Connecticut religous groups want same sex exemptions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miros
  • Start date Start date
Cua said:
No anti-discrimmination laws? Please re-think this. I am not poking at you, but please re-think this from every angle. At least re-word it if that's not what you meant.
Click to expand...

No... that is exactly what i meant to say. Anti discrimination laws are counterproductive.
 
Lawmakers really need to stop using the bible to justify saying no to things such as this.
 
Tristam Green said:
There's always the alternative for those folks who want their "rights" to deny services to people not like them:

make their own fucking country.
Click to expand...

Maybe we can help ship them off to Somalia! They're more or less not a country. I think most everywhere else is taken, or locked into place willing or not (gogo Texas?).

Tomasello said:
Black or female rights not the same thing as gay marriage. Not even close. Tell a jim crow era black guy a gay's right to marry is the same as the racisim, lynchings, humiliation they experienced. The black community as already denounced the comparison.
Click to expand...

Tomasello said:
You swapped the words out of my statement in a sad attempt to imply they were the same thing dude. I never said anywhere they should shut up dude. I said, "Talk, debate, convince people its a good thing." dude. Legislation from the bench is a bad thing dude. Try to get your facts straight dude before your comment dude. Ok dude?
Click to expand...

Cause Gays haven't been dragged out behind wagons or more modernly trucks. And a Transsexual didn't get allegedly murdered just because part of her was still a "he". Nope, don't compare any of that kinda stuff at all. Don't even acknowledge it. The biggest saving grace might be that so many people learned it was wrong unfortunately through race battles, and therefore it's far less frequent in occurrence.

So, not comparable? I wouldn't say that Gay are any where near as victimized as those situations. Not at all. But you can't say that history isn't repeating itself even if on a lesser scale (especially on the brutality). And you certainly can't devalue their efforts.
 
Skaw said:
If you still think that equality isn't a big deal, then you really don't belong in the free world. Nobody was given equal rights by just sitting quietly, waiting for it to be given to them.
Click to expand...

This is why I love Skaw. It's very important to stand up for yourself and make sure you are heard. Government should never stand in the way of anyone's rights and people should make sure that government doesn't. Waiting around doesn't solve anything. Also:

Dejavu said:
It is just one set of values imposing their will on another set of values ignorant to the fact that neither should have the right to impose their values on the other. All anti discrimination laws are just forcing values upon people albeit a different set of values. Force does not change those values it only galvanizes the opposition which is why this issue has become so polarized. If government got out of the way these issues would be worked out on their own in the market.

I know this sounds idealized but it is the most effective way to fix the situation.
Click to expand...

This is very true. It's actually discriminatory to punish someone MORE just because they happened to do it to a minority. If someone murders a black woman, the charges can be increased based on the color of who you killed. This kind of government regulation IS discrimination and CAUSES a lot of discrimination within the general population. It's just very silly all around. A crime is a crime and should ALWAYS be treated as such regardless of who the crime was committed on.
 
Assuming the intent of lawmakers is sincere, to make a "Civil Union" precisely the same thing as a "Marriage", then you're left with the question of: Why bother? If you're really going to make the two things the exact same thing, then why not have the two things be the exact same thing.

And just to piss everyone off, we can call them all "Civil Unions", and leave "Marriage" as strictly something religious that has absolutely no legal aspects. That would amuse me. Or it would have. About two months ago.

So anyway.

Wedding sites/bakeries/djs/etc... Tough luck. You're screwed. You don't like working on the wedding of two homosexuals? Quit. To say that those are private individuals providing a service, and that they should therefor have the right to refuse that service, is ridiculous. That would be akin to saying, "Well, that neighborhood store there doesn't serve african-americans, but that's okay, since it's owner-operated and he can do what he wants."

Bustaballs said:
This is very true. It's actually discriminatory to punish someone MORE just because they happened to do it to a minority. If someone murders a black woman, the charges can be increased based on the color of who you killed. This kind of government regulation IS discrimination and CAUSES a lot of discrimination within the general population. It's just very silly all around. A crime is a crime and should ALWAYS be treated as such regardless of who the crime was committed on.
Click to expand...

We just has this debate.

I am now physically ill that there is something we apparently share an opinion on, though I phrase mine better.

Pardon me while I go be violently ill somewhere, and scrub my brain with something.

Probably lye.
 
Skaw said:
Yeah, but black schools and white schools weren't, and they were "the same thing."
Click to expand...

That was to keep people apart from one another out of hate, which is wrong. This isn't about keeping people apart from one another out of hate, at least not from my point of view. It's about two things that are not the same being called the same.
 
I'd say keeping gays from getting the same rights as straight people out of hate makes it the same thing.
 
Cerato said:
How on earth can you imply that people need to slow down and wait for equal rights? Do you live in a fucking bubble? You would have told people fighting for civil rights in the 1960s, “Relax, you can’t push it….it takes time for people to get used to the idea…” Fuck that. Why should I operate on someone else’s timetable?
Click to expand...

Then expect backlash... And stop crying about it.

Listen I really don't care one way or the other. If it were on the ballot I would vote for it. Unfortunately, I wasn't even given the choice because anti constitutional judges in my state already made the choice for me. You guys want the law changed (which law itself is nothing more then how society decides what rules it wants to live by) but every time society votes no (25+ times already) you just want a court to overturn it anyway because its not what you want.

If you (the reader) want to be a stupid idiot and say its like civil rights then go on being a moron. No one says you can't be with your partner or live with your partner. No one invading your home and telling you what you can do behind closed doors. It's nothing like civil rights. You want marriage (which is nothing more then society's recognition of your consensual relationship) but society, in 2009, DOES NOT WANT TO RECOGNIZE IT. If they did then you wouldn't lose EVERYTIME its put on a ballot (except for Vermont).

Rather then overturn the will of the people, causing the backlash and only making the fight harder, maybe you should just try to convince people that its a good thing, and I think it is. You might find it's a lot easier then you think to win them over. If you want to be a nut and radical then don't whine when religious nuts on the other side decide to protest.
 
Oh no I think it should be the same in every way but the name. Come to think of it, I bet eventually, some people will have a problem with it being called same-sex marriage rather than just marriage. Afterall that's not the same and thus is not equal right?

I'm not argueing they shouldn't be allowed everything a marriage is supposed to be, I'm argueing that you shouldn't call something the same when it's obviously not the same.
 
Tomasello said:
every time society votes no (25+ times already) you just want a court to overturn it anyway because its not what you want.
Click to expand...

Maybe because it's unconstitutional?

If you (the reader) want to be a stupid idiot and say its like civil rights then go on being a moron. No one says you can't be with your partner or live with your partner. No one invading your home and telling you what you can do behind closed doors. It's nothing like civil rights.
Click to expand...

But people are telling them they can't have the same rights and benefits as a straight couple. So yes, it is like civil rights.


Rather then overturn the will of the people, causing the backlash and only making the fight harder, maybe you should just try to convince people that its a good thing, and I think it is. You might find it's a lot easier then you think to win them over. If you want to be a nut and radical then don't whine when religious nuts on the other side decide to protest.
Click to expand...

The problem is that everyone who could be has already been won over already. This isn't a new issue. It's pretty fucking old. The problem is that the opposition is unwilling to let it happen, and they're the ones with their hands in the cookie jar.



Acutie said:
Oh no I think it should be the same in every way but the name. Come to think of it, I bet eventually, some people will have a problem with it being called same-sex marriage rather than just marriage. Afterall that's not the same and thus is not equal right?
Click to expand...

Why should they have to discern who they're married to? Why should it be called same-sex marriage? It should just be called Marriage from the get go. It's not a religious term, it's a legal term. And legal terms need to be gender neutral. Two straight people can be married without even stepping foot inside of a church/temple/synagogue.
 
Last edited:
I guess it depends on how you define marriage. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, same-sex marriage is still marriage.

To me personally, marriage is about love and commitment. Gay and lesbian couples are definately as capable of love and commitment as straight couples, so I don't see how it is any different.
 
Skaw said:
Why should they have to discern who they're married to? Why should it be called same-sex marriage? It should just be called Marriage from the get go. It's not a religious term, it's a legal term. And legal terms need to be gender neutral. Two straight people can be married without even stepping foot inside of a church.
Click to expand...

Ok let's say, the world unites for a little while somehow, and everyone agrees that it is all justt "Marriage". Suddenly and the hetero's get together and start calling it "Marriage Classic". Are any rights being violated and if so, who's?
 
Tomasello said:
Yeah? Where in the constitution does it say gays have the right to marry?
Click to expand...

I think Amendment 14 is as close as you're going to get. It doesn't provision that straight people have the right to marry, either.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
 
Acutie said:
Ok let's say, the world unites for a little while somehow, and everyone agrees that it is all justt "Marriage". Suddenly and the hetero's get together and start calling it "Marriage Classic". Are any rights being violated and if so, who's?
Click to expand...

It ultimately doesn't matter what a bunch of bigots and phobics decide to call their marraige, as long as it isn't legally called anything different. If people really cared about their opinion on the subject, the fight for gays to have equal rights would have stopped a long time ago.
 
Last edited:
Gay rights movement is the civil rights movement of the 21st century if you ask me. It took hundred years to free the slaves and anther hundred to give them equal rights.
 
Skaw said:
The 9th and 14th Amendments are pretty clear cut that Gay Marriage shouldn't be the way it is.
Click to expand...

You could not be more wrong. Gays have the same rights as everyone else under the constitution. They can vote. They have freedom of speech. They can bare arms in case the British ever try to take back America, etc. etc. The fact is marriage is NOT a constitutional right for gays or straights hence why it is up to the individual states to decide how they wish to recognize their citizenry's consensual relationships. Another reason why it is NOTHING like civil rights which are constitutionally protected.

Therefore not allowing gay marriage can't be deemed unconstitutional. How these dopey judges are bypassing the system is very simple. They're saying, "oh that 1903 marital law doesn't specifically define marriage as one man and one woman, therefore its ok." Which is a total misrepresentation of the intent of the law and blatent manipulation of the truth. If you jumped on a time machine and asked the entire 1903 legislature who drafted the law, "Hey, that law your writing includes gays too right?" They'd probably tar and feather you.

Edit: I pulled 1903 out of a hat, every state passed their own marital laws in different years but most were drafted well over 100 years ago and the example still holds true.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top