Soaps.com - MESSAGE BOARDS

I really do not understand why this whole Gay Marriage thread is still perking along?? What is the problem?? Many of you feel, why not?? Gay Marriage is a union between 2 people who are commited to each other.
Does it touch your life?? Then unless you are dealing with it personally why does it make a difference??
To bring in religion is stupid because it is not up to us to figure it out. It is up to the Gay couple to find their balance in life.....
I have said it before & I will say it again.... What difference does it make to everyone unless you are involved closely?? By that I mean a child or someone close who is involved in this union.
Otherwise.... It ain't nobody's business... Stay out of other people's bedrooms ! ! ! !

This is part of Scalia's dissent in Lawrence. An excellent explanation of the idea that if Texans don't like their laws, they should utilize the democratic process:

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts–or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them–than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.

www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html


For me, I don't know what I think about Lawrence...I don't agree with sodomy being illegal, however I think Texas should change their own laws if they want to rather than bothering the S.C.

You have to register to vote....is that a right? You do have to register. Many years people of color could not vote and were not equal. Women could not vote and were not considered equal.

You get a license to fish. How many people do you know that are denied the license after they pay their money? It is a way for the state to make money. Same with hunting license. So are people then saying that a civil union with all of the benefits of marriage would not cost the money for the state? I want a civil union then and save me some money. Or are civil unions going to be only for gay people and exclude straight people?

Many moons ago yes, blood lines were kept "pure" through incest. It has been proven though that incest is emotionally damaging to the victim. Make no mistake, there is always a victim in incest. Further, mixing of the blood lines also increases and leads to physical deformaties which then increases medical bills and creates a situation where the deformed individual can get medicaid. That is a federal program....people's taxes pay for that. See it is different. Incest is not consenual. It is one person dominating another. I don't see how chaning the verbage to include "two individuals" (and keeping all the other stuff) would pave the way for incest becoming legal.

Beastiality keeps coming up. Seriously, how can ANYONE make a claim that an animal is cognizant and capable of consenting to sex or marriage? How would said animal prove that. Personally I think this line of resistance is beneath anyone and I will not indulge any further in it's discussion. Suffice to say, it is absurd.

With all that said....How does marriage between a same sex couple hurt a marriage of a heterosexual couple?

You guys, read it all...I never compared beastiality to consenting adults. I even made that specific disclaimer.

I even went further and admitted it was probably an absurd idea, but I typed it out anyways b/c I am well aware of the crazies out there that would try and take that to court. So please do not put words in my posts that were never there, nor intended, since I made the obvious disclaimer. I said one ruling could potentially lead to the next, with one more group being allowed to marry with each time.

Why did you leave out the part about polygamists? That was my main point, and I believe it to be very valid.
Also, you can have two consenting incestuous adults. Cousins, siblings, aunts, uncles... "incestuous" does not only include minor children where the father abuses the child, or the mother abuses the neice. The health factors in the geneology thereafter is why these consenting people should never be allowed the privelege of marriage.
I was arguing that these consenting incestuous adults would probably feel they, too, were being left behind in the addition of new "rights." That is why we have courts, so they can modernize the interpretations of existing laws to fit current society.

But thank you Plot, for finally someone has acknowledged my rights question. Yes, people do get denied lecenses for fishing, hunting, etc. Not only am I from a military family, I am from a massive line of hunters and fishers. I was hoping someone would bring that up.
If you have a felony on your record, are not a citizen, etc, you do not get approved your voting provleges, nor do you get to carry a gun to hunt. Granted, I bet they would let you fish. So this furthers my denial that these are rights.

Fishing, hunting, voting...these are all priveleges, not rights.
But I hope people keep trying to convince me with other reasons, b/c I seem to be the only one who does not get this. Every one but me argues this is a right. I believe this is a privlege that gays should be given with every consideration the rest of us heteros have. As long as you have only one license to marry at a time, and each party is consenting nor related, marry away.
As for this:
"So are people then saying that a civil union with all of the benefits of marriage would not cost the money for the state? I want a civil union then and save me some money. Or are civil unions going to be only for gay people and exclude straight people?"

I would probably assume the state will always find a way to charge to make money. So no, IMO, a civil union, if it came with the same legal factors as marriage, would still cost you every bit as much as a marriage. And if gays could marry, civil unions would not be needed, would they?
:

Didn't mean to not mention polygomy....I am in and out watching over other people's kids! EEEK Thank goodness only 2 that are not mine are here right now. So, in reference to polygomy...if the law is just amended to "two adults" that takes care of the polygomy issue. I know many people say this will open the door to more and more issues. But as long as it is two adults, I am happy. I don't see how two adults lends itself to becoming three adults. or an adult and a pig.

Yes I did read your post and your disclaimer, however it keeps coming up and I think it is absurd.

In reference to licenses....yes, if you have a felony you cannot get a license to hunt. But you can buy a gun at a garage sale. You can buy a gun at a gun convention. And, more importantly, a person can still hunt without a license. Granted, it is against the law, but that person has the choice to break the law. A gay couple doesn't have that opportunity to break the law.

Has anyone been denied a license to wed? I don't know. It is a legit question. If they have, what were the reasons?

In the incest argument....OK, cousins whatnot...gotcha. But then you further went to solidify the medical argument. If there are medical reasons for not allowing it, why would it then be reversed because we are now recognizing gay people as equal? There is no deformaties or insanity that comes from a gay union.

In reference to your privilages vs rights argument...Am I, as a woman, only recently (since being able to vote) equal to men? I disagree with your argument. If we consider voting a responsibility (as it is often claimed) how can we exclude upstanding people from that responsibility? Look at jury duty...if you are registered to vote, you are eligible for jury duty. If a person shirks that responsibility, that is considered "bad". So, in reference to gender based marriages, apply that concept. How can privilages be responsibilities? Driving a car is a privilage. Therefore driving a car cannot be a responsibility. You have to be responsible when driving, but then again, you have a choice. I don't see how if you have a responsibility to do something that responsibility is a privilage. it implies a "must"

Further, if a person has the choice to ignore the law, in hunting, driving, etc....how is that a privilage? A homosexual couple does not have that same opportunity to make that choice and get married anyway, a privilage is usually taken away when misused (drunk driving - lose license)

OK...hope I got it all gotta chop up stuff for the tacos