farrell2k wrote:farrell2k wrote:
The rights of same-sex copuples are not being infringed upon, because marriage is not a right in the first place. Your argument of their rights being violated is completely null and void because of this. This is something that the courts have upheld time and time again. Marriage has nothing to do with equality.
OneThirty8 wrote:
That bit I highlighted is the part that you're still hung up on. Remove that from the equation. Marriage does not have to be agreed upon as a 'right' for my argument to stand up.
Yes it does. Equal protection under the law only appies to our protected rights. Your argument is flawed. You cannot demand equal protection for something to which you have no right in the first place.
You keep going with the 'it's only a right if it was explicitly written in the Constitution.' That's a
non-comprehensive list, and it has been pointed out that the framers of that document said that this wasn't an exhaustive list of all rights that will be protected. I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to
look at my side of the argument rather than stubbornly insisting that I don't have a valid opinion. Just because one thing isn't explicitly stated as a right on some piece of paper somewhere doesn't change the fact that
A Person's Rights Are Being Infringed Upon When They Are Part Of A Group That Is Denied A Privilege That Is Afforded Unconditionally To Every Other Group Of People. If you can't understand that, then it's because you're not trying to see this with any sort of open mind. Like I said, we don't have to agree, but you're not even debating effectively at this point. You've become a broken record. At least I'm trying to phrase my ideas differently when you miss the point the first time I state them, but it seems to me that you're not reading what I say very carefully, because I have made considerable effort to find the common ground on which we can have a meaningful discussion, and you keep refusing to meet me there. If you notice, I've given up the argument about whether marriage is a privilege or a right - not because I believe you were right, but because it's not the important piece, and we were going to get nowhere talking about that bit anyway. You, however, keep restating your assertion that marriage is not a right. Whatever, because that isn't relevant. You can demand equal treatment under the law even when the issue at hand isn't an absolute right - If we were to deny gay people the privilege of driving cars because of their sexual orientation, we'd be infringing on their rights. If you disagree with me there, I'm afraid that you not understand how equal rights work - we all have the right to equal treatment, not just the same 'rights.'
farrell2k wrote:OneThirty8 wrote:
The problem is that when a person decides to share their life with somebody, regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the parties involved, they should be encouraged to enter into a meaningful union, and the state and federal government should recognize it.
The fed recognizes civil unions, and so do most states. You can never demand that one state look at something the same way another state does. This is even the case for hetero marriages. Some states do not recognize other state's marriages. e.g. 18 is the legal age to marry where tammy lives, FL, but in the neighboring state of hickville, it's only 15. Tammy is only 15 and wantas to get married, so she and her fiancee marry in hickville, then move back to FL. FL does not have to recognize her marriage as being legal.
BUT IT IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF MARRIAGE!!! That's the entire problem in a nutshell. Jesus H. Christ, why do you keep bringing up the fact that they can get something that isn't the same thing?
farrell2k wrote:OneThirty8 wrote:
The simple thing is, gay or straight, people need each other. Very few human beings are truly happy alone.
Yeah, that's great, but you dont have to be married to not be alone. Not a good argument.
Right, but they're not offered the same encouragement as heterosexual couples are to be together - ie, marriage. See below for why this, or something legally equivalent, is needed.
farrell2k wrote:OneThirty8 wrote:
Also, most of us would be very unhappy if the person we'd lived with for 25 or 30 years wasn't allowed to visit us in the hospital, and ended up homeless after we died because the IRS came to collect inheritance tax on the house. Married people don't have these problems such as denial of hospital visitations or inheritance-tax screw-overs. Same-sex couples do. That is wrong.
You don't have to be family to inherit something from someone, and as far as I know, inheritance tax is the same for family and non-family.
You are correct in that you can leave something to anybody you want to in your will. That itself is not the issue. If you're married, and you own a house, and you die and leave the house to your wife, the house is hers as well because of community property laws and all of that, so she doesn't get hit with inheritance tax on the house. I think there are some other laws that come into play, but basically your spouse isn't going to find himself/herself out on the street. I actually heard a story of a lesbian couple who lived together for many years, and one of them owned the house they lived in. She died, and left the house to her lover, who was hit with a property tax bill so high that she lost the house. Pretty raw deal, isn't it?
farrell2k wrote:Hospitals? Hospitals are private companies who don't have to allow visitors at all. This has nothing to do with any state or local govts. Not a valid argument.
Yes, it is a valid argument. There are times when the hospital will allow family, but not friends, to see a patient. If you've got the legal status to show that you're family, they are going to have a much harder time keeping you away.
farrell2k wrote:
There is no need to redefine marriage to satisfy the silly desires of the gay minority.
These are not 'silly' desires. They're real, genuine, and reasonable requests - they simply want
all of the legal entitlements that married couples have. They don't have it yet.
farrell2k wrote:Let them focus their time and resources on something constructive, such as civil unions. I think we can both agree that trying to make civil unions more "universal" would be a better use of their time.
If by 'universal' you mean relegating the whole deal of 'marriage' to religious institutions and allowing everybody a 'civil union,' I think that's actually the way to go. We wouldn't have to worry about people bitching about the 'sanctity of marriage' and all that, because the government really shouldn't be in the business of sanctifying anything. They should be protecting our rights, freedoms, and property, and giving us socialized medicine. The gay people I know personally are fine with civil unions as long as they get the legal entitlements that married couples get - and they're fine with calling it something other than marriage. It's the fact that in many places in this country, people are still afraid that gay people are going to give them cooties so they refuse to even acknowledge their presence, and therefore they have the problems I stated above when it comes to inheritance and stuff.
