JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

OffTopic

Surf a Flood of random discussion.

This thread is inspired by another: view original post

Edited by Recon Number 54: 5/28/2013 1:27:47 AM
31

I solved the Gay Marriage issue

It's so God damn easy I don't get why no one thought of this yet. I posted this earlier a few months back but I think it was ignored. Before you start flaming me for my warped view of reality, at least read the whole thing Give Civil Unions the same benefits as Marriage, and let Heterosexual couples be allowed to have Civil Unions. That would eliminate any "Separate but Equal" bullshit out of the water. But wait, there's more! Legalize Gay Marriage across the country, but let individual churches choose whether or not to accept the marriages. If Gay couples really wanted marriage they should have no problem finding a small local church to hold their wedding, and if they cant find a church to approve of it, there is always a Government equivalent with the same benefits. Bam! Boom! Solved. Where's my medal?

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

View Entire Topic
  • [quote]That would eliminate any "Separate but Equal" bullshit out of the water. [/quote]No it doesn't. Do you know WHY separate but equal was declared unconstitutional? I didn't until I started to study law. It is because separate is INHERENTLY unequal- unconstitutional. It isn't a matter of keeping the rights the same. In regards to blacks vs. whites, if colored bathrooms were just as pristine as white bathrooms, it STILL would be unconstitutional. This is because the Supreme Court said the reason separate but equal is unconstitutional is because by separating the two things, you are inherently saying they are different and one thing is 'worse' than the other so it has to be kept separate. The only reason colored people had to be separate was because they were 'less' than white people. This caused a psychological difference between the two and that psychological effect on the minds of colored people meant they could not be equal after all. In other news... [quote]Give Civil Unions the same benefits as Marriage, and let Heterosexual couples be allowed to have Civil Unions.[/quote]In the Wisconsin State Constitution at least, it is illegal to have Civil Unions have the same rights as Marriage. The term used is anything 'substantially similar' to marriage in a domestic partnership is unconstitutional because in the state constitution marriage is strictly between a man and woman- that is specified directly in the law. Therefore gay rights activists in the state have to defend domestic partnerships between two tracts: Both that the rights are different enough that domestic partnership should be allowed, and that the process into which you ENTER a domestic partnership is different enough to allow it to exist. If either of those two things were the same, domestic partnership could be completely eliminated in the state. So your act would actually STOP 'gay marriage,' not promote it. [quote]let individual churches choose whether or not to accept the marriages.[/quote]And just to add, to enter a domestic partnership all you have to do, again at least in Wisconsin though I imagine it extends elsewhere, is to live with the other person for 30 days, one of the parties must live in the county you'll be married in for the few days, and sign a piece of paper. No church or marriage needed.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

    6 Replies in this Sub-Thread
    • [quote]Not to mention he doesn't fully counter the argument, [/quote]So he 'partially' counters it? Exactly what 'portion' of an argument do you have to debunk for it to no longer be valid? I can toss you some more straws if you want. [quote]Except it gives everyone what they want. Claiming that it's wrong because of the "Separate but Equal" clause doesn't make sense simply because it's establishing what we already know.[/quote]What somebody WANTS doesn't matter when both the law and the supreme court state that according to the constitution it cannot happen. Again: What you suggest is inherently against the constitution. That is not up for debate. That's expressly written. Your idea is 'wrong' because of the Separate but Equal judgement. Period. [quote]It's still a marriage to everyone's eyes no matter how you look at it, and that's all they want. Everyone just says it's just like any other marriage except there's two husbands/wives instead of one. [/quote]Again, it's because you're making a distinction. You're saying that one thing is not good enough or shouldn't be allowed into something simply because of what it is- regardless of whose choice that is. Therefore you are causing a psychological difference which according to the Supreme Court means it is inherently unequal even though it is separate. That is the very basis of the judgement. [quote]And with this, there would be legal benefits to Civil Unions, exactly the same is Marriage.[/quote]Which would automatically mean domestic partnerships would be outlawed because they are substantially similar to marriage which is expressly against some state constitutions. Poof- you've just stopped the possibility of gays ever having sanctioned relationships ever again. [quote] The problem is that I want to start removing the benefits from marriage because the Government shouldn't be involved in it. [/quote]Marriage is a government tool first, a religious tool second. [quote]Would you still complain if Civil Unions had more benefits than Marriage?[/quote]Uh... yes. That would still cause the exact same problem except it would actually affect me. Of course I would complain that's a ridiculous question. [quote] Seriously, I can't support a system that just gives benefits to marry couples, they obviously want something in return, thus defeating the point of marriage. [/quote]Unfortunately it isn't your choice what the 'point' of marriage is.

      Posting in language:

       

      Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

      • [quote]So he 'partially' counters it? Exactly what 'portion' of an argument do you have to debunk for it to no longer be valid? I can toss you some more straws if you want. [/quote] Partially countering an argument isn't the same as completely countering, especially when he's giving counter arguments also. [quote]What somebody WANTS doesn't matter when both the law and the supreme court state that according to the constitution it cannot happen. Again: What you suggest is inherently against the constitution. That is not up for debate. That's expressly written. Your idea is 'wrong' because of the Separate but Equal judgement. Period.[/quote] But they're still following the Constitution because you're still getting your marriage. The difference between a Civil Union and Marriage in here would be like a difference between McDonald's and Burger King, it's just a different title nothing more. [quote]Again, it's because you're making a distinction. You're saying that one thing is not good enough or shouldn't be allowed into something simply because of what it is- regardless of whose choice that is. Therefore you are causing a psychological difference which according to the Supreme Court means it is inherently unequal even though it is separate. That is the very basis of the judgement.[/quote]What?! The whole thing is invalid cause I made the distinction between the two?! It's the exact same marriage as everything else, but it's unequal cause some random Joe called it a Gay Marriage? What about Interracial Marriages? How does that work? [quote]Which would automatically mean domestic partnerships would be outlawed because they are substantially similar to marriage which is expressly against some state constitutions. Poof- you've just stopped the possibility of gays ever having sanctioned relationships ever again.[/quote]But state laws have to follow federal Laws don't they? If this was legal on the Federal Level wouldn't the state laws be "poof" and not Marriage? [quote]Marriage is a government tool first, a religious tool second.[/quote]I'M NOT CALLING IT A RELIGIOUS TOOL YOU TOOL! [quote]Uh... yes. That would still cause the exact same problem except it would actually affect me. Of course I would complain that's a ridiculous question.[/quote]What if new Marriages went back to the way it was before Government benefits came into the picture? The Government just gives you two the green light. If you chose to pick that, why would people complain? it would be all about your choice. [quote]Unfortunately it isn't your choice what the 'point' of marriage is.[/quote]I'm asking what the point of the benefits are. I'm pretty sure anyone who was in a SERIOUS marriage didn't think about the benefits when getting married, so what is the point in the benefits? [u]Why are they given to married couples?[/u]

        Posting in language:

         

        Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon