Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Quote:
Why should gay people have to go through extra and expensive legal arrangments that heterosexuals don't?

:? Everyone makes those arrangements, unless they are idiots.
Blatantly ignorinig the substance of the question. Marriage takes care of the basics, absent any overriding legal arrangements. Why should gay people be denied these default protections?

Gays are not denied them. People who are not married are denied the "default protections."
False statement. Gay people who are married can't get their marriages recognized by the government. It isn't that they aren't married - it's that the government won't give them any recognition.

Quote: Gays simply choose not to be married in the legal definition of the word. If they choose such then they are going to have to do extra things.
The problem is that the legal definition unfairly excludes them, not that they have chosen to do something outside the legal definition.

Quote: You need to understand that you are not being denied anything.
We are being denied, a fact that I'm quite convinced you understand perfectly well but choose to stubbornly pretend is something other than what it is - the government's refusel to recognize our marriages.

Quote: You just decided you don't want to be married in the legal sense of the word but you want your defintion of marriage to mean something. Well it doesn't. Tough luck. Now you have to change a majority in your own state to think like you.
Selfish. No other way to describe that attitude. You want to preserve a status quo that you know is unfair, giving special privileges to heterosexual couples without a rational basis for doing so.

Quote: Again, if you are getting ready to enter into matrimony and do not get these arrangements setup -- outside the "default" -- you are an idiot.
Namecalling is unproductive and you're just doing it to avoid the real issue.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Quote:
Why should gay people have to go through extra and expensive legal arrangments that heterosexuals don't?

:? Everyone makes those arrangements, unless they are idiots.
Blatantly ignorinig the substance of the question. Marriage takes care of the basics, absent any overriding legal arrangements. Why should gay people be denied these default protections?

Gays are not denied them. People who are not married are denied the "default protections."
False statement. Gay people who are married can't get their marriages recognized by the government. It isn't that they aren't married - it's that the government won't give them any recognition.

Squatters are NOT homeowners, depsite what they say.

Quote: Quote: Gays simply choose not to be married in the legal definition of the word. If they choose such then they are going to have to do extra things.
The problem is that the legal definition unfairly excludes them, not that they have chosen to do something outside the legal definition.

No it doesn't unfaily exclude them. The laws do not exclude anyone. There is no equal rights violation here, as it is fairly plain to see. You can marry anyone of the oppiste sex who would like to marry you. You are not being denied your supposed right to marry.

Quote: Quote: You need to understand that you are not being denied anything.
We are being denied, a fact that I'm quite convinced you understand perfectly well but choose to stubbornly pretend is something other than what it is - the government's refusel to recognize our marriages.

A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Quote: Quote: You just decided you don't want to be married in the legal sense of the word but you want your defintion of marriage to mean something. Well it doesn't. Tough luck. Now you have to change a majority in your own state to think like you.
Selfish. No other way to describe that attitude. You want to preserve a status quo that you know is unfair, giving special privileges to heterosexual couples without a rational basis for doing so.

Congrats, you just called John Galt selfish.

But I digress. Heterosexual couples don't get special privledges. It just so happens that they are the majority of people (as nature would naturally create) and that they happen to be unneffected in a negative way by these laws. What you are claiming is that non-home owners should get home owners insurance.

Quote: Quote: Again, if you are getting ready to enter into matrimony and do not get these arrangements setup -- outside the "default" -- you are an idiot.
Namecalling is unproductive and you're just doing it to avoid the real issue.

No, I'm trying to help people out here. People really ought to think more about the future than the here and now.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Squatters are NOT homeowners, depsite what they say.
Home ownership and marriage are not equivalents. Comparing the two this way is asinine.

Quote: No it doesn't unfaily exclude them. The laws do not exclude anyone. There is no equal rights violation here, as it is fairly plain to see. You can marry anyone of the oppiste sex who would like to marry you. You are not being denied your supposed right to marry.
I am being denied the right to choose a marriage partner appropriate for my sexual orientation when there is no justification for doing so. If the situation were reversed would you think it was fair to deny heterosexuals?

Quote: A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
And we're back to 'majority rules' and the evils of democracy creating a tyranny of the majority, whereby they can basically do whatever they want to minorities simply because they have the power.

Quote: Congrats, you just called John Galt selfish.
And I'm sure whatever response I'd like to make to that would get me banned, so I'll refrain.

Quote: But I digress. Heterosexual couples don't get special privledges. It just so happens that they are the majority of people (as nature would naturally create) and that they happen to be unneffected in a negative way by these laws.
You'd sing a very different song if you weren't part of that majority.

Quote: What you are claiming is that non-home owners should get home owners insurance.
Bad analogies gather no points.

Quote: No, I'm trying to help people out here. People really ought to think more about the future than the here and now.

If this is your version of helping, we don't want or need your 'help'.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Squatters are NOT homeowners, depsite what they say.
Home ownership and marriage are not equivalents. Comparing the two this way is asinine.

No it is very apt. Why is it apt you ask? Because ahomeowner legally owns the house. A squatter pretends heowns the house but has no legal rights to it whatsoever. He then complains that the government is trying to take away what can't be his to begin with.

Quote: Quote: No it doesn't unfaily exclude them. The laws do not exclude anyone. There is no equal rights violation here, as it is fairly plain to see. You can marry anyone of the oppiste sex who would like to marry you. You are not being denied your supposed right to marry.
I am being denied the right to choose a marriage partner appropriate for my sexual orientation when there is no justification for doing so. If the situation were reversed would you think it was fair to deny heterosexuals?

Talk about asinine; why would it ever be reversed? What a strange world that wouldbe -- and short lived! The justifications I havediscussedwith you before but you deny that they are rational. All that is needed is a rational basisto stand up against the Supreme Court, and popular majority stateside to standup to the Constitution.

Quote: Quote: A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
And we're back to 'majority rules' and the evils of democracy creating a tyranny of the majority, whereby they can basically do whatever they want to minorities simply because they have the power.

Yes, but states are democracies. The Federal government is too, even though it wasn't supposed to be, but stateside I accept this position.

9 in 10 white Americans don't think that Katrina relief had anything to do withrace. 6 in 10 blacks do. What doesthis show? It shows two things. It shows a complete disconnect between mainstream America and blacks. Secondly, it shows that playing the race card on this wont work as there has to bea substaintal minority of whites sympathetic to the BS coming out of people like Rev. Jesse Jackson or else no one will listen. What does this mean about gay rights? It means that without a very substantial minority if not majority of heterosexual support you can't get your agenda through. But this is all policy stuff and other people have aright to push their agendas that are opposed to yours. May the best propogandist win.

Quote: Quote: Congrats, you just called John Galt selfish.
And I'm sure whatever response I'd like to make to that would get me banned, so I'll refrain.

Do you like to read books?

Quote: Quote: But I digress. Heterosexual couples don't get special privledges. It just so happens that they are the majority of people (as nature would naturally create) and that they happen to be unneffected in a negative way by these laws.
You'd sing a very different song if you weren't part of that majority.

How do you know, and why is it relevant?

Quote: Quote: What you are claiming is that non-home owners should get home owners insurance.
Bad analogies gather no points.

Again, very apt and here is why. If you don't get legally married you don't get the "default" wills. If you don't legally own a house you can't get home owners insurance. Ta-da.

Quote: Quote: No, I'm trying to help people out here. People really ought to think more about the future than the here and now.

If this is your version of helping, we don't want or need your 'help'.

OK, then be stupid and don't get a will done. Not my problem. Last time I be alturistic.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Squatters are NOT homeowners, depsite what they say.
Home ownership and marriage are not equivalents. Comparing the two this way is asinine.

No it is very apt. Why is it apt you ask? Because ahomeowner legally owns the house. A squatter pretends heowns the house but has no legal rights to it whatsoever. He then complains that the government is trying to take away what can't be his to begin with.
You would apparenlty have us believe that gay people can't form family units and thus can't be married, making them squatters on the property of heterosexuals. Let's break it down:

1) Gay couples do form family units, just as heterosexual couples do. Children are optional and they don't have to be biological for the grouping to be recognizable as a family unit.

2) Marriage is the formal declaration by competent, unrelated adults that they have agreed to form a family unit. If gay people can form family units (and they can), then they can make such a declaration (which they do) and be considered married (which they often are by family and close friends, just not the government and the anti-gay bigots that support a public policy of inequality).

Gay couples are not 'squatters' on the property of heterosexuals because that group doesn't own the word 'marriage', nor the concept it represents.

Quote: Talk about asinine; why would it ever be reversed? What a strange world that wouldbe -- and short lived!
Irrelevant. I'm merely asking you to 'walk a mile in the shoes' of a gay person, not proposing a new world order.

Quote: The justifications I havediscussedwith you before but you deny that they are rational.
Because they aren't and you have not proved otherwise.

Quote: All that is needed is a rational basisto stand up against the Supreme Court
Which you don't have...

Quote: and popular majority stateside to standup to the Constitution.
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to rely on popular majority opinion about something like marriage just because you're speaking of the division between the federal and state governments.

Quote: Yes, but states are democracies. The Federal government is too, even though it wasn't supposed to be, but stateside I accept this position.
As you might guess, I'm quite in favor of changing that situation, at least at the federal government. States are not pure democracies - they rely on the principle of democratic representation, not government by referenda, and the trend toward the latter is leading this country in a very disturbing direction.

Quote: 9 in 10 white Americans don't think that Katrina relief had anything to do withrace. 6 in 10 blacks do.
Link?

Quote: What doesthis show? It shows two things. It shows a complete disconnect between mainstream America and blacks. Secondly, it shows that playing the race card on this wont work as there has to bea substaintal minority of whites sympathetic to the BS coming out of people like Rev. Jesse Jackson or else no one will listen. What does this mean about gay rights?
Nothing whatsoever in my opinion.

Quote: It means that without a very substantial minority if not majority of heterosexual support you can't get your agenda through. But this is all policy stuff and other people have aright to push their agendas that are opposed to yours. May the best propogandist win.
You mean the one with more money and established power.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Congrats, you just called John Galt selfish.
And I'm sure whatever response I'd like to make to that would get me banned, so I'll refrain.
Do you like to read books?
Irrelevant.

Quote: Quote: Quote: But I digress. Heterosexual couples don't get special privledges. It just so happens that they are the majority of people (as nature would naturally create) and that they happen to be unneffected in a negative way by these laws.
You'd sing a very different song if you weren't part of that majority.

How do you know, and why is it relevant?
Because your responses portray you as typical of the sort of person who loves majority rule only so long as it suits a particular agenda.

Quote: Quote: Quote: What you are claiming is that non-home owners should get home owners insurance.
Bad analogies gather no points.

Again, very apt and here is why. If you don't get legally married you don't get the "default" wills. If you don't legally own a house you can't get home owners insurance. Ta-da.
Last I knew the government hadn't yet developed a way to keep gay people from buying houses.

Quote: Quote: Quote: No, I'm trying to help people out here. People really ought to think more about the future than the here and now.

If this is your version of helping, we don't want or need your 'help'.

OK, then be stupid and don't get a will done. Not my problem. Last time I be alturistic.
More namecalling in avoidance of the issue. Shame on you.

[Enoch]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: I'm merely asking you to 'walk a mile in the shoes' of a gay person, not proposing a new world order.

Unfortunately, very few people have the willingness to actually try to see things from the other side. They may be afraid that if they did that, they may not like their own point of view anymore.

[StrangerWitCandy]

i'm sorry but every time i hear the arguement that "gays can already marry anyone they want to... of the opposite sex" i just laugh because its so rediculous. i mean the point of the whole debate is gays marrying EACH OTHER. why the hell would a gay person want to marry a straight person, or vice versa? come back to earth, people. folks used to say the same thing to argue against interracial marriages, "people already can marry anyone they want to... of the same race. no denial of equality!" did that justify it? no... its just sticking your head in the sand and acting like people aren't really being denied equal rights.

[Wolverine]

To the anti's:
There are not commitiing force or fraud right? Then let them do whatever they fancy. I don't really see what the big deal is. Let people live thier life the way they want to. Stop wanting control.

"I'm the one who going to die when its time for mr to die, so let me live my life the way I want too...." Jimi Hendrix - If a 6 was 9