Hell Freezes Over As Glenn Beck Endorses Marriage Equality

So one out of three? And you focus on that?

Anyway--stats show that gay relationships are less stable than straight relationships.

http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-CCPR-2010-013/PWP-CCPR-2010-013.pdf

 

None of which will get you to the bedside of your dying life partner. Your contract won't trump the rules of a hospital.

 

How many do you need? I would be happy to go into the fiscal benefits as well. Plenty of those, both for the state and the couple.
You cite a report about cohabitation. What does that have to do with the approximately 50% "stability" rate of marriage? You are comparing people that have intentionally not made a permanent commitment to each other with people who marry with that as the intention.
That is intellectual dishonesty.
It may not be intentional, but it is totally dishonest intellectually.
Do you understand that? Do you understand why your citation is completely irrelevant to our conversation?

 

If everyone is allowed to be a Muslim and worship Allah they are treated equally, regardless of whether or not they are allowed to be Christians. That is equal right? You would be OK with that right?

Let the hypocrisy flood.

 

When you make this argument, you announce vividly that you are not a very bright human.
Neither the animal nor the child can give informed consent, so the violation of rights is on those entities. There is nothing relevant about these arguments. They aren't related in any way. You are talking about the right to rape when you compare these things, and I know of no one that supports your right to rape children or animals.
Just a suggestion.
Drop this argument forever.
It just makes you look very, very stupid.

 

Freedom of religion is specifically mentioned in the Constitution - if the Founders had considered being able to marry 'whoever you want' such a priority then they would have specifically mentioned it to, but since they didn't, it's an issue that should left up to the states to decide.

 

1) Same sex relationships were still criminalized in a number of states just 10 years ago, mine included.

2) Same sex relationships in most states have had no hope of becoming legally recognized. That's even truer as we move back to the time when this research was done, the first state having provided marriage equality only as recently as 2004.

3) Social stigmatization and institutionalized discrimination are destabilizing forces. Legal marriage won't cure the former, but it would be a giant step forward against the latter.

Never funny when naysayers want to blame same-sex couples for not having stable relationships in the face of the many roadblocks those same naysayers have helped promote and erect.

 

Well, not trying to get too far off subject, but what does it matter if the rich can pay a larger percentage of their income than the poor just because they make more? Jamie Fox thinks blacks are vastly superior to whites, so do that mean they should be regulated to working more physically laboring jobs like farming and construction just because they can? Flat tax, sure the rich will pay more, and thats fine, but at least it will be an EQUAL amount percentage wise.

 

OK, so we agree that your argument holds no water. We were not discussing the merits of the constitution. We were discussing gay marriage. Specifically, the justifications for discrimination. The arguments should stand on their own merits without special pleading or appeals to authority. I agree that freedom of religion is guaranteed in the constitution, that does NOTHING to distinguish my example from yours.

You obviously agree that freedom of religion would not exist in my example. So the freedom to associate and the pursuit of happiness are likewise infringed in yours. When liberties are removed, their should and must be legitimate cause. If there isn't, the removal is unjust.

 

Then fight for patients rights. Even still, does a hospital deny someone's emergency contact from going to their bedside? Wouldn't a living will allow the person incharge of your health care while incompacitated to get past all that hospital armed guards on the towers? This is a serperate issue than one to get the right to be happy with someone for the rest of your life ordained by the state.

 

Then weren't all the issues the poster brought up that I was responding to equally irrelevant?
Let's just keep it at the right to marry that person who you would choose as that special life partner. If sanctioned for one, sanctioned for all.
Do we agree?

 

It is not generating fury from me.

Ah...liberals and their stereotypes. You people have never considered that not all conservatives oppose gay marriage. I have posted many polls on this forum showing this. About 1 in 4 or so have supported marriage (not just civil unions) for years.

This is not new. Republicans themselves know this. Liberals insist on clinging to their stereotypes.

 

For the umpteenth time (Swear I'm going to save this for later cutting and pasting since it's the favorite argument of naysaysers):

It is the nature of law to discriminate between classes of people. Legal equality has nothing to do with making every situation equal. It is instead based on treating similar situations equally under the law.

1) Marriage is an agreement, contractual in nature. That means it requires the parties' competent, uncoerced consent.

2) Animals and inanimate objects are incapable of providing their competent, uncoerced consent to become a party to a marital union.

3) Children are also not able to provide competent, uncoerced consent. They don't have the emotional maturity and acquired experience to fully understand the ramifications of entering into this kind of agreement, and they're especially susceptible to coercion by adult authority figures.

4) Marrying multiple concurrent partners is not a situation similar to marrying just one, and therefore does not implicate a requirement for equal recognition. It will require considerable overhaul of existing laws, and would be an administrative nightmare for government without doing so. There is also a history of exploitation and coercion of women and children tied to the history of polygamy. Government can restrict rights where a compelling interest exists, and it appears one exists with regard to recognizing multiple parties to a marriage and concurrent marriages wherein one person has separate agreements with multiple partners.

5) There exists an even greater possibility of coercion between family members, which may provide government with a rational basis for withholding recognition of incestuous unions. Apart from that, the other arguments against it are fairly weak ones.

 

You dismiss stereotypes by using one.

Amusing.

 

No. The government shouldnt be sanctioning who we spend the rest of our lives with through a contract ONLY issued by the state after PAYING a fee. You have every right to be with whom you love, but why are you asking for the government overlords approval?

 

I'm ok with them getting out altogether, providing they do it in an equal manor. However, I think the benefits to marriage, gay or straight, are real to both the state and the celebrants, so I prefer that, and that it not be at the whim of a bigoted state population but is rather recognized as an individual choice for all citizens.
As for the religious sanction, no imposition should be put on the churches either way. There will be plenty of churches around that will be happy to bless a union of two adults, gay or straight.

 

No liberties are being removed. The govt not granting a license for gays to marry =/= 'removal of liberties'. It's up to the states to grant marriage rights or civil unions, so the federal govt need not get involved either way.

 

The source also compared the stability of cohabiting couple of different sexes to cohabiting couples of the same sex as well as married couples. --AND it was mentioned in the quote I provided. Are you suggesting I CAN'T provide comparable evidence because there is no comparison?

As for the state of marriage being at 50% divorce rate...you're right. That is atrocious.

In addition--you better look at what a significant segment of gay people view marriage to be. In a large percentage, monogamy and permanence are not part of the definition.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have evidence of stability? provide it.

 

I have seen cases where blood family has overridden such agreements. That is why they are insufficient.

Marriage recognition would ensure that these rights are granted by default, so homos would not need to jump through legal hoops to get them. It would remove a lot of hassle and uncertainty.

 

SpaceCricket would have told Rosa Parks "Don't like sitting in the back of the bus...move to another state".

- - - Updated - - -

As far as the news of Glenn supporting gay rights...only one thing to say-

 

Bingo. That's how civil liberties work - government recognises them, guarantees them and then gets out of the freaking way. That is how it should be.

 

Except that Rosa Parks was actually... uh, discriminated against. While gays aren't lacking any 'rights' which people of all sexualities aren't likewise lacking. So it's not an 'equal rights' issue - it's about creating a new right, and therefore not covered under the 14th Amendment.

Are liberals saying that a straight man can marry another man, but a gay man can't?

 

I saw no mention of marriage in the article. It was about cohabitation, which is not the subject of this discussion in any way. Totally irrelevant.
You understand that, don't you?

 

I do have to agree that two people of the same sex marrying each other is not technically the same thing that has been available to everyone up to this point. The law so far has only provided for what we might call traditional marriage.

However, since gays are different in that they are attracted to their own gender, I think it's fair for them to demand the right to marry each other in a manner that is comparable to how men and women have been able to marry one another. There is no practical reason to deny them this from a secular point of view.

Would this mean straight people of the same gender could then also marry each other? I suppose so, if they really wanted to go through with it, just as gays could marry the opposite sex now if they so chose. So what if they do? Let them. But you and the rest of the moral police should try and understand that many gays would feel the same way about marrying a member of the opposite sex that many straight people would feel about marrying the same sex. It's not really an option for them, and again, why should they be denied this simple choice? Let them live as they want to live. They aren't harming anyone by it. They're just causing you offense, apparently. Well, boo hoo.

 

It's legal to fire someone for no other reason than because they are gay in 29 states. If you think Gays are not discriminated against you don't belong in the conversation because cleary you are ignorant of the facts.

But since that seems to be your MO and you will continue on anyway answer me how marriage equality affects you based on your rights and liberties and why it is you must stand in its way.