Why shouldn't homosexuals receive equal rights?

Just a question for those that think this.



(not me )

 

They have them already.

 

Of course, that is perfectly debatable; and people have gone round and round arguing many points.

 

Here are some things to consider.

 

It's a bit of a vague question. Not being snarky, but people mean different things when they talk about equality. If you mean that it shouldn't be used as a reason not to allow someone to rent a room in your hotel, or not to hire someone, or to pick someone else for a promotion, then I'm on board with that. If you mean that you want equality of result, of gays being admitted to a college with lower test scores, or if you start setting quotas, then you really end up discriminating the other way. And really in the second case, those hurt are the marginal. In other words, choosing to admit a gay over another student in a college means not admitting someone else, usually poorer students who aren't going to be able to "pull strings". It never really affects the 1% as it were because they're legacy students, and since their daddy is an alum, he's in.

The other part, and honestly my only mild objection to marriage, is that in some cases this could lead to discrimination against religions. Catholics and specifically catholic institutions cannot recognize gay marriage. It goes against the scriptures and 2000 years of tradition. So what happens when the lawsuits fly because a bishop says "we can't let you use our cathederal, because you're forcing us to go against our religion" Who wins, because if the church loses, essentially, they have to cease being Catholic, or they have to cease doing any weddings, or something like that. There's very little middle ground when a church that has very strict rules (actually, they can't do re-marriages after a divorce either) is pushed against a rights act and the force of government.

 

Highly reminiscent of the majority concurrence of the Supreme Court regarding cases on interracial marriage, prior to Loving V Virginia - that there is no violation of equal protection because the a black person can no more marry someone who is White than a White person can someone who is black. Obviously you're using this model for your own skewed logic - a gay man can no more marry another man than a straight guy can. What a load of old tosh!

 

Amen.

We know that homosexual people ARE discriminated against. Then, we should ask WHY homosexual people are discriminated against. After that, we can ask: Is that discrimination truly justified and does it violate their Constitutional rights?

Of course... it is definitely worth taking to America's courts, until homosexuals have truly equal rights.

 

The right solution is clear. Do not force any institution or religion to perform a gay marriage, just as you do not prohibit gay marriage. Supporting gay marriage does not mean forcing every church to condone it. It simply means allowing those that do condone it to be treated equally under the law.

 

You have it right, IMO.

 

In this country, anybody can marry anybody else they want as long as:

1. They are of legal age
2. They are not near of kin
3. They are not already married to someone else
4. They are not of the same gender

Homosexuals have the exact same rights as everyone else. "Discrimination", in this case, is a paper tiger. I'm so sick of this argument. Homosexuals are NOT discriminated against. The response that I've heard is "but they can't marry the person they love". The problem with that is that there is no legal, objective way to determine if someone loves someone else. We can determine if two individuals are of legal age or not, we can determine if they are near of kin or not, we can determine if one or both is already married, and we can determine whether or not they are both of the same gender. We cannot objectively determine if they love each other or not.

If you people want to call it a civil rights issue that's another discussion. Please, stop calling it discrimination. Its intellectually dishonest.

View attachment 16959

 

No they don't.

 

Care to elaborate? What right or rights does a heterosexual have that a homosexual does not?

 

Discrimination means somebody being purposely excluded from something. Marriage law in many places means to discriminate because it was crafted with an understanding that only a certain type of couple can marry to the exclusion of all others. It is absolutely purposely discriminatory.

But generally it is not the old laws that are designed in their wording to explicitly deny marriage to same-sex couples - but constitutional amendments and statutes put in place for no other reason than to exclude the possibility of same-sex couples entering marriage. Their rights held hostage by the majority... THEY are what can be described as truly discriminatory.

 

Thats because purifying the white race wasn't considered to be a legitimate governmental interest. Improving the wellbeing of children is considered to be a legitimate governmental interest.

 

"Purifying the White race" wasn't cited in any of those decisions, nor was it offered up by those defending interracial marriage laws. They concluded it was constitutional because the prohibition applied equally to blacks and whites.

 

Use of the word "marriage" in the old laws denied marriage to gay couples. City statutes regarding a dog license dont explicitly exclude a dog license for your cat either. Use of the word "dog" does that. And if thousands of cat owners began petitioning the courts for dog licenses for their cats, and the legislature responds by adding a definition of a dog to the statute, the purpose of the statute doesnt become to exclude cats. It is still intended to include dogs.

 

In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. .....

The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy......

 

Virtually every single right recognised under marriage law has nothing to do with what genders the participants are. Some relate to childbirth, but the overwhelming majority concern legal matters that can apply to any two people regardless of gender. And if marriage can apply to elderly and infertile couples who cannot concieve and to whom the references to childbirth do not apply, marriage can logically be applied to same-sex couples. Use of the word itself does not exclude them since the wider definition of "marriage" means simply "the meeting or joining of two things" - I.e. flavours.

And once it is recognised in one jurisdiction there is a tangible reference point.

 

All this tells us is that in Virginia the laws were applied incorrectly. If the prohibitions had applied between all legally recognised races, would it not then have been constitutional?

 

And those same legal matters would also apply in the case of platonic and closely related couples. And yet these states have only extended marriage to include gay couples. Nations with gay marriage for more than several years are seeing one HALF of ONE % of all marriages are gay marriage. The smallest of extension of marriage to appease the gays while the majority of discrimination of marriage remains in place.

 

So we agree on that much. Sure, as long as the legislation adopted says that, I'm in. My point is mostly that I don't want discrimination to come from anti-discrimination. If we can find a way that works for everyone then I think that's what would make this less of a big thing.

 

Your post is just closed-minded AND naive. And it illustrates exactly why homosexual people MUST keep taking case after case to America's courts... until real justice is achieved.

 

Exactly!! And I am certain that gay people will continue (as they should) fighting for equal rights. That is just as "American" as anything I've read about or ever experienced.

 

Yes, those would be instances of discrimination.

That's not the intent of the equal protection clause, and not what I'm seeking; not anything I've ever heard other gay people say they want.

It seems like every time discrimination is brought up, opponents always move the goal posts from discussing anti-discrimination laws to talking about affirmative action, pretending to themselves that it's what gay people are after when we've never argued for that here at all.

Not if the Constitution and the laws are properly interpreted and applied.

That will depend on the facts of the specific case, but generally speaking, I would expect this sort of case to get no traction at all in the courts.

The facts matter. The only instance I've ever heard of a church losing such a case was a Methodist church that rented out a piece of property with a gazebo to the general public for weddings, and received a tax break on it. They ran afoul of their state's anti-discrimination law when they refused to rent the property to a lesbian couple for their commitment ceremony. What the church lost was their special tax break. They weren't forced to provide the use of their sanctuary or to conduct a same-sex wedding. Bottom line: If you suck on the government teat, expect to comply with government regulation and laws. Don't want to comply? Then only allow the property to be used by church members.

I would object to any church being forced to provide the religious rites of marriage (an actual religious practice) to couples they deem unfit. The government simply has no place in this. I am not, however, in favor of letting anyone and everyone discriminate against gay people (or any other demographic) on the basis of claiming an exemption due to religious beliefs. That's overreaching.

 

I don't think most people are against equal civil rights...

... such as the right to employment, housing, education, etc.

... it's the equal marriage rights status that's the sticking point...

... IOW, every right except religious marriage connected ones...

... after all, isn't there supposed to be separation of church and state?...

... and if so, then doesn't a church have the right to refuse to marry same sex couples...

... based on if that is against their religious beliefs?