Gay Marriage

[Whit]

      I dunno... Some of the chics I've met will still pull out the club and bonk you with it. So that's not gone either.

[warch]

Now we have to let them marry in order to integrate them into the community because of the
way the legal sysytem was created.

translation?: because it is just

[OnyxCougar]

We should be "letting them marry" because whether it's "natural" or not, whether it's "bad" to us as individuals or not, if America wants to maintain it's "high horse" as a bastion of freedom and equality, gender and sexual preference cannot and SHOULD not be considered when making laws.

Let me throw this out there:

In the workplace, laws have been passed to prohibit employers from discriminating against individuals for shit that does NOT affect their job.

The Equal Opportunity Act of 1995 states, in part:

PART 2--WHAT IS PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION?

6. AttributesThe following are the attributes on the basis of which discrimination is prohibited in the areas of activity set out in Part 3--

(a) age;
(b) impairment;
(c) industrial activity;
(d) lawful sexual activity;**
(e) marital status; ****
(f) physical features;
(g) political belief or activity;
(h) pregnancy;
(i) race;
(j) religious belief or activity;
(k) sex;

8. Direct discrimination

(1) Direct discrimination occurs if a person treats, or proposes to treat, someone with an attribute less favourably than the person treats or would treat someone without that attribute, or with a different attribute, in the same or similar circumstances.
(2) In determining whether a person directly discriminates it is irrelevant--

(a) whether or not that person is aware of the discrimination or considers the treatment less favourable;
(b) whether or not the attribute is the only or dominant reason for the treatment, as long as it is a substantial reason.

9. Indirect discrimination

(1) Indirect discrimination occurs if a person imposes, or proposes to impose, a requirement, condition or practice--

(a) that someone with an attribute does not or cannot comply with; and
(b) that a higher proportion of people without that attribute, or with a different attribute, do or can comply with; and
(c) that is not reasonable.

(2) Whether a requirement, condition or practice is reasonable depends on all the relevant circumstances of the case, including--

(a) the consequences of failing to comply with the requirement, condition or practice;
(b) the cost of alternative requirements, conditions or practices;
(c) the financial circumstances of the person imposing, or proposing to impose, the requirement, condition or practice.

(3) In determining whether a person indirectly discriminates it is irrelevant whether or not that person is aware of the discrimination.

10. Motive is irrelevant to discriminationIn determining whether or not a person discriminates, the person's motive is irrelevant.

So any law that states a marriage MUST be between a man and a woman, is discrimatory, based upon this Act.

** States determine what "lawful sexual activity" is, but even if we take this part out, it's still dicrimination based on sex.

****You can't discriminate on marital status, but it's ok to discriminate when it comes to what sexes can get married?? WTF?

Again, this pertains to employment, and I'm trying to get groceries put away right now or else I'd look up others, but I'm sure any gay website will have relevant links.

If it's illegal to discriminate in the workplace, why is it legal to discriminate when making laws?

[xoxoxoBruce]

The Equal Opportunity Act of 1995 states, in part:
quote:
(1) Direct discrimination occurs if a person treats, or proposes to treat, someone with an attribute less favourably.....

(a) whether or not that person is aware of the discrimination or considers the treatment less favourable;

favourable/favourably since when do they use this spelling in American law?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by warch


translation?: because it is just

No, because it is less trouble than changing the legal system which is more pragmatic than just.

[jimf747]

This is all very interesting, How many times has the bible been mentioned here, when it comes to being
a basis for law. Well guess what… the bible is the reference for law. Without religion… you have no definitions for morality or human worth. You are left with the pleasure principle, which defines the daily
activities of the lower animal kingdom. Personally I could care less what gay people do, until they start throwing their life style in my face every ten minutes. No one thinks beyond their nose, has anyone thought
about legal precedent, people wanting to marry their pet mouse and such! Sodomy is considered an unnatural act by law, as is bestiality etc. When you sanctify gay marriage under law, you by necessity sanctify the acts performed, and those acts like others are considered unnatural under established law, you will open the floodgates…get it. The ideas behind the words “Civil Union” address the problems that would arise from some of the things I’ve mentioned.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jimf747
Well guess what… the bible is the reference for law. Without religion… you have no definitions for morality or human worth.

The Bible is not always the reference for laws. And morality and human worth can be determined by individuals who don't necessarily subscribe to or consider religion.

Personally I could care less what gay people do, until they start throwing their life style in my face every ten minutes.

And I'm sure gays and lesbians appreciate you rubbing your lifestyle in their face every ten minutes as well.

No one thinks beyond their nose, has anyone thought about legal precedent, people wanting to marry their pet mouse and such! Sodomy is considered an unnatural act by law, as is bestiality etc. When you sanctify gay marriage under law, you by necessity sanctify the acts performed, and those acts like others are considered unnatural under established law, you will open the floodgates…get it.

Looks like we've got Santorum lite here. Why the hell do people start bringing shit like beastiality and incest into the whole argument against gay marriage? That seems pretty fucking ridiculous to me.

As far as natural or unnatural, I'm sure plenty of people throughout the ages have been participating in oral and anal sex...who is to say that it's unnatural? Not the law anymore, it seems, as sodomy laws were pretty much struck down in the Supreme Court recently.

[wolf]

Originally posted by sycamore


Looks like we've got Santorum lite here. Why the hell do people start bringing shit like beastiality and incest into the whole argument against gay marriage? That seems pretty fucking ridiculous to me.

They are both points lower down on the slippery slope, syc.

(and is part of how the argument is usually presented in conservative media/talk radio.)

[slang]

What about bi-sexuals and try-sexuals*

What if a bi-sexual man is married to a man, but ocassionally wants a little pussy? Is it not out of his control he lusts sexual activities with men and women? Can the man's husband file for divorce if he has sex with a woman? Can a hetero man file for divorce if his wife has sex with another woman? There are some legal cases now being handed down that deal with these issues but they lead to even more questions. Much of the legal thought has to be tested and made consistent. This will take time. Rushing into a whirlwind of court battles is counter productive for the gays, in my opinion.

Are a man's rights being violated because he cannot legally marry a man and a woman at the same time ( a man to work on the car and a woman to keep the house up* )? Can anyone else see this argument being made in the future?

* - Please dont be offended at my attempt to be humorous and leave the forum.

It would go something like this; in this day and age of increasingly longer work schedules and demands for quality time for children, couples and individuals, it is only logical ( and fair ) that more than two people should be allowed to marry. That would decrease the chances of divorce, which we know is a bad influence on the children, by allowing another person to contibute to the "family unit", thus lessening each person's stress. Think about it. If we are going to fiddle with the definition of marriage, doesnt this make sense, to allow more than 2 people to join in this non religious, "civil contract"? Just think of the long term benefits. To decrease divorce and it's ill effects, legally allow the couples to enter the legal contract and have sex with the other "consenting family members" by increasing the potential number from two, to say, three or four. A communal family structure, what could be better? Since the population is having such fertility and financial difficulites nowdays, doesnt this make sense?

You may not imagine people adopting and promoting this idea, but I sure can. If you can alter one major aspect of the definition of marriage, the door is wide open for more. I can see it now, the psychiatric community citing a study of foursomes over a thirty year period and the rosy development of the children in this new "progressive" family structure.

[jimf747]

It doesn’t matter what you think, it only matters what the judge and jury thinks. And by the way, I don’t care what gay people think about my life style, they are a small minority in nature and the country. Minorities don’t get to rule over majorities’… simple fact of nature. In addition, Sodomy and such are the topics when it comes to the law, whether you like it or not. As for the comment concerning human worth and such…you are missing the essential point, you logic has no primary foundation to examine the idea of the word worth used in this context. You can’t even define the word without religion. The very fundamental idea of good and bad come from religion. When you say “good people”, then you must define what you mean by good, and then your definition is open to further definitions.

[juju]

I think that there is no God, and I'm one of the most moral people you'll meet.

[wolf]

I think there are many gods, and am one of the most immor...

(just kidding. seemed funny at the time.)

[jimf747]

Originally posted by wolf


They are both points lower down on the slippery slope, syc.

(and is part of how the argument is usually presented in conservative media/talk radio.)

It wouldn’t be ridiculous if you were standing in front of judge, would it. It is convenient to overlook all the problems associated with this topic isn’t it. However, a lawyer looking to become lawyer of the month wouldn’t… would he? Let me ask you a very simple question…. Do you promote the ideas of socialism or are you an FDR Democrat?

[juju]

Are you some sort of troll?

[jimf747]

Originally posted by juju
Are you some sort of troll?

Can you explain your sudden move toward name-calling?