Obama says gay couples deserve same rights as all

[Darnell 8,478]

There was some change of wording for those failed 'New Immigration Acts'

that changed the word 'spouse' to 'partner'

and I'm betting that wording was changed to handle the possibility of ssm for immigration purposes.

The Acts were defeated, but I expect the wording to stay in on any new subsequent bills introduced next year.

I dunno, I see an influx of ladyboys coming in from Thailand if :

1. it passed as is and

2. other legislation got 'current' and passed for SSM.

but I don't smell any possibilities with the current House and Senate mix for both areas (SSM and immigration) to change anytime soon.

[^_^ 5,021]

Ya it's gays today, and tomorrow what...animals or some weird #######? I mean this country is going to h*ll, and to add fuel to the fire we have these gay marriages and the Dream Act. I see nothing good for this county's future if this ####### keeps up.

The things dragging this country down have nothing to do with these wedge social issues.

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

The things dragging this country down have nothing to do with these wedge social issues.

i read that as a wedgie social issue.

[SMR 368]

With a fallacious, poisonous and (I maintain) deliberate mistep in reasoning, no less moronic than the assertion that a bill decreeing it punishable by death to have sex with another man while in wedlock applies as equally and readily to men as it does to women.

You have, as yet, failed to explain why a concept of group rights is necessary. Thus, while maintaining that my so called misstep was deliberate, you have failed to explain why it was, in fact, a misstep at all.

Rights are nebulous ideals, fundamentally and necessarily resistant to rearticulation under restrictive legislation.

What is that supposed to even mean? While somewhat nebulous, perhaps, rights can, in fact, typically be stated succinctly. Furthermore, without stating them, they become what someone thinks feels good and can be trampled on or expanded at will.

Thus we hold that atemporal 'rights' (e.g. those to "family"; "equality before the law"; "the pursuit of happiness"; etc) should supercede the ever shifting parameters by which contemporary doctrine outlines our civil liberties. Your tacit assumption that rights are to be assessed solely with regard to the latter perspective is (I would assume) an act of willful ignorance on your part, likely to an end of derailing a quite straightforward debate into one of semantic pedantry.

Without a consistent semantic framework, ethical discussions degrade into what someone feels is right. While that may appeal to you, it's not a useful or consistent basis for society or laws. Your claims of my willful ignorance are a fantastic logical fallacy but fail to address my claim.

Can you give an example of a widely accepted right that has to be applied to a group in order to make sense?

A right to "family" doesn't exist. A right is something that society does not have the moral authority to take away from you. If individuals exist whom I call my family, my so-called right to family is a simple extension of my right to life and the right to life of my so-called family members. Nothing else makes them family beyond the fact that we declare it such. There is no "right" to have a partner and/or procreate. That is something that some people do. But it requires action from you and is not something that society(as a body) can provide to you nor something that society could take away from you (without violating life or inflicting bodily harm).

You're right, the fact that I am part of a majority doesn't make me correct. Same sex couples continue to be and always will be a minority and that doesn't make them wrong, either. Cuts both ways. That said, the mood in America is shifting towards marriage equality. There now is a majority of Americans in favor of marriage equality.

Certainly does cut both ways. But you're the one who brought up an appeal to the majority. I was simply stating that it was meaningless. You agree which makes me wonder why you brought it up in the first place.

That wasn't the basis for the decision, however. In fact, the court found quite the opposite. It found that the VA law that was struck down was designed precisely to perpetuate white supremacy. That finding was based on the fact that the VA law only criminalized marriages between a white person and a person of another race while not addressing at all any other interracial marriages not involving a white person. If, as you falsely claim, the decision was handed down because races are not legally definable, then that particular part of the ruling would make no sense whatsoever.

But yes, it was based on the 14th amendment. The court ruled that marriage is a basic civil right of man fundamental to our existence and that such right can not be restricted invidiously. Then, it was the racial discrimination. Now, it's discrimination based on sexual orientation. Same sex marriage will be legal in this great country of ours and it won't be decades until that happens. I even doubt it will be another decade.

Let me rephrase my answer. I agree that the right decision was reached. I don't think that a state has the power to restrict interracial marriage for the simple reason that race cannot be legally defined. As such, since a black man and a white man cannot be legally distinguished, they are both entitled to do the same things (marry a white or black women). (Clearly the gender reversed scenario is the same).

I don't necessarily agree with the particulars of the majority opinion of the case. To put my view more simply: You can't define in a legally consistent and verifiable way what an interracial marriage is, since you can't define what a black or white or hispanic person is. You can in a legally consistent and verifiable way define what a homosexual marriage is and can differentiate it from a heterosexual marriage. Because of this, the 14th amendment is not violated by a law that restricts homosexual relationships. The same rules are applying to all. Preference is not a basis for discrimination.

For emphasis, let me clarify that I don't use the SCOTUS as a justification for my opinion. They happened to come to the same conclusion that I did. That is all.

I suggest you consider a conservative voice in defense of same sex marriage. It's a very convincing argument.

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Why? I skimmed through most of it. It's just a re-hash of liberal arguments presented by a man who happens to be a conservative in other regards.

[mawilson 2,133]

NY state just passed the bill. The march goes on and those that want to stop it are in the minority.

I know! I'm very proud of New York right now

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't necessarily agree with the particulars of the majority opinion of the case.

It was a unanimous decision.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I know! I'm very proud of New York right now

You should be. Even more so since the bill passed a GOP majority state senate. It confirms that there are still some decent Republicans left in this country.

[faust-yusov 103]

You have, as yet, failed to explain why a concept of group rights is necessary. Thus, while maintaining that my so called misstep was deliberate, you have failed to explain why it was, in fact, a misstep at all.

I had presumed my analogy would be sufficiently illuminating. Your assertion that a piece of legislation worded to target a particular minority group results in equal and equitable rights across the board can be characterised as dangerously reductive and a deliberate logical misstep.

What is that supposed to even mean? While somewhat nebulous, perhaps, rights can, in fact, typically be stated succinctly. Furthermore, without stating them, they become what someone thinks feels good and can be trampled on or expanded at will.

Your intent to argue the issue of "rights" on the current, legally presumed dichotomy of "same sex"/"opposite sex" marriage is utterly inimical to the very fabric of the argument: videlicet, that "rights" (in the sense of tricky, nebulous, humanistic concerns, of which you feel it is necessary to dispose) can be infringed upon by "laws", and cannot be assessed through the lens of current legislation (in this context, that the very notion of a legally decreed disparity between same sex and opposite sex marriage is that which critically impinges rights and liberties, and not that which articulates them).

Without a consistent semantic framework, ethical discussions degrade into what someone feels is right. While that may appeal to you, it's not a useful or consistent basis for society or laws.

Precisely. Which is why it is crucial to ensure that such a framework is accurately and appropriately presented, and not engineered at the outset to be couched in myopic perspectives and convenient, suspicious and simplistic bounds.

A right to "family" doesn't exist.

http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=158

To answer your question on "group" rights: "couples rights" can be logically and simply outlined in this context as (principally) the right to marry, and (extrapolating), rights to equality before the law, happiness, and family. Clearly, as Obama initially put it, gay couples do not have the same rights as other couples. Whether you believe that this is a meaningful comment in context with the framework outlined by current legislation is irrelevant, for it is exactly the dismantling of that framework (or, at least, a portion of it) that forms the crux of the sensible and relevant debate on this issue.

Edited June 25, 2011 by faust-yusov

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Seriously I do not want any form of government telling me what I can do in my bedroom or who I can marry. If they can tell homosexuals who they can marry or do in their bedroom, they can tell me.

I really do not care a whit about who someone else has sex with or calls their husband/wife/spouse. How on earth could it possibly affect me and my family/children? Unless I allow it to, which I won't. If you feel that gays being able to marry each other has some affect on your life, you need to get better control of your life.

I just see it as a complete non-issue.

As far as destroying our country...the gay people are there, they always have been. If we ban gay marriage they WON'T say "Oh well, I can't be gay, I'll just go marry a woman" Seriously? Nothing changes either way.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

I really do not care a whit about who someone else has sex with or calls their husband/wife/spouse. How on earth could it possibly affect me and my family/children? Unless I allow it to, which I won't. If you feel that gays being able to marry each other has some affect on your life, you need to get better control of your life.

You are a liberal in spirit after all, Gary!

If I understand your post correctly and apply it as you stated, you would be okay with a 60 year-old father marrying his 18 year-old daughter then.

After all, you don't care who someone else has sex with or calls their husband/spouse and it doesn't effect you not your family/children.

Got it, Gary. Thanks for being so open about this.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You are a liberal in spirit after all, Gary!

If I understand your post correctly and apply it as you stated, you would be okay with a 60 year-old father marrying his 18 year-old daughter then.

After all, you don't care who someone else has sex with or calls their husband/spouse and it doesn't effect you not your family/children.

Got it, Gary. Thanks for being so open about this.

You betcha. I am a true liberal and always have been. I hate phony liberals that want "equal rights for all...except (insert name of group they do not like)" They can find the right to be gay and married in the constitution but not the right to bear arms. They can find the right to kill one's babies in the constitution but not the right to choose which school you send your tax money to for the bables you didn't kill.

To be perfectly crystal clear, I do not care if a 60 year old father marries his 18 year old daughter. Correct. I am perfectly OK with that. Why wouldn't I be? There should be -0- government regulation of who marries who. Why is that concept so hard to grasp?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You are okay with incest and predatory sexual relationships? I think this pro-choice mantra of yours goes a bit far.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

You are okay with incest and predatory sexual relationships? I think this pro-choice mantra of yours goes a bit far.

You never heard that song before...;"I married my grandma and now I'm my own granddad" ?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Presumably Gary has if he is ok with that.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You are okay with incest and predatory sexual relationships? I think this pro-choice mantra of yours goes a bit far.

Predatory would indicate not consensual and no I never said that is OK. Consensual sex between related adults? Who cares? Worked pretty well for the British Monarchy for a long time.

Do you really think there is some benefit to anyone caring what two adults do in the bedroom?

Phony liberals. They are just conservatives that want to regulate something else.