The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Actually, we don't want to be a protected class of citizens. We want to be treated the same as those that aren't homosexual. We want equal rights, nothing more and defintely not less.

Lets forget about labeling and get to the true facts. If any two people wish to marry, they should be allowed to do so. What difference does it make what the genders or sexes are? If two people fall in love, why shouldn't they have the same rights and privileges as a hetrosexual couple?

I've given the reasons for same sex marriages in previous postings. However, I just learned today that a homosexual man was barred from attending the funeral of his 20 year partner, by the family. I should also state that I personaly know of a gay couple that have adopted two boys and the boys are extremely well balanced, just a bit more open minded than most their ages (14 and 15).

If two people fall in love, why shouldn't they have the same rights and privileges as a hetrosexual couple?

Actually though I disagree still you make a good point.

I disagree because I don't see how anyone else or anything can destroy the sanctity of a marriage between two individules unless they themselves somehow destroy it. I mean my marriage will be just as valid if two people of the same gender get married or not.

Maybe it is not homophobic, but I can't think what else it would be.

I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but I'm not aware homosexuals have less rights than people who aren't homosexual. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Why only two people? Are you opposed to three or more people getting married?

I missed the reasons you've given for same sex marriage. If you wouldn't mind, why do you think I should support same sex marriages?

What's love got to do with it? A couple can't prove they are in love whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Forming the question this way is really just trying to make this about homosexuality. This is really about "same sex" marriage not "homosexual" marriage. Why? Because two people of the same sex will be able to marry even if they are heterosexual, therefore, it's not about "homosexual" marriage.

CR

First off, how are ya?

Second, Define 'Sacred.'

Cycloptichorn

Omar

Quote:

I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but I'm not aware homosexuals have less rights than people who aren't homosexual. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, they do have less rights. They don't enjoy the right to pursue their happiness, one of the basic tenets of our society, by marrying the person they want to marry.

Quote:

Why only two people? Are you opposed to three or more people getting married?

No. Are you? If people are dumb enough to do this, let 'em.

Quote:

I missed the reasons you've given for same sex marriage. If you wouldn't mind, why do you think I should support same sex marriages?

I know you aren't addressing me, but I will sum it up for you: if you truly believe that all people are created equal, then you have to treat all people equally. Seperate is not equal; and it is not equal to deny certain people the right to marry (a universal concept not in any way connected to Christianity, btw) just because you don't agree with their lifestyle.

Quote:

What's love got to do with it? A couple can't prove they are in love whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Forming the question this way is really just trying to make this about homosexuality. This is really about "same sex" marriage not "homosexual" marriage. Why? Because two people of the same sex will be able to marry even if they are heterosexual, therefore, it's not about "homosexual" marriage.

So? People marry for love, green cards, money, and a whole bunch of reasons. What the hell do YOU care why someone else gets married? How does it affect YOU?

Cycloptichorn

Yes, they do have less rights. They don't enjoy the right to pursue their happiness, one of the basic tenets of our society, by marrying the person they want to marry.

if you truly believe that all people are created equal, then you have to treat all people equally. Seperate is not equal; and it is not equal to deny certain people the right to marry (a universal concept not in any way connected to Christianity, btw) just because you don't agree with their lifestyle.

So? People marry for love, green cards, money, and a whole bunch of reasons. What the hell do YOU care why someone else gets married? How does it affect YOU?

Preserving the sanctity of marriage also means disallowing polygamy, marriage between siblings, between children & adults, & a small host of other inventive relationships. Homosexuality is one of many ways people carry on relationships. The uniqueness of homosexual relationships are no more "different" than any abnormal relationship is "different" (except homosexuals are squeakier hinges, which by the way, doesn't mean they *deserve* to be oiled).

I don't believe all people are created equal or are ever equal.

I did read "what" you were responding to, thank you very much. But there's really only one line in yer post worth responding to:

Quote:

I don't believe all people are created equal or are ever equal.

Then you are UnAmerican, sir. That's not how we look at things here in America.

Cycloptichorn

Actually, we don't want to be a protected class of citizens. We want to be treated the same as those that aren't homosexual. We want equal rights, nothing more and defintely not less.

Lets forget about labeling and get to the true facts. If any two people wish to marry, they should be allowed to do so. What difference does it make what the genders or sexes are? If two people fall in love, why shouldn't they have the same rights and privileges as a hetrosexual couple?

I've given the reasons for same sex marriages in previous postings. However, I just learned today that a homosexual man was barred from attending the funeral of his 20 year partner, by the family. I should also state that I personaly know of a gay couple that have adopted two boys and the boys are extremely well balanced, just a bit more open minded than most their ages (14 and 15).

Nah, just wondering what ya thought about that angle of the argument, is all. Nice to hear you are doing well.

Except for one little point I just thought of: are all religions equal? If my religion holds it sacred FOR gays to marry, would that be enforcble by law as freedom of religion? I have no idea about the laws or ramifications of any of this, just a casual thought.

Cycloptichorn

"marrying the person they want to marry" is not a right anyone enjoys, heterosexual, homosexual or whatever. I'm still not aware homosexuals have less rights than anyone else.

While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).

[State statute violates equal protection clause.]

* * *

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

Laws that prohibit polygamy have a purpose other than perserving the institution of marriage. The state does not have a compelling interest in preserving the sanctity of marriage, but it does have a compelling interest in ensuring that the parties comply with their duties during the marriage and upon dissolution of the marriage. Accordingly, the state requires that a married person legally dissolve his first marriage to ensure the welfare of the first family before a second marriage may be entered and a second family formed.

Laws that prohibit incest have a purpose other than preserving the institution of marriage. Incest is illegal in order to protect children from becoming victims of sexual abuse within the family unit. The state has a compelling interest in protecting children.

Polygamy is a crime. Incest is a crime. However, homosexuality is different. Homosexuality is not a crime.

You want to classify homosexual relationship as abnormal. Accordingly, you are making a judgment and denying same-sex couples equal protection under the law based on the judgment you have made about their interpersonal relationships.

The state has no legitimate, important, or compelling interest in denying equal rights under the law to same-sex couples simply because some people may find their interpersonal relationships to be abnormal.

Lets forget about labeling and get to the true facts. If any two people wish to marry, they should be allowed to do so. What difference does it make what the genders or sexes are? If two people fall in love, why shouldn't they have the same rights and privileges as a hetrosexual couple?

Omar de Fati wrote:

"marrying the person they want to marry" is not a right anyone enjoys, heterosexual, homosexual or whatever. I'm still not aware homosexuals have less rights than anyone else.

You are wrong. The United States Supreme Court says you're wrong. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

Quote:

While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).

[State statute violates equal protection clause.]

* * *

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

Marriage is a social contract between two persons wherein the consent of both is essential. Marriage is a secular institution in that it may only be entered into or dissolved by the laws of the state. A person's marital status entitles a person to an abundance of rights and similarly obligates a person to an abundance of duties.

Laws that prohibit polygamy have a purpose other than perserving the institution of marriage. The state does not have a compelling interest in preserving the sanctity of marriage, but it does have a compelling interest in ensuring that the parties comply with their duties during the marriage and upon dissolution of the marriage. Accordingly, the state requires that a married person legally dissolve his first marriage to ensure the welfare of the first family before a second marriage may be entered and a second family formed.

Laws that prohibit incest have a purpose other than preserving the institution of marriage. Incest is illegal in order to protect children from becoming victims of sexual abuse within the family unit. The state has a compelling interest in protecting children.

Polygamy is a crime. Incest is a crime. However, homosexuality is different. Homosexuality is not a crime.

You want to classify homosexual relationship as abnormal. Accordingly, you are making a judgment and denying same-sex couples equal protection under the law based on the judgment you have made about their interpersonal relationships.

The state has no legitimate, important, or compelling interest in denying equal rights under the law to same-sex couples simply because some people may find their interpersonal relationships to be abnormal.

I wouldn't worry about it Omer, according to Cyc and his definitions, most Americans are already homophobic.

But Omar, Debra is in the legal profession and thus her opinions carry the weight of law behind them. So we must defer to her in this matter. But you are new here and probably did not know this. I have now set you straight.

NOTE TO DEBRA: Please do not take offense at my poking fun at you and the legal profession. (I have found most lawyers to have an exagerated sense of their opinions when it comes to legal matters, and since every case has a winner and a loser, that means lawyers are only right 50% of the time) Feel free to give me a good ribbing anytime at all. Just remember, I really do find your posts interesting. Don't agree with most of them, but I still enjoy them.