Political Crossfire Forums

[Rico]

Quote: The government's blessings shouldn't even matter. My point is it is not eroding anyone's dignity, and not slapping anyone in the face to tell them the government will not bless their marriage.

So if the government allowed homosexuals to get married, but denied it to heterosexuals, it wouldn't be a slap in the face to heterosexuals?

Quote: We should go back to the Crown and be under just one tyrrant instead of nine.

I happen to trust the Courts. They're qualified, they're experts on law, and they have the unique ability to be (somewhat) unbiased in their decisions, since they have nothing at stake. I don't know of any better alternative.

[John Galt]

Rico wrote: Quote: The government's blessings shouldn't even matter. My point is it is not eroding anyone's dignity, and not slapping anyone in the face to tell them the government will not bless their marriage.

So if the government allowed homosexuals to get married, but denied it to heterosexuals, it wouldn't be a slap in the face to heterosexuals?

:lol: What? The reason why we have to ask the government to be married is long ago blacks who wanted to marry whites, and vice versa, had to do so. George Washington didn't got get a marriage license. It was only after the Civil War that they appeared. The despotic Courts ruled that everyone, instead of no one, must ask the government to marry. But besides, why would the government do that? Heterosexual-only government sanctioned marriages pass the rational basis test, as it is rational (since heterosexuals are capable of creating new tax payers and if they are raised in a stable enviornment they are more likely to themselves be well off and thus be able to be leeched off of by the government).

Quote: Quote: We should go back to the Crown and be under just one tyrrant instead of nine.

I happen to trust the Courts. They're qualified, they're experts on law, and they have the unique ability to be (somewhat) unbiased in their decisions, since they have nothing at stake. I don't know of any better alternative.

That's thespirit -- let people who "know what they are doing" take care of everything for you! :lol: Have you read Marbury? The fact that you think it's good that these people can control everything in our lives (just the other day it came to light in the Washington Post that district courts and courts of appeals have ruled and have affirmed decisions that took children from smoker-parent and gave them to non-smoker-parent, because we can't smoke in our own homes anymore... wait till they tell us what we can eat, etc., the fascists will never stop) means their coup was succesful. They are unelected, unaccountable destroyers of the Constitution. The Federal Judiciary was never meant to have such unbalanced power to do anything.

A better alternative? Remove their power of judicial review and have it placed back with it's rightful owners -- the people -- whom they usurped it from long ago.

[LDA]

John Galt wrote: There are plenty of movies about lesbians. PLENTY.

I've seen a few of them myself. =P

I can really only say one thing about this movie: it isn't political propoganda. I wouldn't critisize it because it doesn't have enough of this or that. It's a movie, it has some homosexuality in it, and that's that. I'll probably see it, as I hear it's a generally good movie. IGN gave it 5 stars, and I don't think I've ever seen that before.

[Rico]

Quote: What? The reason why we have to ask the government to be married is long ago blacks who wanted to marry whites, and vice versa, had to do so. George Washington didn't got get a marriage license. It was only after the Civil War that they appeared. The despotic Courts ruled that everyone, instead of no one, must ask the government to marry. But besides, why would the government do that? Heterosexual-only government sanctioned marriages pass the rational basis test, as it is rational (since heterosexuals are capable of creating new tax payers and if they are raised in a stable enviornment they are more likely to themselves be well off and thus be able to be leeched off of by the government).

Wonderful, but you didn't answer my question.

Quote: That's thespirit -- let people who "know what they are doing" take care of everything for you! Have you read Marbury? The fact that you think it's good that these people can control everything in our lives (just the other day it came to light in the Washington Post that district courts and courts of appeals have ruled and have affirmed decisions that took children from smoker-parent and gave them to non-smoker-parent, because we can't smoke in our own homes anymore... wait till they tell us what we can eat, etc., the fascists will never stop) means their coup was succesful. They are unelected, unaccountable destroyers of the Constitution. The Federal Judiciary was never meant to have such unbalanced power to do anything.

A better alternative? Remove their power of judicial review and have it placed back with it's rightful owners -- the people -- whom they usurped it from long ago.

No way, man. I don't trust people AT ALL, especially since the vast majority of them are way un-educated. Just to take the example of gay rights, I think a judge is way more qualified to make a decision on gay rights than my roommate who goes around teabagging everyone for kicks.

Democracy is great, but too much is a bad thing.

[John Galt]

Alright -- No, and it's an asinine question that wouldn't happen as the premise is unreasonable.

And I despise democracy. I also despise aristocrtacy. I like the Republic. I also adore the Constitution. My alternative which is better is also the Constitutional one, as opposed to what the judges did when they became the krytocracy who have given themselves final say over all our lives.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Alright -- No, and it's an asinine question that wouldn't happen as the premise is unreasonable.
Whether or not it would happen isn't the point and you know it. Calling it 'unreasonable' just because you're hoping to avoid the associated debate that would take place if you dared to give an honest answer is a total cop-out.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Alright -- No, and it's an asinine question that wouldn't happen as the premise is unreasonable.
Whether or not it would happen isn't the point and you know it. Calling it 'unreasonable' just because you're hoping to avoid the associated debate that would take place if you dared to give an honest answer is a total cop-out.

I gave an answer - no. But I also said it wouldn't happen. For much the same reason I don't debate what the world would be like if Micheal Jackson was President, as it is an impossibility, I don't debate this issue. It would be unreasonable for the government ever to hold such a position, as heterosexual marriage is a rational government intrest, albeit not a good one, and homosexual marriage is not.

[The Grandmaster]

John Galt wrote: Alright -- No, and it's an asinine question that wouldn't happen as the premise is unreasonable.

And I despise democracy. I also despise aristocrtacy. I like the Republic. I also adore the Constitution. My alternative which is better is also the Constitutional one, as opposed to what the judges did when they became the krytocracy who have given themselves final say over all our lives.

If not a democracy, in your opinion, what is the best system to run a country? How would things be, if you had your way?

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Alright -- No, and it's an asinine question that wouldn't happen as the premise is unreasonable.
Whether or not it would happen isn't the point and you know it. Calling it 'unreasonable' just because you're hoping to avoid the associated debate that would take place if you dared to give an honest answer is a total cop-out.

I gave an answer - no. But I also said it wouldn't happen. For much the same reason I don't debate what the world would be like if Micheal Jackson was President, as it is an impossibility, I don't debate this issue. It would be unreasonable for the government ever to hold such a position, as heterosexual marriage is a rational government intrest, albeit not a good one, and homosexual marriage is not.
Like I said, I didn't think your answer was an honest one, and I still don't. I also disagree that heterosexual marriage is a rational government interest if homosexual marriage is not. Your working from the idea that they must both fulfill the same 'rational' interest for each to be valid. Especially questionable since not every heterosexual marriage fulfills the rationale put forth in the first place.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Alright -- No, and it's an asinine question that wouldn't happen as the premise is unreasonable.
Whether or not it would happen isn't the point and you know it. Calling it 'unreasonable' just because you're hoping to avoid the associated debate that would take place if you dared to give an honest answer is a total cop-out.

I gave an answer - no. But I also said it wouldn't happen. For much the same reason I don't debate what the world would be like if Micheal Jackson was President, as it is an impossibility, I don't debate this issue. It would be unreasonable for the government ever to hold such a position, as heterosexual marriage is a rational government intrest, albeit not a good one, and homosexual marriage is not.
Like I said, I didn't think your answer was an honest one, and I still don't. I also disagree that heterosexual marriage is a rational government interest if homosexual marriage is not. Your working from the idea that they must both fulfill the same 'rational' interest for each to be valid. Especially questionable since not every heterosexual marriage fulfills the rationale put forth in the first place.

You are correct that not every heterosexual marriage fullfills the rational intrest of the government. And yes, I am working from the same rational basis for both. But I do not see a rational basis for giving a blessing to homosexual marriages from a governmental standpoint.

We have this thing inthe Constitution called the "equal protection clause." It mandates that all laws must apply equally. Even though a few normal marriages do not fullfill a rational government intrest, the equal protection clause mandates that it must be the way it is. It doesnot mandate that homosexual marriages must be allowed, as the law is clear: men can marry women and vice versa. It does not discriminate as to whether or not people are barren or choose not to procreate, as that would violate the equal protection clause.

LikeI said its not a good rational basis, but it is one. There is no rational basis for homosexual marriages that I have come across. I would perfer the government get out of the buisness of marriage all together, but the vast structure of divorce law prohibits such a thing.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Alright -- No, and it's an asinine question that wouldn't happen as the premise is unreasonable.
Whether or not it would happen isn't the point and you know it. Calling it 'unreasonable' just because you're hoping to avoid the associated debate that would take place if you dared to give an honest answer is a total cop-out.

I gave an answer - no. But I also said it wouldn't happen. For much the same reason I don't debate what the world would be like if Micheal Jackson was President, as it is an impossibility, I don't debate this issue. It would be unreasonable for the government ever to hold such a position, as heterosexual marriage is a rational government intrest, albeit not a good one, and homosexual marriage is not.
Like I said, I didn't think your answer was an honest one, and I still don't. I also disagree that heterosexual marriage is a rational government interest if homosexual marriage is not. Your working from the idea that they must both fulfill the same 'rational' interest for each to be valid. Especially questionable since not every heterosexual marriage fulfills the rationale put forth in the first place.

You are correct that not every heterosexual marriage fullfills the rational intrest of the government. And yes, I am working from the same rational basis for both. But I do not see a rational basis for giving a blessing to homosexual marriages from a governmental standpoint.

We have this thing inthe Constitution called the "equal protection clause." It mandates that all laws must apply equally. Even though a few normal marriages do not fullfill a rational government intrest, the equal protection clause mandates that it must be the way it is. It doesnot mandate that homosexual marriages must be allowed, as the law is clear: men can marry women and vice versa. It does not discriminate as to whether or not people are barren or choose not to procreate, as that would violate the equal protection clause.

LikeI said its not a good rational basis, but it is one. There is no rational basis for homosexual marriages that I have come across. I would perfer the government get out of the buisness of marriage all together, but the vast structure of divorce law prohibits such a thing.
And I'm convinced that no argument showing a rational basis would persuade you, so I shan't waste my breath.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Alright -- No, and it's an asinine question that wouldn't happen as the premise is unreasonable.
Whether or not it would happen isn't the point and you know it. Calling it 'unreasonable' just because you're hoping to avoid the associated debate that would take place if you dared to give an honest answer is a total cop-out.

I gave an answer - no. But I also said it wouldn't happen. For much the same reason I don't debate what the world would be like if Micheal Jackson was President, as it is an impossibility, I don't debate this issue. It would be unreasonable for the government ever to hold such a position, as heterosexual marriage is a rational government intrest, albeit not a good one, and homosexual marriage is not.
Like I said, I didn't think your answer was an honest one, and I still don't. I also disagree that heterosexual marriage is a rational government interest if homosexual marriage is not. Your working from the idea that they must both fulfill the same 'rational' interest for each to be valid. Especially questionable since not every heterosexual marriage fulfills the rationale put forth in the first place.

You are correct that not every heterosexual marriage fullfills the rational intrest of the government. And yes, I am working from the same rational basis for both. But I do not see a rational basis for giving a blessing to homosexual marriages from a governmental standpoint.

We have this thing inthe Constitution called the "equal protection clause." It mandates that all laws must apply equally. Even though a few normal marriages do not fullfill a rational government intrest, the equal protection clause mandates that it must be the way it is. It doesnot mandate that homosexual marriages must be allowed, as the law is clear: men can marry women and vice versa. It does not discriminate as to whether or not people are barren or choose not to procreate, as that would violate the equal protection clause.

LikeI said its not a good rational basis, but it is one. There is no rational basis for homosexual marriages that I have come across. I would perfer the government get out of the buisness of marriage all together, but the vast structure of divorce law prohibits such a thing.
And I'm convinced that no argument showing a rational basis would persuade you, so I shan't waste my breath.

I don't think there is one, considering the rational basis for government-sanctioned heterosexual marriages revolve around procreation (they do their blood tests and whatnot and are trying to encourage more taxpayers) and homosexuals are incapable of creating offspring in a homosexual marriage.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: I don't think there is one, considering the rational basis for government-sanctioned heterosexual marriages revolve around procreation (they do their blood tests and whatnot and are trying to encourage more taxpayers) and homosexuals are incapable of creating offspring in a homosexual marriage.
In other words, the stabilizing influence upon society of two people settling down as a couple and supporting each other financially and domestically has no meaning in this equation. Only procreation matters and you don't care about the exceptions within the heterosexually married population.

Government interests are not necessarily moved forward by creating more 'taxpayers', especially when a significant number are so poor that they don't pay taxes and it actually costs the government more to have them around.

If you're argument about procreation were true, we'd have all-out government bans on contraception and abortion. Your so-called 'rational' argument, isn't.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't think there is one, considering the rational basis for government-sanctioned heterosexual marriages revolve around procreation (they do their blood tests and whatnot and are trying to encourage more taxpayers) and homosexuals are incapable of creating offspring in a homosexual marriage.
In other words, the stabilizing influence upon society of two people settling down as a couple and supporting each other financially and domestically has no meaning in this equation. Only procreation matters and you don't care about the exceptions within the heterosexually married population.

Government interests are not necessarily moved forward by creating more 'taxpayers', especially when a significant number are so poor that they don't pay taxes and it actually costs the government more to have them around.

If you're argument about procreation were true, we'd have all-out government bans on contraception and abortion. Your so-called 'rational' argument, isn't.

No, children in homes with both a mother and a father are not poor, and the government thus has an interest in fostering their development in such a manner, since it will most likelylead the child to have a succesful life. I don't see where you get this argument about poor people. Decrease the surplus population eh?

In truth, nearly zero people in this country are poor. I find your premise of "significant numbers" of people being poor incorrect, as nearly everyone in this country has a TV (something along the lines of 97% of the bottom fifth have a color TV). Since the standard of being poor or not has been tradtionally food on the table and shelter, if nearly everyone in this country has a TV, then they have food and shelter and there are statistically no poor people to speak of.

But like I said, I don't see how your argument makes any logical sense.

As for the "stablizing influence on society" that "two people" have, considering the idea of homosexual marriage seems to be tearing this country apart with people very upset about the issue, it isn't very stabilizing now is it. Furthermore, I do care about the exceptions but unlike mandating homosexual marriages, this is an equal protection issue and it would not be constitutional to dissallow sanctioning of a man and a woman in marriage that did not invovle procreation.

Like I said, no rational basis for homosexual marriage.

[StrangerWitCandy]

John Galt wrote: As for the "stablizing influence on society" that "two people" have, considering the idea of homosexual marriage seems to be tearing this country apart with people very upset about the issue, it isn't very stabilizing now is it. Furthermore, I do care about the exceptions but unlike mandating homosexual marriages, this is an equal protection issue and it would not be constitutional to dissallow sanctioning of a man and a woman in marriage that did not invovle procreation.

Like I said, no rational basis for homosexual marriage.

and maybe its "tearing this country apart" because some people can't get over their prejudices. who's fault is that? not gay people's. you can't use that as some kind of reason why we shouldn't get married, just because some people are stubborn and ignorant. too bad for them, they'll have to "stabilize" themselves. and there is no difference in a man-woman couple who have no kids and a man-man or woman-woman couple that have no kids. the rational basis is equal opportunity. gays should be able to have the same government recognized union and receive benefits that everybody else can. there is simply no rational basis to deny them that aside from prejudice.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't think there is one, considering the rational basis for government-sanctioned heterosexual marriages revolve around procreation (they do their blood tests and whatnot and are trying to encourage more taxpayers) and homosexuals are incapable of creating offspring in a homosexual marriage.
In other words, the stabilizing influence upon society of two people settling down as a couple and supporting each other financially and domestically has no meaning in this equation. Only procreation matters and you don't care about the exceptions within the heterosexually married population.

Government interests are not necessarily moved forward by creating more 'taxpayers', especially when a significant number are so poor that they don't pay taxes and it actually costs the government more to have them around.

If you're argument about procreation were true, we'd have all-out government bans on contraception and abortion. Your so-called 'rational' argument, isn't.

No, children in homes with both a mother and a father are not poor, and the government thus has an interest in fostering their development in such a manner, since it will most likelylead the child to have a succesful life. I don't see where you get this argument about poor people. Decrease the surplus population eh?

In truth, nearly zero people in this country are poor. I find your premise of "significant numbers" of people being poor incorrect, as nearly everyone in this country has a TV (something along the lines of 97% of the bottom fifth have a color TV). Since the standard of being poor or not has been tradtionally food on the table and shelter, if nearly everyone in this country has a TV, then they have food and shelter and there are statistically no poor people to speak of.
\/ This isn't about the definition of what constitutes poverty. The central point of your argument was the creation of more taxpayers. You cannot deny the FACT that there are a number of people in this country who are considered 'poor enough' that they don't pay taxes and in fact receive monetary and other assistance from the government. Whether or not those people own a TV set is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they pay taxes - the central part of your so-called 'rational' argument for government recognition of heterosexual marriage.

Quote: As for the "stablizing influence on society" that "two people" have, considering the idea of homosexual marriage seems to be tearing this country apart with people very upset about the issue, it isn't very stabilizing now is it.
The arguments over gay marriage can hardly be characterized as tearing this country apart. If anything, the majority are quite united in their resistance to the idea - if you doubt that, look at how lopsided the numbers are in those states that have put the question to a vote. It is that resistance to recognizing gay marriages that is causing the strife - NOT the marriages themselves, which do provide the stabilizing influence of which I spoke.

Quote: Furthermore, I do care about the exceptions but unlike mandating homosexual marriages
Total mischaracterization. No one is 'mandating homosexual marriages' - no one is forcing anyone to enter into such an arrangement, or requiring states to meet a certain quota of gay marriages.

Quote: this is an equal protection issue and it would not be constitutional to dissallow sanctioning of a man and a woman in marriage that did not invovle procreation.
If procreation is the center of your argument for there being a rational reason to recognize heterosexual marriages while denying all others, I say it's time to change the law, then. Only those who affirm their intent to reproduce should be allowed to marry, and if they fail to do so within a certain period of time, their marriages should be voided. No reason to maintain marriages once the couple has passed their reproductive years.

No, IF there is a rational reason to recognize only heterosexual marriages, procreation sure ain't it.

[Ben_Huh]

John Galt wrote: There are plenty of movies about lesbians. PLENTY.

Yes indeed, and I'm not talking of porno either. Watch the IFC channel.

[F'losrix]

Ben_Huh wrote: John Galt wrote: There are plenty of movies about lesbians. PLENTY.

Yes indeed, and I'm not talking of porno either. Watch the IFC channel.
'IFC' - there's your first clue. There are lots of films about gay men and lesbians. Nearly all of them coming from independent filmmakers and small studios - NOT from big name studios. Hardly any of them ever receive the kind of publicity that Brokeback Mountain has enjoyed. They are films aimed at a niche market.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Ben_Huh wrote: John Galt wrote: There are plenty of movies about lesbians. PLENTY.

Yes indeed, and I'm not talking of porno either. Watch the IFC channel.
'IFC' - there's your first clue. There are lots of films about gay men and lesbians. Nearly all of them coming from independent filmmakers and small studios - NOT from big name studios. Hardly any of them ever receive the kind of publicity that Brokeback Mountain has enjoyed. They are films aimed at a niche market.

That's because it's a niche population. 1-3% of the population is gay. So I would suspect 1-3% of the films would be gay too. But Sundance has homosexual sex on it's screens all the time. You really need to get over yourself if your complaining that big name studios don't target you. They also don't make films about Randites, people who are ego maniacs and probabbly make up 1-3% of the population, and yet we don't complain.

And no I wasn't just refering to pornos. Bound is a decent movie, if I recall.

I will get to the other post in a bit.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Ben_Huh wrote: John Galt wrote: There are plenty of movies about lesbians. PLENTY.

Yes indeed, and I'm not talking of porno either. Watch the IFC channel.
'IFC' - there's your first clue. There are lots of films about gay men and lesbians. Nearly all of them coming from independent filmmakers and small studios - NOT from big name studios. Hardly any of them ever receive the kind of publicity that Brokeback Mountain has enjoyed. They are films aimed at a niche market.

That's because it's a niche population. 1-3% of the population is gay. So I would suspect 1-3% of the films would be gay too. But Sundance has homosexual sex on it's screens all the time. You really need to get over yourself if your complaining that big name studios don't target you. They also don't make films about Randites, people who are ego maniacs and probabbly make up 1-3% of the population, and yet we don't complain.

And no I wasn't just refering to pornos. Bound is a decent movie, if I recall.

I will get to the other post in a bit.
The point isn't big studios failing to target a niche population. The point is that gay men and lesbians feel ignored by the big studios for their lack of honest portrayals when they do show a gay character. We don't actually expect them to market to us - we know we're a niche market. That said, it's nonetheless a bit irksome when a movie that finally does get lots of promotion is a period piece about two guys who wind up living as heterosexuals - because this is the ONLY type of portrayal they'll put there money behind. In the larger scheme of things, it ends up sending the message to gay men and lesbians that our lives don't matter. Doesn't matter if that wasn't even remotely the intent, it's still the end result.