Bush backs Gay Marraige Ban Amendment

[MrFun]

I found a way to clarify the fallacy behind Bennie's argument by way of another example:


If a white person is prohibited from marrying a black person, there is no racial discrimination against black people, since white people are also subjected to the same prohibition, AND because black people can still marry other black people -- just not white people.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by MrFun
I found a way to clarify the fallacy behind Bennie's argument by way of another example:

If a white person is prohibited from marrying a black person, there is no racial discrimination against black people, since white people are also subjected to the same prohibition, AND because black people can still marry other black people -- just not white people.

I agree with you
that it technically would be no Discriminatiopn.

It could be considered to be some kind of Apartheid,
as Apartheid means "Separation" in Afrikaans,
but it would be IMHO no Discrimination.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST

After thinking some time about it I wouldn´t say that it is neither Discrimination against Gender nor sexual Orientation.

So I would call it rather some form of Discrimination against the "homosexual lifestyle", as homosexual lifestyle involves living together with a partner of the same sex.

Basically, you are saying that there is no such thing as sexual orientation; or that if there is, and your orientation is gay, you must not act your life in accordance with your orientation.

Very enlightened.

[The Mad Viking]

Here is the point.

A loving couple who are spend 30 years of their life co-habitating. One gets terminally ill. The other is prohibtied from visiting them in hospital beacuse they are not related.

The illness advances to death. Despite the fact that the couple were also economic partners who shared the same household for 30 years, the survivor is ineligible for the survivor benefit of the dead persons pension.

This a legal matter. It clearly violates the Consitution AS IT EXISTS, as Sava mentioned. It also violates ALL HUMAN DECENCY.

Any of you, including BK, who think this is perfectly allright, are a poor excuse for a member of human society, IMO.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


I agree with you
that it technically would be no Discriminatiopn.

It could be considered to be some kind of Apartheid,
as Apartheid means "Separation" in Afrikaans,
but it would be IMHO no Discrimination.

You guys are hopeless.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Basically, you are saying that there is no such thing as sexual orientation; or that if there is, and your orientation is gay, you must not act your life in accordance with your orientation.

Very enlightened.

Not exactly.

I say that homosexuals after all aren´t prevented to act on their sexual orientation and sleep with someone of the same sex, because you don´t need to marry to do this.

I also don´t say that it is absolutely no discrimination. But discrimination against something much more harder to grasp.
I think the example you gave in your last Posting illustrates it more clearly.

Here you have a gay couple living together who share their lifes just as some heterosexual couples do.
That´s the reason why I called it "Discrimination against a gay lifestyle" in my first posting.

Gay aren´t prevented from living out their sexuality and they aren´t prevented from marrying someone from the opposite sex, so there is no discrimination against their sexual orientation.

But, here comes what I call gay lifestyle:
Living together as a married couple like some Heteros do.

As there are a lot of Homos and Heteros around the world who don´t think of marrying their partners but instead, aside from going out with their partners on a regular basis and having sex with them, live their separate lifes,
I don´t see marriage as something which is necessary to live a life according to your sexual orientation.

So "only" those homosexual people are discriminated, who really would like to marry the partners they love.
In Absence of a better concept I just called it "Discrimination against a homosexual Lifestyle".

Maybe you could´ve also called it "Discrimination against homosexual couples living together"

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Not exactly.

I say that homosexuals after all aren´t prevented to act on their sexual orientation and sleep with someone of the same sex, because you don´t need to marry to do this.

I also don´t say that it is absolutely no discrimination. But discrimination against something much more harder to grasp.
I think the example you gave in your last Posting illustrates it more clearly.

Here you have a gay couple living together.
That´s the reason why I called it "Discrimination against a gay lifestyle" in my first posting.
Gay aren´t prevented from living out their sexuality and they aren´t prevented from marrying someone from the opposite sex, so there is no discrimination against their sexual orientation.

But, here comes what I call gay lifestyle:
Living together as a married couple like some Heteros do.

As there are a lot of Homos and Heteros around the world who don´t think of marrying their partners but instead, aside from going out with their partners on a regular basis and having sex with them, live their separate lifes,
I don´t see marriage as something which is necessary to live a life according to your sexual orientation.

So "only" those homosexual people are discriminated, who really would like to marry the partners they love.
In Absence of a better concept I just called it "Discrimination against a homosexual Lifestyle"

First off, gays do not want to marry someone of the same gender just to have sex.

Secondly, stop using the same fallacy that Bennie has used in that gays are free to marry someone of the opposite gender, since that is not the problem we have, in the first place.

Third, gays want a more meaningful life, which, for a number of them, means having recognition of their marriage with someone of the same gender.

[Proteus_MST]

And if I were in Power,
I would see no Problem in allowing gays to marry,
as I don´t see that marriage nowadays is as close connected to producing children as christian fundamentalists want it to be.
After all there are many hetero couples who don´t have any children and didn´t even plan to have any as they planned their marriage.
And I don´t have any problem if gays would be allowed to adopt children, as I think that homosexual couples could be as good parents as heteros would be (often maybe even better parents )

But I also don´t see it as a discrimination against sexual orientation that gays aren´t allowed to marry, but as a discrimination against something other, as I already tried to explain.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
He is also in favor of the state's right to decide, but voted to strip them of this right by his vote against the DoMA.

Maybe he doesn't like to vote for clearly unconstitutional leglistation. DoMA will be ruled unconstitutional with the first Federal test. It violates the "full faith and credit" clause.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Maybe he doesn't like to vote for clearly unconstitutional leglistation. DoMA will be ruled unconstitutional with the first Federal test. It violates the "full faith and credit" clause.

More likely, he is liar.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
More likely, he is liar.

The truth is probably both.

[Ned]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Here is the point.

A loving couple who are spend 30 years of their life co-habitating. One gets terminally ill. The other is prohibtied from visiting them in hospital beacuse they are not related.

The illness advances to death. Despite the fact that the couple were also economic partners who shared the same household for 30 years, the survivor is ineligible for the survivor benefit of the dead persons pension.

This a legal matter. It clearly violates the Consitution AS IT EXISTS, as Sava mentioned. It also violates ALL HUMAN DECENCY.

Any of you, including BK, who think this is perfectly allright, are a poor excuse for a member of human society, IMO.

BOGUS!!!!

All of this is adjustible by contract. Particularly, a person name his beneficiary and can give a deed to his property to his partner.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned
BOGUS!!!!

Unacceptable

Hospitals absolutely are permitted to deny non-family members visitation access. The fact that they don't always, doesn't mean they can't.

You're right about the will part, but thats a private function, not public.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The truth is probably both.

No it is not.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Ned
But whether it is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause critically depends on whether society has a significant governmental interest in being discriminatory in this fashion and whether the legislation is narrowly focused on addressing this governmental need. Discriminatory legislation is not per se unconstitutional if it is justified and narrowly focused.

Yet I'd argue your focus is too broad, because you're going to disenfranchise perfectly competent, loving, married adoptive parents. There would be no compelling interest for the state to deny your proposed tax benefit to such a couple solely because the child was not biologically theirs. It's not only discriminatory towards the couple, it's discriminatory towards the child (I didn't think of this before) -- the court will take a much stricter view on that score. It's very easy to argue that that child is deserving of the same support that the child being raised by his/her biological parents is, and that that interest is compelling enough to overturn any block on the tax benefit to the adoptive parents.