<p>“I don’t understand why you constantly appeal to partisan politics for argumentation. Who cares what a standard Republican or Democrat would think about a specific stance (much less stances that are irrelevant to this topic)? Why don’t we forget who supports what and simply argue the issue at hand? But to indulge you, yes, it’s perfectly plausible that some traits are influenced by environment and some by genetics. It’s nature AND nurture.”</p>
<p>The poster I responded to called herself a progressive. Feel free to review their posts. She also began mentioning political parties.</p>
<p>“These are all strawmen, really. Everyone is denied the a driver’s license under 16. Everyone is denied alcohol (legally speaking) under 21. Everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexuality receives these rights after they reach the proper age. Moreover, these laws are in place for the safety and well-being of society. However, bans on homosexual union are permanent, discriminatory in terms of sexuality, and fail to confer any public benefit.”</p>
<p>Well, all homosexuals are denied the vote based on something people claim they can’t control. Age restrictions deal with biological age, not maturity, and a person can not control age. The other point is that just because something is legal, exists and is allowed by the government, doesn’t make it a right. The gov is allowed to place restrictions on monopolized activities, such as drinking, driving (hopefully apart from drinking) and gun ownership. I think you missed that correlation. The first two deal with privelages people misinterpret as rights, the third is a right that has legal restrictions (certain people are denied the right to bear arms). Also, in order to drive, you must have insurance. Driving laws are therefore discriminatory against poor people, following your logic. Poor people “Can’t help” being poor, but they can not meet the requirements to drive, which is a privelage, not an established right. </p>
<p>"
That claim lacks substantiation. It’d be quite difficult to gauge public opinion for such a fickle and controversial issue. It’s only the conservative hard-liners and extremely religious who are ardently opposed to gay marriage. Our generation seems to be more and more comfortable with the idea."
[ABCNEWS.com</a> : Poll: No Same-Sex Marriage, No Amendment](<a href=“http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html]ABCNEWS.com”>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html)
55% seems more than hard line conservatives and extremely religious people to me. Do you happen to have numbers that say young people more strongely support gay marriage than the baby boomers? While there are many loud leftists at my school, there is a strong base of conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists. I think it’s a huge assumption to think the youth is more open minded. I just think certain groups are more vocal than others, hence the silent majority. I mean, if you just looked at the shere amount of protests in the 60s and 70s, you’d assume America was a liberal nation, yet conservatives won national elections. </p>
<p>“I think the issue is that STATES deny union to homosexual couples, leading them to appeal to the FEDERAL government for an injunction of sorts. You can’t think any other civil rights movement that followed similar lines (labor rights, female suffrage, desegregation, etc.)?”</p>
<p>They wouldn’t have the power to do so if we didn’t allow them to have a monopoly on marriage licenses. Their monopolization of marriage licenses is the problem. I don’t understand your statement.</p>
<p>“Let’s turn the tables for a moment. Hypothetically speaking, if America suddenly allowed ONLY homosexual marriages and denied all heterosexual marriages, would you still think to yourself, “eh, at least I can still vote and protest. I mean, sure, I’m being discriminated against based on my sexuality, but I can still exercise my right to litigation”? Appealing to the “it could be worse” argument is an attempt to distract from the issue at hand. We’re not arguing about political liberties, we’re arguing about discrimination in marriage based on sexuality.”</p>
<p>This is also in response to another poster who argued that gays essentially don’t have rights. I am assuming you did not read the posts in which my responses were directed. Honestly, I don’t go around seeking the governments approval for everything I do. I wouldn’t care if the state or fed recognized my relationship. The issue is that people are saying gays don’t have equal rights, yet they can only cite one real issue: marriage. And marriage is not an established natural, constitutionally protected right. There is a right to privacy, a right to do whatever you want in your house with whoever you want, as long as it’s consensual. People are arguing for tax breaks/credits and a slip of paper. You are free to practice everything a married couple does- weddings, honeymoons, shared living arangements, voluntary intercourse, etc. People should be focused on the progress we’ve made in the last 25 years since Bowers v Hardwick and looking to move forward. Not complain and say they are being denied rights. </p>
<p>“Somehow, your comments lead me to think otherwise.”</p>
<p>I guess everyone convientley overlooks the multiple times I’ve said I do not care if gays can marry. At all. Doesn’t affect me in any way. I don’t think marriage recognizition is an established right, and the courts have been hesitent to create one.</p>
<p>"Non sequitur. Irrelevant to this discussion. My god, you’re just full of these logical fallacies. "</p>
<p>I love how you do the same thing. Once again, this was in response to a post critcizing how the GOP “micromanages” our lives. Ironically, the Dems are happy to do the same. You would have understood that had you read who I was responding to. If you want to throw yourself into a discussion, at least understand the context of it. </p>
<p>"No one stays 16 forever, just as no one stays 21 forever, and everyone can get a driver’s license after 16 and everyone can legally drink after 21. Homosexuality is unlikely to change as a person ages and bans on marriage don’t change as a person ages.</p>
<p>Moreover, the reason driver’s licenses are denied to kids under 16 is for the the sake of public safety. Similar reasons apply to restrictions on alcohol use for people under 21. However, what possible public benefits could result from banning homosexual unions? Are the streets going to become more dangerous? Is national health going to be jeopardized? I’ve seen studies on the detrimental effects of alcohol on adolescent brains, but I’ve yet to see any study detailing the safety concerns of homosexual union."</p>
<p>Read the above. The point was the gov denies rights based on biological characteristics all the time. If you want to believe homosexuality is a trait or whatever, realize that people are denied rights based uncontrollable traits. Gun rights and handgun restrictions are the best example of discrimination. Some people are never allowed to own guns. </p>
<p>I’m not sitting here saying gays aren’t targeted with marriage laws. I was responding to the question of what rights are/were you denied. Yes, DOMA targets gays. Sodomy laws target gays, but not explicitly. See Bowers. This isn’t about whether gays are sought after for being denied a privelage, it’s about whether there is a constitutional right to marry. Nobody has supported that claim. Instead, people are saying gays are targeted, are denied rights, and no one can support these claims. </p>
<p>Like I said, if people really think marriage is a right, why would they put it up for a vote? Then they lose, and claim most people are okay with gay marriage. Then they sue. If the government wants to create benefits and privelages, they can determine the requirements for them. People view homosexuality as a moral issue. It is banned by most religions, it has historically been attacked, it is not natural, it is not a normal lifestyle, it is not a safe lifestyle (age expectancy is drastically shorter, in some cases 20 years). Yes, in 20 years it will probably be legal, but it’s wrong to call people who are morally opposed to it ignorant, especially when it’s an abnormal lifestyle. </p>
<p>If you want to continue to allow the state to have a monopoly on marriage, don’t complain about their restrictions. I think the issue with challenging DOMA is that it does not specifically target gays the way Texas anti sodomy law did in Lawrence. It targets every union that isn’t one man and one woman. That I think will be a key point in arguments. If it was a direct ban on gay marriage, saying only that same sex couples couldn’t marry, it would be much easier to challenge.</p>