David Tyree is a moron

[Gothamite]

Blue Sky, I'm very flattered that you would like to make this about me personally. But you keep ignoring my central question:

What Constitutionally-valid reason is there for denying gay couples their fundamental right to marry?

I would appreciate your answer. As would, I suspect, Justice Scalia.

[Lights Out]

I wasn't trying to twist your words by quoting part of your sentence, BlueSky. I was just making the point that the government doesn't work on one thing at a time. They can give homosexuals the right to marry without sacrificing work on the things you feel a progressive society should be focused on.

Yes, exactly. In other words, they shouldn't be concerning themselves about who wants to marry who. Which is what I said.

That's not what I said, at all. In fact, that's the opposite of what I said. I was making the point that society's other obligations do not and would not cancel out or distract from granting equality to homosexuals, so gay marriage's legality merits being a concern and a legitimate issue.

[IceCap]

Opposing something, even gay marriage, doesn't make someone a bigot.

Opposing something? Well that's broad. I suppose one could oppose, say, orange juice, and not be a bigot.

Opposing gay marriage, however, does make you a bigot. By opposing gay marriage you want to deny a group of people a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution based solely on the fact that you don't like what they are. How is that NOT bigotry? People wanted to deny black people the right to eat in the same establishments as white people solely because of what they were. People wanted to strip Jews of the right to hold professions simply because of what they were. How is gay marriage any different?

On this issue, it conflicts with many people's beliefs, and that's their right.

Of course it's their right to oppose gay marriage. They're still free to be opposed to it if it's made legal. You and others have this bad habit of claiming that legalized gay marriage will result in you losing the right to dislike gays. You'd still be free to dislike whoever you want.

At the end of the day, however, you can't base national policy off of the opinions of the closed minded. You have to grant every citizen the same rights. Gays deserve the right to marry, and if you're still ideologically opposed to homosexuality you're free to continue holding those beliefs.

It's NOT your right to judge whether their beliefs are right or wrong.

It depends. In some cases it certainly is right to judge the beliefs of others. If someone wishes to deny a guaranteed right to a minority I know I'm morally right and I have no problem calling that person's belief wrong. I'm not attacking their faith, I likely pray to the same deity they do. I'm just attacking their closed-mindedness.

But I'm not a Constitutional scholar, and I may be wrong (unlike some, I'm willing to entertain that possibility). But hey, that's what the document says.

The 9th Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This was put in, as Goth stated, to ease the fears of some founding fathers that the Bill of Rights would make it seem like those were the only rights Americans held. The 9th Amendment states that there are rights that may not be specifically stated in the Constitution, but are just as guaranteed as the ones that are listed. The Supreme Court has already declared marriage to be a Constitutionally guaranteed right via the 9th Amendment. Now the Supreme Court is the chief body when it comes to Constitutional interpretation, so what they say goes. And seeing as marriage is a Constitutionally guaranteed right all citizens should have access to it, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

My point being things aren't as black and white as you would like, even when it comes to what are considered "fundamental rights."

On the issue of a minority's basic civil liberties? It is black and white.

You're a skilled online debater, using those clever but false little digs like "that reveals a lack of substantive argument" to try and chip away at people's credibility and calling people bigots because they oppose something you support. Just because you disagree doesn't mean a point lacks substance. No offense intended, just wanted you to know some of us see through it.

Ah, the "you've beaten me so I'll attack you personally" defence. Well played sir, well played.

He's calling people bigots because they are. You want to deny a minority their guaranteed rights because you just don't like what they are? That's bigotry. End of story. If you don't like being called a bigot stop championing bigoted causes.

On the other thing, I sure hope it's limited to fundamental rights because there are some nuts in this country who'd cheer if Washington forced us all to drive Smart Cars.

The slippy slope argument never gets old. What's next? Gay marriage will lead to Nazis running rampant on dinosaurs?

[Lights Out]

On the other thing, I sure hope it's limited to fundamental rights because there are some nuts in this country who'd cheer if Washington forced us all to drive Smart Cars.

There's also some nuts in this country who'd cheer if Washington took away rights from gays instead of giving them equal rights. Guess which nuts have more political relevance in this day and age? I'll give you a hint: it's not the Smart Car lovers.

[Dexter Morgan]

Leave the word "marriage" to the religions. Everybody, gay or straight, can get a civil union with the same rights. That's probably the simplest way to achieve equality.

Too late - marriage is already a civil institution, not a religious one.

What you're suggesting is a far more significant overhaul of our society than marriage equality could ever conceive.

So that's not the simplest way to achieve equality. The simplest way to achieve equality is to require that states treat all couples, you know, equally.

"Sweatheart will you agree to be civily unioned to me"

[rams80]

Leave the word "marriage" to the religions. Everybody, gay or straight, can get a civil union with the same rights. That's probably the simplest way to achieve equality.

I pitched this awhile back and no one got on board then, yet suddenly it seems to be rather popular with the anti-marriage equality crowd... hmmmm...

I'm pro-gay marriage. It just seems that the biggest obstacle to its passage are the "sanctity of marriage" "family values" nitwits who associate civil marriage with their religion's idea of marriage. Breaking the association between the civil and religious institutions makes gay marriage easier to swallow for those people.

Damnit! Divorce is a sacred rite that belongs only between a man and a woman!

[DEAD!]

Leave the word "marriage" to the religions. Everybody, gay or straight, can get a civil union with the same rights. That's probably the simplest way to achieve equality.

I pitched this awhile back and no one got on board then, yet suddenly it seems to be rather popular with the anti-marriage equality crowd... hmmmm...

I'm pro-gay marriage. It just seems that the biggest obstacle to its passage are the "sanctity of marriage" "family values" nitwits who associate civil marriage with their religion's idea of marriage. Breaking the association between the civil and religious institutions makes gay marriage easier to swallow for those people.

Damnit! Divorce is a sacred rite that belongs only between a man and a woman!

Yeah, look at how well it has been done by the McCourts...

[BlueSky]

I had no idea you guys actually got together to post to this thread.

Seriously...Ice Cap, you're clearly coming in from left field because you obviously don't know that I support gay marriage. A few posts ago I said I was happy for those the NY decision made happy. Try reading someone's posts before you jump in. Me, dislike gays? If you knew the first thing about me you'd laugh yourself silly at the notion. What I've said is that I understand why some oppose it. Yeah, really, that's my big offense here.

As for the personal attack thing, if that's what you need to call it, fine. In reality it's calling someone out on their cutesy tactics. Ironically, you think I feel beaten? It's impossible to get a soul in this thread who disagrees to even acknowledge a valid point, so it can't even be considered a serious debate. This is just a bunch of people who like hearing their own lofty opinions and piss on anyone who has the gall not to agree or even to play devil's advocate so all sides can be considered.

And not one of you has any religious beliefs whatsoever? Not a single one of you guys has one prejudiced bone in your body? I'm calling BS, boys. Which makes you what? It's your word...bigots. And hypocrites. We all are in some way or another, so can't you even admit that?

Who is it on here who has a habit of talking about the South like it's Hazzard County or still 1956 Montgomery? Some of you have the balls to declare so self-righteously that if the government hadn't ended Jim Crow laws they'd still exist today. What a joke. I've lived and traveled all over the country and some of the worst racism I've ever seen is, of all places, in the Midwest.

What the Civil Rights Act did was speed things up. The same thing the Emancipation Proclamation did because slavery was unsustainable in the long run and would have died a natural death at some point. It's great that the government did what it did, be it 1863 or 1964. I wish it was as easy to legislate peoples' feelings as it was to end slavery and spell out the rights we all should have.

So guys, call 911 and have your local ladder company come assist you down off your high horses. You look ridiculous up there.

@Ice Cap, you should teach classes on cherry picking posts and attacking points out of context. You do that in many threads, you know. Not attacking here, just calling a spade a spade.

[Lights Out]

And not one of you has any religious beliefs whatsoever? Not a single one of you guys has one prejudiced bone in your body?

I'm an atheist, and I pride myself on not being prejudiced. Closed-minded is no way to go through life.

Who is it on here who has a habit of talking about the South like it's Hazzard County or still 1956 Montgomery?

It isn't me - I love the South.

[BlueSky]

And not one of you has any religious beliefs whatsoever? Not a single one of you guys has one prejudiced bone in your body?

I'm an atheist, and I pride myself on not being prejudiced. Closed-minded is no way to go through life.

Who is it on here who has a habit of talking about the South like it's Hazzard County or still 1956 Montgomery?

It isn't me - I love the South.

Good and good...but to the first thing, you can't say with a straight face that NOBODY bothers you, that you accept everyone as the valued individual they are. Any good person strives for it...but it's just impossible to do.

[Lights Out]

There's a difference between disliking an individual and bigotry, and you know that full well. You've simply lost the argument and now you're resorting to personal attacks.

[IceCap]

I had no idea you guys actually got together to post to this thread.

Now who's using a cutesy internet debating tactic?

Seriously...Ice Cap, you're clearly coming in from left field because you obviously don't know that I support gay marriage. A few posts ago I said I was happy for those the NY decision made happy. Try reading someone's posts before you jump in. Me, dislike gays? If you knew the first thing about me you'd laugh yourself silly at the notion. What I've said is that I understand why some oppose it. Yeah, really, that's my big offense here.

You'd have a point, and I would apologize if it weren't for later happenings in your post. I'll get to those.

As for the personal attack thing, if that's what you need to call it, fine. In reality it's calling someone out on their cutesy tactics.

So far I haven't come across a single thing Goth's posted that strikes me as childish or cutesy or even baiting. Comparing other posters to hyenas? That qualifies as "cute" more so then anything Goth, or anyone else on the pro-gay marriage side of things, has said or done.

Ironically, you think I feel beaten? It's impossible to get a soul in this thread who disagrees to even acknowledge a valid point, so it can't even be considered a serious debate. This is just a bunch of people who like hearing their own lofty opinions and piss on anyone who has the gall not to agree or even to play devil's advocate so all sides can be considered.

The other side of things isn't worthy of my respect, in my opinion. I'm not interested in giving equal time to bigots. This isn't a complex issue. It's a case of denying or granting a minority their civil liberties. It's clear cut, and I'm more then willing to write off the opposition here to the dust bin of history.

And not one of you has any religious beliefs whatsoever? Not a single one of you guys has one prejudiced bone in your body? I'm calling BS, boys. Which makes you what? It's your word...bigots. And hypocrites. We all are in some way or another, so can't you even admit that?

And it's here that I get to avoid apologizing for not realizing you're for gay marriage. Because as much as you want to whine about me not reading your posts you've obviously not read mine.

Of course I have religious beliefs. I spent my first few posts in this thread defending religion from the bad press it gets and explaining how I reconcile my own belief in G-d Almighty with my belief that gays have the right to marry each other.

Who is it on here who has a habit of talking about the South like it's Hazzard County or still 1956 Montgomery? Some of you have the balls to declare so self-righteously that if the government hadn't ended Jim Crow laws they'd still exist today. What a joke. I've lived and traveled all over the country and some of the worst racism I've ever seen is, of all places, in the Midwest.

You've clearly missed the point of that argument. Whatever the south is like now you cannot deny that the majority of southerners were in favour of Jim Crow and segregation laws in the late 1950s/early to mid 1960s. Had the decision on whether or not to end those laws been put to a vote it would have gone the way of maintaining the status quo. Which is proof positive that the civil rights of a minority should not be the hands of the unruly majority. And that's a very American sentiment, seeing as it was put forward by one of the most important framers of your Constitution.

So guys, call 911 and have your local ladder company come assist you down off your high horses. You look ridiculous up there.

I have no problem being on a "high horse" when dealing with bigots. I prefer to call it the moral high ground.

Now I'll say this for your benefit BlueSky. You were kind enough to let me know where you were coming from, so I'll do the same. Since I was in the 3rd grade I've been told stories of the Holocaust from survivors. I had family members that lived through Auschwitz and who escaped government sponsored pogroms in Eastern Europe. I count my lucky stars I was born in a country and time period where I didn't have to live through any of that. I have seen the affects of government sponsored bigotry though.

Now before you jump your gun, no, I'm not comparing gays lacking the right to marry with the Holocaust. What I am doing, though, is trying to give you an idea of why I feel so strongly about this issue. I have a deeply ingrained hatred of the idea of state-approved denial of a minority's rights and liberties. It strikes a cord close to home. I don't really feel like I'm on a high horse, I don't feel like I'm posting to see myself type. It's an issue on which I have very little tolerance for the other view point because I've seen what happens when the government can decide what groups are "worthy" of a certain right and which ones aren't.

[Gothamite]

Jeezum Crow, how many straw men can you fit in one post, Blue Sky?

All those words about us are totally beside the point. This isn't about us. It's not about you. It's about this one simple question, which nobody seems able to answer:

What Constitutionally-valid reason is there for denying gay couples their fundamental right to marry?

Rather than make this personal, about me or you or anybody else, could you please stay on the central issue and answer my question?

[BlueSky]

Icecap, I appreciate the background and you made some reasonable points. We have the seeds of an actual discussion here, as opposed to most of this thread. I'll respond in kind within the next couple of days. If you prefer PM, that's fine with me.

One point I'll make now, my own point about your not knowing my position was based only on this thread and the one that got graveyarded. In both I stated my position several times and became the enemy of some simply by saying I understood why some feel the way they do. I'll explain that later.

[Gothamite]

Nobody is your "enemy." This isn't about you, any more than it's about me or Ice_Cap. This is about the central civil rights issue of our day.

[loogodude90]

What Constitutionally-valid reason is there for denying gay couples their fundamental right to marry?

There isn't any. It's just an example of people bending the Constitution to do what they want it to do, in the name of religion.

It's the same reason why we have huge Christmas trees and nativity scenes at government buildings, and why Christmas is a federal holiday. It's because when people become extreme enough about their religious beliefs, and they are the majority, they let it triumph logic and law.

You won't get anywhere with these people because they use religion over logic. Any argument can be rebutted by "But the Bible says ... " It's like arguing with a child who isn't mentally mature enough to use logic and reason.

[rams80]

You won't get anywhere with these people because they use religion over logic. Any argument can be rebutted by "But the Bible says ... " It's like arguing with a child who isn't mentally mature enough to use logic and reason.

And that's when you start citing selected verses from Leviticus and Numbers.

[Dexter Morgan]

A lot of people down south wish it still was 1956

[Lights Out]

You know an argument is REALLY one-sided when I start agreeing with Loooooooogodude.

[Norva]

A lot of people down south wish it still was 1956

No they don't.