Why shouldn't Homosexuals have the same rights?

[Thinman]

Why would anyone in America or any other Western country be against Gay rights? I can understand that a lot of people find Gays distasteful. However, it doesn't give you the right to discriminate against them solely for this reason. When you think about it, it goes against everything America or any country should stand for.

[DaCougarMech]

Why would anyone in America or any other Western country be against Gay rights? I can understand that a lot of people find Gays distasteful. However, it doesn't give you the right to discriminate against them solely for this reason. When you think about it, it goes against everything America or any country should stand for.

as hard as it may be, you're gonna have to eventually realize that a lot of people dont hold reason in high regard

[Calhexas]

Why would anyone in America or any other Western country be against Gay rights? I can understand that a lot of people find Gays distasteful. However, it doesn't give you the right to discriminate against them solely for this reason. When you think about it, it goes against everything America or any country should stand for.

Some people dislike something that is different. And you might find that there are alot of people (especially on this board) that aren't against gay rights.

Me personally, for a time I was against them avidly, then I grew to think gays should be able to marry and all that jazz. Right now I'm in the middle. I mean I have nothing against them, but I think allowing them to marry would open up some serious problems. At least for now.

[Guardian]

Why would anyone in America or any other Western country be against Gay rights? I can understand that a lot of people find Gays distasteful. However, it doesn't give you the right to discriminate against them solely for this reason. When you think about it, it goes against everything America or any country should stand for.

Because marriage itself is not a right, its nowhere in the constitution unlike freedom of speech or religion.

If something isnt in the consititution and does not directly violate a right within the constitution then it doesnt necessarily have to be guranteed to all.

[Minotaur]

Here we go again...

It's a violation of the equal protection clause. It doesn't matter if there is a right to something in the Constitution. The Constitution gives states the right to make laws (there's your right, actually). States make laws that allow one group of people to marry, but not another. The Constitution does trump state laws; ergo, the state marriage laws violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by allowing heterosexuals to marry, but not homosexuals, when there has been no logical reason to deny homosexuals the ability to marry.

[DaCougarMech]

Because marriage itself is not a right, its nowhere in the constitution unlike freedom of speech or religion.

If something isnt in the consititution and does not directly violate a right within the constitution then it doesnt necessarily have to be guranteed to all.

then it's only guaranteed for SOME people?

for such a religiously claimed institution, it sure lends itself to be regulated by the government

[Guardian]

Here we go again...

It's a violation of the equal protection clause. It doesn't matter if there is a right to something in the Constitution. The Constitution gives states the right to make laws (there's your right, actually). States make laws that allow one group of people to marry, but not another. The Constitution does trump state laws; ergo, the state marriage laws violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by allowing heterosexuals to marry, but not homosexuals, when there has been no logical reason to deny homosexuals the ability to marry.

This is wrong, the equal protection clause was created to prevent states from creating laws that go against rights guranteed by the constitution. An example would be a state banning someone from following islam.
The clause was established to protect the bill of rights and constitution so that states could not make laws going against it.

[Guardian]

then it's only guaranteed for SOME people?

for such a religiously claimed institution, it sure lends itself to be regulated by the government

Marriage isnt a right, so saying guranteed right is the wrong wording. It can be viewed as an entitlement endorsed by the state just like qualifying for health program or being exempt from taxation, etc.

[scrizu]

Why would anyone in America or any other Western country be against Gay rights? I can understand that a lot of people find Gays distasteful. However, it doesn't give you the right to discriminate against them solely for this reason. When you think about it, it goes against everything America or any country should stand for.

What are you talking about? It sounds like you're pretty selective with your appeal to someone's rights. Why shouldn't polygamists have the right to marry everyone they like? Because it's not a 1-1 partnership? What sort of arbitrary rules are you following here? And if you're going to follow arbitrary rules, then why not follow the one that says marriage is between a man and a woman? It's only preference, something to mesh with the fashion of the day.

[DaCougarMech]

What are you talking about? It sounds like you're pretty selective with your appeal to someone's rights. Why shouldn't polygamists have the right to marry everyone they like? Because it's not a 1-1 partnership? What sort of arbitrary rules are you following here? And if you're going to follow arbitrary rules, then why not follow the one that says marriage is between a man and a woman? It's only preference, something to mesh with the fashion of the day.

it aint my style but ive never had a problem with polygamists

[Thinman]

Marriage isnt a right, so saying guranteed right is the wrong wording. It can be viewed as an entitlement endorsed by the state just like qualifying for health program or being exempt from taxation, etc.

If you look at the 1967 Supreme court decision on interracial marriage, the justices concluded marriage was a right. A excerpt from that decision. This could easily be applied to gays also.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The Loving Decision-June 12,1967.

[Guardian]

If you look at the 1967 Supreme court decision on interracial marriage, the justices concluded marriage was a right. A excerpt from that decision. This could easily be applied to gays also.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The Loving Decision-June 12,1967.

Im well aware of the court case.

You must realize the surepeme court functions much like an auditing firm, it makes opinions with reasonable assurance. Within half a century the supreme court went from saying segregation is ok to saying its not ok!! The idea behind the supreme court is to issue opinions that the white house and congress would use to either modify, get rid of, or create laws.

SCOTUS opinion is that marriage is a right, however as of now no law supports that opinion and therefore we are "riding" on a court case that could just like segregation be changed completly around in a year. Thats why important "rights" need to be part of the constitution and not burried ina court case so that regardless of whos in the supreme court we still have the right. Imagine if freedom of speech was flopped around like segregation was!

[Minotaur]

This is wrong, the equal protection clause was created to prevent states from creating laws that go against rights guranteed by the constitution.

Source?

I'll give you one showing that you are wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

The amendment provides a broad definition of national citizenship, overturning the Dred Scott case, which excluded African Americans. It requires the states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons (not only to citizens) within their jurisdictions, and was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle legal segregation, as in Brown v. Board of Education. Its Due Process Clause has driven much important and controversial case law regarding privacy rights, abortion (see Roe v. Wade), and other issues.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index...ual_protection

In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right.

Heterosexuals can marry under state laws; homosexuals cannot marry under state laws. Violation of equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

[scrizu]

it aint my style but ive never had a problem with polygamists

As long as people are clear, then, so-called gay rights logically entails so-called polygamist rights, and so on. To me it's a no-brainer, people in a society get to choose what goes on in that society. Freedom isn't license and will always entail restrictions, however those restrictions get manifest for different groups. I don't believe in gay rights if what that means is an equal status with married, child-bearing, male-female couples. It's not equal, biologically, psychologically, etc. It's wrong to conflate the two phenomena. People can love each other, sexuality can or cannot be involved, and its particular expression can vary. So what, there's no federal restriction on that, as long as adults are consenting and engaged privately.

[Guardian]

Source?

I'll give you one showing that you are wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution



http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index...ual_protection



Heterosexuals can marry under state laws; homosexuals cannot marry under state laws. Violation of equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Ive went through this before with you, lets look at the exact amendment

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


Because of the wording "citizens of United States" it therefore can be concluded the amendment is meant to protect citizens of the US to rights guranteed under the US constitution, marriage is not one of them. I recall numerous times throughout my education where I was taught this amendment was created to prevent states from violating federally granted rights for citizens.

[DaCougarMech]

As long as people are clear, then, so-called gay rights logically entails so-called polygamist rights, and so on. To me it's a no-brainer, people in a society get to choose what goes on in that society. Freedom isn't license and will always entail restrictions, however those restrictions get manifest for different groups. I don't believe in gay rights if what that means is an equal status with married, child-bearing, male-female couples. It's not equal, biologically, psychologically, etc. It's wrong to conflate the two phenomena. People can love each other, sexuality can or cannot be involved, and its particular expression can vary. So what, there's no federal restriction on that, as long as adults are consenting and engaged privately.

what do you mean by status?

if i understand you correctly, heterosexual couples are deemed a higher status than gays

are heterosexual couples with children considered higher status than those without?



the point of homosexual marriage is that 2 people who care for each other are legally bound in the same way that 2 heterosexual people do. rights after the death of a partner, for example

[Guard_Pass_old]

Because of the wording "citizens of United States" it therefore can be concluded the amendment is meant to protect citizens of the US to rights guranteed under the US constitution, marriage is not one of them. I recall numerous times throughout my education where I was taught this amendment was created to prevent states from violating federally granted rights for citizens.

You can't confer benefits for married people then exclude a category of people based on sexual orientation, that's discriminatory. That's not equal protection as quoted above by minotaur. The only reason people argue that you could is becaue of religious motivation. I could care less if gay marriage is legal cause I'm not gay, it doesn't affect my life. But, I do care that people get treated equally.

[Guardian]

You can't confer benefits for married people then exclude a category of people based on sexual orientation, that's discriminatory. That's not equal protection as quoted above by minotaur. The only reason people argue that you could is becaue of religious motivation. I could care less if gay marriage is legal cause I'm not gay, it doesn't affect my life. But, I do care that people get treated equally.

There are plenty of state entitlements that discriminate, should I be forming a parade because I pay a higher income state tax then someone making minimum wage? Should I have complained when some kids got almost all of there college paid for while I had to work 50 hours a week while a student to pay for mine?

You people need to wake up, there is countless laws that discriminate, unless they violate rights of the constitution then they are legal, thats why the continue today.

[DaCougarMech]

because gays are inmoral 90% have hiv/aids

im gonna erase them off the face of teh earth once im really in power

wow...i'll bet you go to college

[Guard_Pass_old]

There are plenty of state entitlements that discriminate, should I be forming a parade because I pay a higher income state tax then someone making minimum wage? Should I have complained when some kids got almost all of there college paid for while I had to work 50 hours a week while a student to pay for mine?

You people need to wake up, there is countless laws that discriminate, unless they violate rights of the constitution then they are legal, thats why the continue today.

You need to read more carefully. I said category of people. Obviously how much you get paid doesn't qualify you as a category of people.

[devire1]

negged for stupidity

lol.

you should save your negs for someone that is actually worthy of them.

[microsize]

Because our society is based on christianity, and religious people are the most judgemental, even though their holy things'n'stuff say the opposite. Oh, well.

[DaCougarMech]

lol.

you should save your negs for someone that is actually worthy of them.

lol. editted my post cause i ran out

[RIKTER]

What rights to straight people have that gays dont have??? I cant marry my best bud Dave either. The law forbids two men marrying each other and I would assume that means to straight men as well....now, if straight men were able to get married and not homosexual men, then you might have something there.

[DaCougarMech]

What rights to straight people have that gays dont have??? I cant marry my best bud Dave either. The law forbids two men marrying each other and I would assume that means to straight men as well....now, if straight men were able to get married and not homosexual men, then you might have something there.

well, straight couples are legally responsible for their partner's assets after death

they have the final say in such things as planning their funeral

homosexual couples dont. the dead partner's stuff might go to their family who also gets to make the decisions in the funeral

[Guard_Pass_old]

What rights to straight people have that gays dont have??? I cant marry my best bud Dave either. The law forbids two men marrying each other and I would assume that means to straight men as well....now, if straight men were able to get married and not homosexual men, then you might have something there.

My take is that if everyone has the right to marry...that also means you have the right to choose who you marry. But there's a lot more to it than just that, it's complicated.

[Minotaur]

Ive went through this before with you, lets look at the exact amendment

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


Because of the wording "citizens of United States" it therefore can be concluded the amendment is meant to protect citizens of the US to rights guranteed under the US constitution, marriage is not one of them. I recall numerous times throughout my education where I was taught this amendment was created to prevent states from violating federally granted rights for citizens.

You didn't read the explanations of the amendment that I posted, one being from Cornell University Law School. I'll take their explanation over yours.

Now please give me a source supporting your position.

[aiwass]

Because marriage itself is not a right, its nowhere in the constitution unlike freedom of speech or religion.

Just because something isn't guaranteed, that doesn't mean it can't still be granted. You'll find that a whole lot of things in society aren't guaranteed, but are granted in order to make people's lives better.

And as long as straight people are allowed to marry, your argument is completely irrelevant.

[RIKTER]

And as long as straight people are allowed to marry, your argument is completely irrelevant.

Straight men arent allowed to marry straight men, however a gay man is allowed to marry a gay/straight woman...its about gender. People of the same sex currently arent able to marry regardless of their sexual orientation.....how is that discriminatory?? I honestly could care less, but its hard to call something discriminatory when it apllies to everyone.....much like Kranes argument that a baggy pants law is discriminate towards blacks....

[halfcenturian]

Why shouldn't Homosexuals have the same rights?

Marriage is not a right. It's a privilege.