Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The discussion is over as soon as someone brings in religion - how can you argument with someone who truly believes that a "god" is telling him/her/it to dislike gays?

We're just at the beginning of a time to see more and more governments ignore religious aspects, things will get better over time.

But that is your bias against religion coming through. If your only experience in religion is the thought of Christianity then you would be correct. How can your blanket statement hold true when you have so many other religious teachings and beliefs. Also how can the argument be that the scriptures say nothing against being gay yet then say that their teachings are saying to dislike gays. Isn't this a straw man argument just as much as many others on here.
 
The reason why the evolution of gay marriage is a sign of bad things to come, has nothing to do with homosexuality per se. Unfortunately, it marks an ever-increasing role for government in the personal lives of individuals.

License -- "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."

Nobody needs a marriage license in order to be married.

A really bad step in the wrong direction, unfortunately.

Yet another power grab by statists.

Now.. more importantly, when is Apple going to do something that doesn't suck, so far as products are concerned?

I'm not a religious person, but this makes sense:

http://www.tnonline.com/2012/sep/01/true-cost-permit-or-license-almost-always-freedom-and-liberty
 
Last edited:
But that is your bias against religion coming through. If your only experience in religion is the thought of Christianity then you would be correct. How can your blanket statement hold true when you have so many other religious teachings and beliefs. Also how can the argument be that the scriptures say nothing against being gay yet then say that their teachings are saying to dislike gays. Isn't this a straw man argument just as much as many others on here.

The problem is there's no way to be truly objective on these sorts of topics, which is one of the biggest straw man arguments in political and religious discussions, right? We all come in with one or more biases to any discussion and we take the side that best fits. It's the same way with policy discussions, there's no one group or subgroup that's going to come away with everything they want and will therefore need to take the remaining bits up another day. It's a matter of weighing cost/benefit, at least to some degree. From my viewpoint, I can genuinely think of no reason whatsoever to not allow gay marriage and to not enshrine non-discrimination in the law. The benefits of inclusivity are many, as outlined in other posts.

Why enshrine it in law? Because most societies, including here in the US, didn't historically start out with everyone equal, with those outside those bounds left to fight there way in. African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, Women, Gays/Lesbians, quite often other religions outside of Christianity, have at one point or other started out as not considered equal here. Another reason is human stupidity. It's one thing to say everyone is equal but another entirely to act on that and the fact is that gays, blacks, and others are discriminated against all the time - I've witnessed it and heard about it many times over the years. Apes can be violent to those considered outsiders.

Does it sometimes swing too far by bringing in reverse discrimination or other consequences? Sure. The law is an ass, and again, humans can be vile creatures. But that's why we have the mess we call democracy. Give and take, push and pull.

----------

The reason why the evolution of gay marriage is a sign of bad things to come, has nothing to do with homosexuality per se. Unfortunately, it marks an ever-increasing role for government in the personal lives of individuals.

License -- "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."

Nobody needs a marriage license in order to be married.

A really bad step in the wrong direction, unfortunately.

Yet another power grab by statists.

In Colorado in the US, for me to be "married", I've got to have a marriage license and it has always been true.

Now.. more importantly, when is Apple going to do something that doesn't suck, so far as products are concerned?

Now, now - bringing in more religious discussion to an already hot topic?;)
 
In Colorado in the US, for me to be "married", I've got to have a marriage license and it has always been true.

Incorrect. There was no requirement for marriage licenses in the United States until the mid 1800's. The origin of marriage licenses traces back to moral panic over interracial marriage. Therefore, in the 1800's, states began requiring individuals to obtain a license prior to getting married. If the couple was an interracial one, the license was refused.

Because, in reality, it's none of the states business what you do. Which is why all of this pressure to force states to expand their regulation over interpersonal relationships is a bunch of garbage.

In reality, the state should have no power over the personal relationships of individuals, to withhold or endorse them. At all.

Ironically, homosexuals have probably had more freedom to marry than heterosexuals during the last part of the 1900's when the state was out of the picture. For example, currently, all states have laws that prohibit clergy / other officiants from officiating a wedding if there is no marriage license pending or to be filed with the state. I myself was refused by a great many officiants for a wedding ceremony without a "license" on the basis that for them to officiate my wedding would then be illegal (though many of them told me that they would if the state didn't prohibit it). Of course, if the state does not "recognize" the marriage, then this restriction probably does not apply, and the individuals would probably be free to have their party and say whatever they want at it, without being harassed by the state. They can then draw up contracts with one another using a lawyer of church and be free to do as they please.

My situation in contrast is particularly horrible. For example, I am free to withhold from my employer my true marital status or lie to them about it if I choose. However, every year I am required by law to disclose my marital status to the IRS at the top of my tax form, or be punished. It is none of their business.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to benefits being supplied to a spouse by an employer, why are same sex partners granted benefits when non-married different gender partners are denied the same benefits by said employer not considered discrimination and a battle taken up on the basis of this discrimination? Is it because people don't want to see or acknowledge that discrimination occurs to hetero groups as well??

Example? Source?
 
Incorrect. There was no requirement for marriage licenses in the United States until the mid 1800's.

OK, I stand corrected. Until the mid-1800s a marriage license wasn't required. Here in 2013, I need one. And while I could jump through the hoops you mention, maybe, and not involve the state, I have neither the desire nor intellectual interest to spend any time doing so given how I weigh what I want out of life. So for me to participate in society in the way I want to and be recognized by the state and really, by the larger society as a whole, I need a marriage license.

I view marriage as personal partnership, certainly, but also a public legal contract involving transfer of property and other medical/legal/tax rights that quite frankly is easier to have the state involved in rather than fighting every step of the way.
 
And while I could jump through the hoops you mention, maybe, and not involve the state, I have neither the desire nor intellectual interest to spend any time doing so given how I weigh what I want out of life. So for me to participate in society in the way I want to and be recognized by the state and really, by the larger society as a whole, I need a marriage license.

I view marriage as personal partnership, certainly, but also a public legal contract involving transfer of property and other medical/legal/tax rights that quite frankly is easier to have the state involved in rather than fighting every step of the way.

Tough crap. Your provincial community standards are no reason to screw over an individual. You're no different from a religious kook.
 
Unfortunately being a white male hetero in this day, I have to face some of the largest losses of my rights as other groups obtain so called "equal" or "same" rights. Affirmative action has caused members of my group to lose job offers in the name of affirmative action. Yet this was stricken down as discrimination in a court why? My group has been denied the same protections when charges of discrimination are filed, as the findings have been determined that there is no such things as "reverse discrimination". Why do they call it this special name? if race is a protected class, then why is the white race not a class, but the norm against how other classes should be judged? I have been to other countries and denied rights based upon my color, religious affiliation, and sex so I do know and have experienced discrimination but it wasn't called that since I was not considered a part of the protected class.

This is why these battles are so heated as the group fighting for the rights they believe that are being denied, whether true or not (and this is a general statement I am not speaking to any specific right in this case) they fail to see that the granting of a right and said equality will generally in some way infringe upon the same sort of right for another group!

Why is it fair to call someone a name such as bigot because they don't agree with your stance but you don't feel it is fair for them to say how they feel about a group and judge them based upon this? How is one name calling better than another? Is it not hatred in both cases? Should stupidity and ignorance be protected classes as well??

I think that these few words sum it all up. The White male has for so long been at the top of the food chain, and it the 21st century that’s all changing. All those old certainties have gone for ever.

The western world is slowly but surely moving to equal rights across the boards. The rights that you say that say you are losing, were in fact UNFAIR advantages. The old ideas that certain groups enjoyed certain privileges has been deemed by society at large as discrimination.

These are going to be interesting times as whole segments of society start to take their rightful place in the workforce, in politics, and in life in general.

If you are a young American you are also going to experience the added loss of US power as other nations rise.
 
This is not wholly true. If the person you love is a close blood relative, marriage is generally denied. What if I find I am in love with 2 people or more why am I denied the right to be legally bonded to them as well? This is discrimination as well. Marriage is not a right granted within the Constitution, therefor how can it be a right denied? Would polygamy be a protected class under the new rules or still a thing frowned and discriminated upon?

When it comes to benefits being supplied to a spouse by an employer, why are same sex partners granted benefits when non-married different gender partners are denied the same benefits by said employer not considered discrimination and a battle taken up on the basis of this discrimination? Is it because people don't want to see or acknowledge that discrimination occurs to hetero groups as well??

What is the criteria to be granted benefits by an employer if legal marriage is not the determining factor? Is it time together? How does one document that if no legal documents exists? In these cases what is in place to stop one from claiming partnership and getting benefits after nothing more than a few weeks together exist? And it has happened where groups like Disney have extended benefits to same sex partners yet denied the same benefits to different sex partners based upon the fact that the different sex partners were not married. Why the double standard? Is a double standard not considered discrimination or is it considered an anomaly and not discrimination, as I don't see activists groups taking up this battle?

Unfortunately being a white male hetero in this day, I have to face some of the largest losses of my rights as other groups obtain so called "equal" or "same" rights. Affirmative action has caused members of my group to lose job offers in the name of affirmative action. Yet this was stricken down as discrimination in a court why? My group has been denied the same protections when charges of discrimination are filed, as the findings have been determined that there is no such things as "reverse discrimination". Why do they call it this special name? if race is a protected class, then why is the white race not a class, but the norm against how other classes should be judged? I have been to other countries and denied rights based upon my color, religious affiliation, and sex so I do know and have experienced discrimination but it wasn't called that since I was not considered a part of the protected class.

This is why these battles are so heated as the group fighting for the rights they believe that are being denied, whether true or not (and this is a general statement I am not speaking to any specific right in this case) they fail to see that the granting of a right and said equality will generally in some way infringe upon the same sort of right for another group!

Why is it fair to call someone a name such as bigot because they don't agree with your stance but you don't feel it is fair for them to say how they feel about a group and judge them based upon this? How is one name calling better than another? Is it not hatred in both cases? Should stupidity and ignorance be protected classes as well??

The instant you compared homosexuality to incest and/or polygamy (the second of which I say go for it anyway), is the instant you lost me.

But that is your bias against religion coming through. If your only experience in religion is the thought of Christianity then you would be correct. How can your blanket statement hold true when you have so many other religious teachings and beliefs. Also how can the argument be that the scriptures say nothing against being gay yet then say that their teachings are saying to dislike gays. Isn't this a straw man argument just as much as many others on here.

Well, part of the scriptures say it ... the ones they like to cherry pick from. Christianity is quite the interesting religion. If you bring up the dietary things, stoning disobedient children, etc, it's something from the OT that should be ignored. If you bring up that's where the problem with homosexuality comes from, suddenly you can't ignore that part of the Bible.

It's really interesting when you think about it.
 
Incorrect. There was no requirement for marriage licenses in the United States until the mid 1800's. The origin of marriage licenses traces back to moral panic over interracial marriage. Therefore, in the 1800's, states began requiring individuals to obtain a license prior to getting married. If the couple was an interracial one, the license was refused.

Looking briefly into your claim it does look as if marriage licenses weren't required until the mid 1800's, that cohabitation was considered sufficient to establish common-law-marriage. However, I have not seen mention this being the product of "panic over interracial marriage".

Can you please cite your source for that?

In any case, a major aspect of marriage is the joining of assets [and liabilities] of the couple. The license clearly establishes the relationship in a way that cohabitation does not. It would seem to me that in the interest eliminating legal confusion over states of matrimony and the joining/dividing of public property, it's in the state's best interest to require a license as proof of a couple's marriage.

You are still welcome to freely co-habitate as much as you wish. The only difference is that the state won't recognize the relationship in certain aspects. It seems to me that you're asking for both: you want the freedom to establish your relationship outside of the rules of the state, while at the same time asking the state to recognize your relation despite it's lack of legal, accepted establishment.

IMO, you have to make a choice. Either accept the rules of the state and abide by them, thus obtaining a legal marriage, or co-habitate freely. It seems to me to be a reasonable choice for couples to make on their own accord. How is that not freedom?
 
Tough crap. Your provincial community standards are no reason to screw over an individual. You're no different from a religious kook.

You've so skillfully dissected my argument with such a convincing line of thought, I'm not sure there's anything I could possibly say that would top your response :rolleyes:

<Takes silly kooky provincial standards and crawls under rock/>
 
Sadly, the house is full of not so progressive folks right now. Maybe in 2014 ;)

I'm sure some of us are wondering why it's considered "progressive" (the code word for liberal) to support anti-discrimination in the land of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? No Libertarians, it's not "free to discriminate"! ;)
 
Why is it fair to call someone a name such as bigot because they don't agree with your stance but you don't feel it is fair for them to say how they feel about a group and judge them based upon this? How is one name calling better than another? Is it not hatred in both cases? Should stupidity and ignorance be protected classes as well??

Excellent point. Equality means everyone's view is equally valid whether or not you agree with them.

These wise words come to mind: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
 
Last edited:
Excellent point. Equality means everyone's view is equally valid whether or not you agree with them.

These wise words come to mind: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

And... before I actually respond to that quote, please tell me how you think that applies to this thread.
 
And... before I actually respond to that quote, please tell me how you think that applies to this thread.

I would have thought it was obvious if you've read the comments above, but I'll explain it of you wish. Throughout this thread anyone expressing their views based on their religious faith is being called a bigot or worse for having the audacity to disagree with the pro gay lobby. I'm merely stating that freedom of expression applies to everyone equally regardless of whether you agree with them or not.
 
I would have thought it was obvious if you've read the comments above, but I'll explain it of you wish. Throughout this thread anyone expressing their views based on their religious faith is being called a bigot or worse for having the audacity to disagree with the pro gay lobby. I'm merely stating that freedom of expression applies to everyone equally regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

Ah, alright, I thought you might have been using the "religious freedoms" argument to weigh in on why some people should be able to discriminate against others.
 
Tough crap. Your provincial community standards are no reason to screw over an individual. You're no different from a religious kook.

I've brought this up several times, but no one has brought up anything that could in fact prove harm. The very best effort I received was just a link to a study's abstract, which covered only an issue that was tangential at best. I still haven't found a complete one. The site has been acting up on my end, so I couldn't edit earlier. I noticed the reference to marriage licenses. At this point churches can still perform ceremonies even in states where marriage licenses are not issued to gay couples. The license kind of is what it is, as we structure some social policy around it, including joint tax returns, other aspects of filing, and child custody. The arguments on here are leaving me a bit jaded, as almost none of them prove harm or in the example of required licensing (assuming the requirement of a license equates to harm), greater harm, by allowing gay couples to marry.
 
Last edited:
The instant gay people are allowed to marry, all people will become gay and then... blamo, hetero marriage destroyed.

Right?

;)

I don't normally chime in, but this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Most straight people have no desire to be gay, and gay people aren't looking for a "cure" to be straight.
 
I would have thought it was obvious if you've read the comments above, but I'll explain it of you wish. Throughout this thread anyone expressing their views based on their religious faith is being called a bigot or worse for having the audacity to disagree with the pro gay lobby. I'm merely stating that freedom of expression applies to everyone equally regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

We already have laws that override religious beliefs - look at all the things the Bible or Koran or Torah says one could be killed for. "I was just expressing my views based on my religious faith" is not going to be a valid defense and get you off the hook if you kill someone because your religious text tells you to.

Anti-LGBT discrimination laws are not going to be the first laws that directly contradict with the antiquated, outdated, and frankly, wrong, teachings of religion.
 
I don't normally chime in, but this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Most straight people have no desire to be gay, and gay people aren't looking for a "cure" to be straight.

He was being sarcastic.....
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.