was there some refutation you had in mind that’s withstood?
The only case that Op-ed and various others have tried to make against same-sex marriage is that, they claim, procreation is the be-all and end-all of marriage
So thats how it is. You are trying to chant refuted points. You even tried to put that statement in quotes and attribute it to Op-Ed (hence #1 above).
As I’ve pointed out
As far as I’ve seen those points have not worked for you anywhere. I can’t see why you keep holding them up like that.
You can’t either or else you would have answered the question, “why do you think that plugging your ears and chanting the same discredited points over and over will earn you any respect?”
When you want to apologize for your rude behaviour, answer the question and move forward you’ll find a wealth of understanding outside of the shell you’ve concocted for yourself.
The case for same-sex marriage is dead simple: equal civil rights for gay and straight couples.
That’s not a case, that is a battle-cry to pillage and rob. So is “homophobe”.
When you get around to making a case for same-sex marriage then let us know.
So thats two big holes you haven’t addressed, you haven’t discredited marriage no matter how much you have tried to pretend that responsible procreation is not a part of it, and you have made no headway in chanting your discredited opinions over and over.
I still have no idea why you are resorting to chanting the same discredited opinion over and over. Do you think that maybe the 10th or 100th or 1000th time it will be true? If so then you are hoping to do the same thing over and over and get a different result.
But you can’t do it. Your attempts to abuse and insult have failed to support your discredited opinions.
You haven’t done it because you can’t.
You even tried to put that statement in quotes and attribute it to Op-Ed
Are you under the impression that Op-Ed is not arguing that procreation is the be-all and end-all of marriage? Suggest you re-read the Op-Ed posts in this thread.
As far as I’ve seen those points have not worked for you anywhere. I can’t see why you keep holding them up like that
You haven’t yet managed to refute any of them: I assume if you could, you would have. So, unless you manage to refute them suddenly, certainly I’m going to keep reminding you why the argument that same-sex couples can’t get married because they’re not interfertile really doesn’t work.
When you want to apologize for your rude behaviour
What exactly is rude about persistently inviting you to make your case in some more valid manner than repeating a demolished argument?
That’s not a case, that is a battle-cry to pillage and rob.
Equal civil rights is a “battle-cry to pillage and rob”? Really? Who is being pillaged, and who is being robbed?
So thats two big holes you haven’t addressed, you haven’t discredited marriage
Nor have I attempted to do so. I am, as should be clear, absolutely in favor of marriage.
matter how much you have tried to pretend that responsible procreation is not a part of it
Where, exactly, have I done this?
I still have no idea why you are resorting to chanting the same discredited opinion over and over. Do you think that maybe the 10th or 100th or 1000th time it will be true?
To be honest, I have been wondering why you are chanting the same discredited opinion over and over: do you think that maybe the 100th time you say it it will be true? You can’t seem to come up with any evidence or even any new ideas: all you can do, it seems, is insult people.
I suggest you learn proper quoting techniques. So when are you going to point to where Op_Ed said procreation was the “end-all be-all”?
When are you going to say what that even means?
Its not hard to do. You insult us by not even trying anymore.
Okay, which of the following need more refuting?
I’ll wait for you to mention one that you feel needs further comment.
Exactly. And why you keep telling me I’m insulting you when I point that out to you is beyond me.
Perhaps because you can’t do anything but accuse and abuse when your position is demolished. I hope I’m wrong about that, but so far you are proving me right.
Oh. my bad. I though you were saying that homosexual couplings need to be called married in order for equal rights.
Apparenly you were just saying that equal rights are not a battle cry to pillage and rob. Good, then you will I assume abandon this “gays need marriage for equal rights” position that you haven’t presented one decent argument for.
Great, then you see the contradiction in calling a same-sex coupling a marriage.
I guess progress can be made. I’m glad to see I was wrong about you.
Quite a few places, mostly in some pissing contest you tried to start about finding children in law. But since you have mended your ways its all water under the bridge.
I’m glad that you’ve now seen that.
Well this is water underneath the bridge too, since you have seen that my position was correct.
So what did it, you tried really really hard to validate same-sex marriage and found out you couldn’t?
Are you under the impression that Op-Ed is not arguing that procreation is the be-all and end-all of marriage?
He’s right. You’re wrong. End of story.
Oh cry me a river. The lot of you have come in with a ludicrous position that has been challenged repeatedly, and the best you have to give back is patronizing, snooty commentary that repeatedly shows your bigotry for what it is. If you’d bothered to read earlier my feelings on bigotry, you’d realise that I don’t particularly like your ilk, especially since your bigotry is threatening my family. Nothing in this debate threaten’s you or the people you love, but for me, such is not the case. That said, I’ve been WAY more polite to you than I feel is fair for someone that is outright attacking my family with their bigotry. Parse that out with your computer science degree, asshole.
Because I won’t be nice and coddling to you and your bigotry and give you a debate? I’ve spent the last week and a half on this thread watching the same tired rhetoric and the same attempts at declaring a anti-ssm debate victory by you folks, and pretty much have had enough. You’ve infested this thread with your half-assed pseudo-academic arguments of bigotry, and attempted to pass them off as discussion. You then cry foul when you’ve offended people with your meddling, bigoted attempts to divvy out rights that you fear will some how be tarnished should a faggot get their hands on them.
Actually, Captain Astute, the turd analogy was in regards to the anti-ssm argument being offered up as some priceless gem of knowledge. That said, now that you point it out, I guess it could apply to the trolls on this thread just as readily though. All attempting to pull out psuedo-academic’s to cover the tracks of bigotry.
That said, Amp, sorry for this bit of vitriol. Having vented my spleen, I feel I probably am best off leaving this thread at this point. As it is an issue near and dear, I hit my saturation point where even a modicum of politeness is too much to muster. No disrespect meant to any of the other participants in the thread, but internalizing the thinly veiled disgust and bigotry that is shown by this particular crew of anti-ssm folks is something that I’d rather not do, so I’m sluffing their nasty back off on them and getting outta dodge. See ya on the other threads!
Kim, you’re right.
“You won’t apologize and you are probably the most rude person here.”
I have to say that I resent the above assertion, and I’m not having any of it!
Though I don’t think I can quite claim the title of “Rudest Person at Alas”, I sincerely feel that I am much, much ruder than Kim.
And I’ll thank you to remember that in future.
So that’s how it is.
Kim can’t defend her position so she tries to pretend to be Op_Ed and claim that she was attacking arguments not people. Sorry Kim, no points for originality, and no points for the glaring hypocrisy.
Its all just a ruse as she fully continues to call people “bigots” as an argument, and re-affirms she really did mean to argue by calling things “turds” some more. Then someone says they are even more rude, as if that makes Kim less rude. And in the middle of it Jesurgilsac is trying to go from SSM-advocate to a me-too nodding head?
This site is clearly breaking apart at the seams and resorting to victimizing people. Instead of listening to arguments y’all just deride and mock them. What about people coming here and defending marriage has caused y’all to bust apart like this? Because its all the more obvious that they are simply right and y’all realize you can’t argue against something so obvious.
Its just that obvious. Seriously Jesurgilsac, just how is Kim right in calling things turds and bigots? Do you realize that Hitler called Jews turds and bigots? Do you realize that Hitler too tried to rise to power by claiming he was made a second class citizen behind them? How do you feel your usage differs from that heinous example of a person who was just looking for a way to loot the Jew coffers for his own megalomaniac agenda? You previously claimed you didn’t think equal rights should be used as a battle cry to pillage and plunder. But then you also claimed you didn’t play the insult game (though we’ve documented now that you do play the insult game), now you 100% tag along with Kim’s name calling.
Also, Op-Ed came in and verified that you are mis-representing his position. Thats called a straw-man. Why do you feel you have to mis-represent other’s opinions in order to discuss them? It seems plain to me that one should accurately represent someones opinion in order to discuss them.
All these things add up to y’all are obviously outclassed here. Y’all just can’t defeat something that is this right. You not only failed, you contributed to discrediting your own cause by all the rudeness and abuse you’ve given because y’all lost.
I call Godwin’s Law on Caslim! Caslim, you may now exit in disgrace.
If that is true, Jesurgilsac lost in #241.
However, lucky for Jesurgilsac, Godwin’s law is a silly game and just continues to show that you all don’t have a viable argument to present.
Simply put, y’all lost long before Godwin’s law came into this and that is obvious. Its obvious in your desperate attempt to envoke it, y’all just don’t have any good reason for same-sex marriage. But then again that was just Jake who tried.
So Jesurgilsac, why are you not answering the question? Why haven’t you presented a viable argument for validating same-sex marriage?
Dude, the reason for SSM is simple. The constitution. That’s it, there can be no further argument (if you want to argue, go read the Alas archives first). Read the constitution (especially Amend. 9, 10 & 14).
Caslim,
Comment #241 uses “President Bush is a nazi,” as an analogy to underline the ridiculous nature of an earlier comment of On Lawn. (You may want to actually read an entire comment before making assertions about it.) As such, it does not violate Godwin’s Law. And I never said anything about losing, merely about your disgrace.
I checked but marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. As far as I checked the Alas archives, I haven’t found any good reason for same-sex marriage either. As far as I’ve seen in this discussion, Alas bloggers will get angry with you and become abusive and call you names if you don’t. Thats the “end-all and be-all” of same sex marriage?
But lets face it if the archives helped you find any good reason for same sex marriage, you would have presented it. The fact is that you don’t have a good reason and you know it.
Oh, and you need to read Godwin’s law.
I know you said “whatever” is a disgrace, but it is obvious that you can’t give a good reason for same sex marriage and that is why you resort to such name calling.
Caslim,
If you can’t be bothered to actually read the archives (Lucia’s comments on constitutional law and interpretation are particularly good) and you can’t be bothered to actually debate the points there, why are you here?
Once again, a good reason for SSM is enumerated in consitutional ammendments 9, 10 & 14. And if you are either reasonable or not a complete idiot
I haven’t seen a reasonable argument against SSM yet. All I see is condescension and a refusal to even acknowledge the other side of the debate. We call that trolling round these parts.
More proof that any sufficiently advanced wingnut is indistinguishable from a troll and vice versa–surely I can’t be the first person to notice this.
So according to Jake I either see same-sex marriage in the constitution or I’m a complete idiot. I read that story, its called The Emperor’s New Clothes. I checked again and marriage and SSM is in not anywhere in the constitution. If its there then show me, don’t pretend that calling me an idiot is going to make me see something that isn’t there. But you realize its not a good argument or else you wouldn’t have been so vague and abusive about it.
By now I’m confident Jake that if you had a point you’d say it. If the archives had a point you’d no doubt have shown it. In fact, you didn’t point to any arguments in this thread which means you don’t find any arguments for SSM in this thread to be any good either. Why did you turn to the archives if there was a valid argument you could use here? Its obvious to everyone now, even you. You realized that you and the others here have failed.
So then why are you trolling? You haven’t made a reasonable argument for SSM yet. You haven’t done anything but refuse to acknowledge the points raised by F.Rottles, On Lawn, Op_Ed and others. Why do you troll? Its because you realize you don’t have any good arguments for SSM. You don’t have any points, even with this alleged arsenal of Alas archives. So why do you think calling people names is going to cover up for your failure?
Seriously Jake, I’ve been waiting for someone to make a reasonable argument for same-sex marriage. Why haven’t you done that? Why do you simply call people names who point that out to you?
Jesurgilsac, where did you go? Why did you run away? Is it because you realized can’t you support your claims? Is it because you are for marriage now because you realized there are no good arguments for SSM? But still, why did you insult people and then falsely accuse others of insulting you? Why did you misrepresent other’s arguments? Why when all the evidence is shown from your own comments do you run away? What of these points do you really think has defended your position?
I see the pattern here. And no one has yet produced any reasonable argument for SSM. I’ll keep waiting because with all this effort you all are putting into it, there must be a good reason somewhere. Why are you all keeping this reasoning hidden?
And no one has yet produced any reasonable argument for SSM.
Because at least some of them want to marry.
Your burden of proof.
I’m way ruder than Crys, though she makes up for it by being rude in more than one language. :p
Seriously Jake, I’ve been waiting for someone to make a reasonable argument for same-sex marriage.
No, you really haven’t. You aren’t interested in debating; you’re going to simply point to your blog entries as ‘proof’ that SSM is wrong, and if anyone makes a reasonable argument for SSM, you’ll pretend you never saw it.
You may be interested to know that I have posted a summary of this debate.
Dude, generate hits for your site with Google Ads or something, ‘kay?
Once again, a good reason for SSM is enumerated in consitutional ammendments 9, 10 & 14.
Jake, even better are State constitutions–one of the big reasons the ‘phobes went berserk at Judge Kramer’s decision was that it was based in the California state constitution and didn’t deal with the U.S. Constitution at all. It was a very conservatively-worded decision, and for support it relied on a bunch of laws that ALSO make the ‘phobes flip out (domestic-partner laws, paternity laws that allow non-biological parents to be presumed parents under certain circumstances) but which, being actual laws, they can’t pretend were invented by judges.
Jeff, I appreciate it. More than you know. I give you credit for engaging in a discussion. Perhaps you could explain since of course you know that everyone can enter into the institution of marriage. Its been that way probably throughout history.
Are you saying the purpose of marriage is to get whatever you want?
Mythago, I wonder what brings you to that conclusion. As I recall I answered your question with sound legal reasoning from justices from many different benches including California. Reviewing the debate we see that you replied that there was something wrong with the citing. I took you seriously enough to ask you what your problem was and you never explained.
I left the ball in your court, you’ve yet to reply to the questions I asked about your complaint, let alone the legal decisions I cited. And now you say I’m not interested in a real discussion here?
Why did you drop the ball? Why did you ask for something and then run away when it was given to you?
You keep trying, but accusations are never going to substitute or even cover the fact that you failed.
Jake, even better are State constitutions
I agree, even better are State constitutions. States from coast to coast are preserving marriage in the constitution.
However, the CA constitution doesn’t say anything about same-sex marriage either. So its no shock that decision you referenced wasn’t based in the constitution. Reading the judgment you find that the constitution was used to setting up to make the decision purely up to himself. In the end his decision was based solely on his own arbitrary judgment of what was “rational” and what wasn’t, and he falsely interpreted the power to do so from the constitution.
His dubious grab for authority was the wrong way to proceed. Through his ruling he essentially told the California public that his vote counts more than the people. In fact, his decision lends us to believe that his vote counts and theirs doesn’t. I don’t see how you can celebrate or even condone such judicial irresponsibility.
The Smelt decision (referenced previously) addressed the points that Kramer made and offered a much more reasonable, legal, and honest judgment of the matter. But we know where that went so I’ll quote it again,
I have my own copy of the briefs, but I believe they are available on line if you wish to double check my citing.
You may be interested to know that I have posted a summary of this debate.
Well, Op-Ed is lying, of course – as one might expect – but I have posted the four points that wreck the claim persistently made by opponents of same-sex marriage (and, oddly, as persistently denied) that “marriage is fundamentally related to procreation”.
The persistent claim/persistent denial that “marriage is fundamentally related to procreation” is one of the oddest and most frustrating strategies that same-sex marriage opponents use. It’s plainly nonsense, as I’ve outlined above, yet they repeat it again and again and again – and yet, whenever someone points out why it’s nonsense, they as repeatedly (sometimes in the same comment) deny they ever said it in order to deny the consequences of saying it – and then move right back to saying it again.
(Reading comments made in my absence) Aww, Caslim… you missed me! ;-)
I give you credit for engaging in a discussion.
I wish I could say the same, but I don’t believe you’re “discussing” this in good faith.
Perhaps you could explain since of course you know that everyone can enter into the institution of marriage. Its been that way probably throughout history.
Only if you’re very careful about your definition of “the institution of marriage.” (FYI, I’m talking about state recognition and the attendant rights and privileges, not private ceremonies which anyone can participate in but are not widely recognized.)
Are you saying the purpose of marriage is to get whatever you want?
No, I’m saying that if one is proposing that the state restrict marriage rights and privileges to one class of persons, then the burden of proof is on him or her to show why this restriction is necessary.
At some point in the near future I’d really like to see people address equal civil rights for gays and lesbians, rather than this f*cked up bullshit about marriage and procreation and childrearing. What the hell?
I don’t want to be an assimilated pseudo-heterosexual. EVER.
I want the same legal protections that every heterosexual gets AUTOMATICALLY. You know, little things like housing protection and job security.
How is it that a thread gets to 300+ posts and its all just dicking around about marriage? Yeah, I know, origianal topic and all, but this is exactly why I think that marriage AS A POLITICAL platform is weak, unnecessary, classist, and ultimately harmful to attaining full rights for gays and lesbians.
It’s just noise at this point folks. Noise.
I don’t need noise. My friends don’t need noise.
And if you are either reasonable or not a complete idiot
Ah, bad editing on my part. It should have continued with, “…you know that not all rights and priveleges are enumerated in the constitution. As an example, the constitution says nothing about piloting airplanes, yet no class can be excluded from the right or privilege to pilot airplanes. So your insistence that marriage is not mentioned in the constitution is only as relevant as the fact that airplanes are not mentioned in the constitution.” I hope that makes more sense.
How is it that a thread gets to 300+ posts and its all just dicking around about marriage?
Because the thread was started to DISCUSS marriage? You got past the title, right?
I want the same legal protections that every heterosexual gets AUTOMATICALLY. You know, little things like housing protection and job security.
Nobody has “job security” unless they have an employment contract or a union. Unless your state has legal protections for sexual orientation, it’s perfectly legal for your boss to fire somebody for being straight. Now, that’s not likely to happen, because there’s a hell of a lot more anti-queer bigotry than anti-straight, but as far as “legal protections” that only straights get, marriage is the big one.
Yo, mythago, thanks for reading the sentance that followed the one you quoted.
No, it is not legal to fire someone who is heterosexual, based on their heterosexuality. No one can lose their housing based on their heterosexuality.
No, it is not legal to fire someone who is heterosexual, based on their heterosexuality. No one can lose their housing based on their heterosexuality.
Sorry, you are mistaken, Q Grrl. Sexual preference/orientation/behavior is not a protected category under most state’s laws. If the state’s laws permit at-will employment (IE, don’t require “cause” for firing) then your boss can show you the door because of your sexuality, your appearance, your body odor, or the phase of the moon.
Housing is a bit more involved because for renters there is usually a lease, and the lease generally specifies what they can kick you out for. But the landlord can certainly decline to rent to you based on your sexuality – again, excepting a couple of states with broader protections.
show me one single case where someone was denied housing or employment based on their heterosexuality.
It never happens, Q Grrl. But in theory, it’s legal if did. There’s no law against firing someone for being hetero, in most states.
In practice – which is what matters much more than theory – it’s lesbians, gays and other sexual minorities who get fired or evicted or rejected from apartments. I’m sure we agree on that.
I disagree, however, that marriage equality is classist. In many ways, marriage rights matter a lot more the less money you have. Here’s just one example: For rich people, being able to inherit a spouse’s social security benefits isn’t the end of the world, but if you’re not rich it can easily be the difference between being able to afford housing versus being homeless.
show me one single case where someone was denied housing or employment based on their heterosexuality
You may remember a few years ago that an LGBT rights group took up the side of two heterosexual waitresses, fired when a Florida bar owner decided to re-open her business as a gay men’s bar.
Yes, I know this is the weird exception. My point was that a lot of people think that there is some ‘right’ not to be fired for unfair reasons. In reality, you can be fired for any reason at all *unless* the law specifically says “Hey, that’s not an acceptable reason,” or you have a contract to the contrary.
I suppose I was thinking of class as not a money issue but first a race/ethnic issue and then secondly an economic issue.
Jesurgislac,
You mean the same discredited points? What gave you the mistaken impression that they wreck anything but your credibility?
You’ve still not answered the points made.
Before you claimed that you didn’t play the insult game, so I demonstrated more than a dozen places in this thread you did exactly that.
I suppose now that I’ve demonstrated that 1) you keep posting the same discredited points over and over and 2) you keep ignoring the problems pointed out in them that we have indeed found you complaining once again about the very thing you do. Physician heal thyself.
Now that this is all thoroughly demonstrated and documented it is safe to say that your attempts to declare any sort of victory have not withstood scrutiny.
You’ve failed to force feed those discredited points with abuse and insults, and you now realize that you have no reason left against the marriage and fundamentally tied to procreation. Well not that you are letting us read here at least.
This isn’t about missing you, its about watching you be abusive and ignore all attempts to have a factual and meaningful conversation about your points.
Run and copy and paste your discredited points if you have to? Find someplace where your problems in discussing things isn’t documented? Sure if you have to. But from what I can tell those discredited points have never worked, and you cheat yourself when you declare victory with them.
Yep I just checked that discussion. You seem to be running away from them now to. Just how long do you intend to keep running? No seriously, when are you going to own up to what you are doing?
Jeff,
I’ve been dealing with some very abusive people and hopefully salvaging some sort of meaningful conversation out of it. I can not easily tolerate being made a political victim of name calling because of my views, however. If there is something you feel I can do to extract more meaningful conversation than what I’ve done then I welcome the advise. But looking at the fact that these people keep dropping the conversation whenever things get rough for them, I doubt there is much in good faith and integrity that I could have done for them.
You brought up an interesting point however, it is refreshing that I can at least get meaningful discussion from yourself.
Indeed that could change the meaning of what I said. Rest assured that is what I was talking about too. The government allows everyone to enter into the institution of marriage, and as far as I know always has. And where someone is not allowed to find someone suitable and get married to them I call that a travesty with you.
Jake,
I think you are continuing Jeff’s point, and I thank you too for engaging in a meaningful discussion here. I appreciate that you clarified your point.
That does make more sense, again thank you. Of course the test for the 9th amendment is that a right is commonly held among the populace. Of course you knew this but for the other’s sake any statement turned into a right is not covered by the 9th. For instance the right to get $100,000 check from the government and not pay taxes is not covered by the 9th.
Usually things that require licenses are not called “rights” but privileges. But that doesn’t diminish the case you present for the 14th amendment in that no class of people can be singled out for exclusion if licenses are regulated by the state.
Only, the blind are specifically excluded. So are the elderly. Even people that were born blind are excluded. People that don’t pass the exam are excluded, and you’ll remember that one of the first uses of the 14th amendment was to remove the requirement for exams before voting (which is considered a right).
But having said that, how do you see the 14th amendment applying to marriage? Do you think that the state doesn’t have an interest in man-woman relationships?
Caslim, while I’m touched that you missed me, Godwin’s law means that your involvement in this thread is over.