Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "North Carolina Is Obessed With Gay People" video.

The real issue is what is the government's role in marriage? People have no problem with gay people, and gay people have always been allowed to get married. The government never recognized it though. So the real discussion is what is the government's role in marriage?
5
Jace, nothing is being banned here. No one is going to jail.
2
Same sex marriage is not being banned. It just won't be recognized by the government. There is a major difference. Murder is banned. When you killed someone you go to jail. Gays have always been allowed to get married. The issue was that the government did not recognize it. So the real discussion should be the government's role in marriage.
1
Everyone has the right to get married based on the right to pursue happiness. The government did not have to recognize it. Just like I have the right to open a university, that does not mean it will be accredited. " not recognizing only same sex marriage is unconstitutional" That is 100% not true. Point to me where in the Constitution that is written.
1
" they have to for everyone once they recognize it for anyone," No they do not if there is not benefit to that local community according to the government. "that's what the fourteenth amendment is about." " Section 1. 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. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" The ruling on the 14th amendment is that marriage was between a man and a women, thus it can't discriminate base on race. But in terms of gender one can argue that there is no benefit in recognizing marriage between people of equal sex. If you are going to allow marriage between a man and a woman than race should not matter. But in terms of gender you can make an argument that a marriage should be between a man and a woman as the reason why the government was involved in marriage to begin with was only for that purpose. With your argument you start down the path of incest and polygamy. All or nothing according to you.
1
"however the constitution does grant equal rights to all citizens" Marriage is not a right. Even at that the argument is strong that a gay person can just marry someone of the opposite sex. Also, why do married people receive tax benefits and single people don't? I can argue that is unequal and violates the 14th amendment. No one is being discriminated against. If anyone is it is unmarried people.
1
"with you mentioning polygamy i seriously doubt your intellect, again" It happens. There are people who practice that which makes me question your intellect. You are someone who is so bias towards wanting gay marriage to be legal that you refuse to listen to other arguments (such as polygamy). But I remember you as the same person that I demanded a peer reviewed source or a textbook on your theory of economics and you ran away. You also said that textbooks are not peer reviewed when in fact they are. That also has me questioning your intellect. But back on topic. "which protected group is discriminated against by banning polygamy? no group." Religious groups that practice it which brings up another point. On race you are born that way. You do not act a certain race, you are that way genetically. That is why interracial marriage is legal. But in terms of gay marriage that is something you practice. You can look at someone and know if they are black, white, asian, etc. But you do not know if someone is gay unless they tell you which is an action. So there are clear differences at that point. Again, I question you intellect.
1
" the recognition of your marriage by law is a right" Nope, not listed anywhere in the constitution. "that discriminates upon sex and gender, which is unconstitutional " No it does not. " tax benefits are a privilege for married people." So we discriminate against single people? Why? What if someone decides not to get married, why should they not have any benefits? " banning only same-sex marriage discriminates upon sex and gender" No one is banning same sex marriage. Murder is banned, if you murder someone you go to jail. Gay people are not being arrested.
1
"there is no religious group that practices recognition of marriage by law. they practice religious marriage, they are not prevented doing that," Just like gay people were never prevented from marrying. I am glad you agree with me now. "and it's unconstitutional to discriminate upon the difference," No it's not as one is an action. You do not act black, you are born that way. That is your genetic makeup. While you may be born gay in terms of sexual thoughts there is an action that has to occur. That is why it is not discrimination. If it is than you can't outlaw polygamy. In reality humans, at least men, are not wired to be in a monogamous relationship, so it is natural for us to have many mates, and thus many wives. Just like someone who is gay is naturally attracted to the same sex. So the government does not recognize polygamy for the same reason it did not recognize gay marriage and was allowed to by the constitution. That is an action. You do not act black so you have to recognize interracial marriage. But you can refuse to recognize gay marriage as a gay guy can still marry a woman, they just decided to act differently.
1
" it doesn't have to. recognition of marriage is a state power" I agree. "you just said people only get the right to have their marriage recognized if it is with someone of the opposite gender, not the same gender. that's called making a distinction upon gender. making a distinction is the definition of discrimination" No, you are not recognizing a certain action or practice. No different than polygamy, they are not recognizing the action or practice. Discrimination would be if a marriage happens and only the man sees the benefits. That is discrimination based on sex. But not recognizing gay marriage is not recognizing an action or practice. That is not discrimination. "nope, they have the right to get their marriage recognized" No they do not. "like the decision to not get a driver's licence" Getting a license involves just yourself. I can't marry someone unless someone else agrees. That is a poor comparison.
1
"if that action is only distinguished by race, sexual preference, gender, religion etc. from an action that is recognized, the non-recognition is unconstitutional, because it's an unconstitutional discrimination. polygamy is not recognized from anyone, there is no discrimination." Polygamy is a religious practice, so according to you it is discrimination. " discrimination. look, there is a marriage licence waiting to be signed saying, you are married to john doe. who is able to get that licence? according to you only a female, not a male. that is discrimination," No that is not discrimination. What would be discrimination is only allowing men to get marriage licenses. But as is both men and women can get marriage licenses. "no male can get that marriage licence, " They can get another one and receive the same benefits. "you are married to african american john doe, and only african american people can get this licence, just because of their race." I told you how race is different. You do not act black. You are genetically born that way. You do act gay. While you may be born to be attractive to the same sex, you still have to commit an action. If the government does not recognize gay marriage they are not recognizing the action. They are not discriminating because everyone can get married that is recognized by the government, it just has to be between a man and a woman. No different than not recognizing the action and practice of polygamy. " the amount of people who have to agree is irrelevant in this context, the amount of people is not a protected group." It does matter as I can get a driver's license on my own terms. Plus, if the amount of people does not matter, why is polygamy not recognized? You are contradicting yourself. "... have the wrong race (you need to have the same race) ... have the wrong color of skin (you are not white)" You do not act white or black. You are genetically born that way. Your race is something that is always you no matter how you act or what you practice. That is why the government can't discriminate base on race. "... believe in the wrong religion (you are not christian)" The 1st amendment prevents that. "... are not from america or europe (you are from africa) ... are older than 40 (you are 56)" Same with race, you do not act a certain age, you are 56 no matter what you practice. You are from Africa no matter what you practice. "... have the wrong sex (you need to have the opposite sex)" One gay marriage you are practicing something. The government is not recognizing the practice of gay marriage. While you may be attractive to the same sex, being gay is something that involves an action. You can be a black man walking down the street and in the end you are a black man walking down the street. Now if you are black having gay sex, you are still black but now you are performing a gay act. If you decide to skateboard you are still black, but now you are skateboarding. If you get married to a guy you are still black, but now you have performed the act of a gay marriage. You see the trend? In every instance you are black, but the action you are performing defines who you are. Someone can be a pedophile and be attract to kids. Do we arrest them based only on that? No. We arrest them if they perform the act of having sex with a child. An action has to occur. With gay marriage, no one is discriminating against gays, they are not recognizing the action. "... you are not a perfect human (you have a genetic irregularity)" People with mental retardation are not allowed to reproduce. So based on that they are discriminated as well. But let me add another one to you list --you are already married (polygamy)
1
Mormons practice polygamy. So yes, there is religious discrimination.
1
"but legally their polygamy is not recognized," So that is discrimination. "and so for no one else without distinction, " Same with gay marriage.
1
You are discriminating against a religion. So by what you said earlier that is discrimination. "there is no such thing, there is opposite-sex and same-sex marriage. and they are both recognized since if only one of them would've been recognized, it would be a distinction by sex, " It is not a distinction by sex, it is a distinction by action. That is the difference. "it just happens to be that gays are in favour of engaging in same-sex marriage," Which is an action that the government will not recognize, like polygamy.
1
"mormons are free to practice their religion, they are free to live in polygam religious marriage how often they like. no discrimination there. and no one is able to get their polygamy recognized by law" Just like gay marriage. Gay people can marry someone of the same sex. It just isn't recognized by law. " nope, it's a distinction by sex." It is a distinction by action. "if you had your way, you could not get your marriage with john doe recognized if you were of the sex male, but you could if you were of the sex female" That is the action. If we had it your way than people can perform polygamy and have it recognized by law. "like black is not allowed, but white is. " Being black or white is not an action, that is your genetic makeup. Marrying someone of the same sex is an action. "same-sex marriage is recognized, no state is allowed not to recognize it." Which violates state rights, unconstitutional.
1
" there is no such thing." Yes there is. "it'd be a distinction by sex" It is a distinction by action that a person can choose to do. "male and female are not actions but sexes." I agree, but what they do is an action. "nope, polygamy is not recognized for anybody" And according to you and previous examples that is discrimination. You are not staying consistent which makes me question you intellect. "federal law is supreme," The constitution is supreme. That is why, for example, states do not have to follow the orders of the department of education.
1
"nope, gay marriage is not a subject to federal law. gay is a sexual preference in attraction, it has nothing to do with marriage." Yes it does. "nope, you cannot do male or female, those are sexes, biological features" I agree, but action is the key part. You are not recognizing the action. "neither male nor female are actions, discrimination based on sex is unconstitutional. " They are not discriminating based on sex, they are not recognizing a practice they are performing. A man and woman can always get married, it just had to be with the opposite sex. No discrimination there. " nope, i told you when there is no distinction, there is no discrimination" There is. I will show you again in the next comment. "the constitution is federal law" Kind of. But still, state rights.
1
You said this "i am sorry, i cannot recognize your marriage with that person, since you ... ... have the wrong race (you need to have the same race) ... have the wrong color of skin (you are not white) ... believe in the wrong religion (you are not christian) ... are not from america or europe (you are from africa) ... are older than 40 (you are 56) ... have the wrong sex (you need to have the opposite sex) ... are pregnant ... came to the u.s. illegally 35 years ago ... have children ... are disabled (you lost both legs in nam) ... you fought in vietnam as a u.s. marine ... you are not a perfect human (you have a genetic irregularity) " You brought up religion. Polygamy is done by a religious practice. So according you your scenario not recognizing polygamy is discrimination. Again, you lack consistency.
1
So practicing polygamy is the "wrong religion". I get it, you discriminate.
1
"you cannot get your polygamy recognized no matter who you are, no distinction at all. " Same with gay marriage.
1
" both should get the same rights" Just like in polygamy everyone should have the same rights. Or maybe single people should see the same tax benefits as married people. If someone chooses to be single then why not? Catholic priest choose to. They are also being discriminated against based on religion.
1
" there is no such thing" Yes there is.
1
"no one gets there polygamy recognized by law, that's the same right for everyone" Just like no one gets their gay marriage recognized by law. Same rights for everyone.
1
There is a lot of irony in your comment. In a previous discussion you said textbooks were not peer reviewed when they are. When you said that, and also refused to cite a textbook on the economic discussion (even though you claimed you studied it) I knew you were not very intelligent. On this discussion you brought up religion. People practice polygamy because of their religion. So you are not consistent with your stance. You said polygamy is not recognized, so it is equal for all. Same with same sex marriage. If it is not recognized it is equal for all. States decide if they recognize marriage at all. They do so for the benefit of society. If the society does not see a benefit in recognizing gay marriage they can do that and it will be constitutional, as it will be equal for all. You're extremely undereducated.
1
Ok, same sex marriage. Call it what you want. In the end if the government does not recognize it than it is equal for all, just like polygamy. And no, it does not discriminate by sex. What will discriminate by sex would be recognizing same sex marriage involving men but not women.
1
"i said they are not reviewed by peer reviewed scientific journals, which is true." No you did not. " you were arguing from your textbook, while i was arguing from facts out of scientific papers, so i told you the difference" They are both peer reviewed. And textbooks are written based on those papers. Arguing from a textbook is no different than arguing from a paper. " i cited an author of standard economic theory " No you did not. If so than please list it again. " but because of your lack of knowledge you could not recognize him in my comment" You did not list a name, period. " which was enough to demonstrate your shortcomings" Enough to demonstrate your shortcomings is showing that you feel that textbooks are unreliable even though they are written based on the papers that are published. And textbooks, especially the introductory ones, are peer reviewed. Introductory ones are done by many professionals in their field where papers in journals may be done by three (and they are, at times, picked by the authors of that paper). Plus, you were talking about basic economics thus you should have been able to find support from any introductory textbook. The fact you did not shows your shortcomings. "what on earth is wrong with you? the fourteenth amendment guarantees equal rights, " What on earth is wrong with you? You have no right in getting your marriage or marriages (polygamy) to be recognized, period. "so if jane doe gets the right to get her marriage recognized with john smith, then joe doe needs to get the same right, to get a marriage with john smith recognized" And based on that than Joe Smith has the right to have his marriage with Jane Doe, Joe Buck, Mary Sue be recognized even if he is married to them simultaneously (polygamy). If not than it is discrimination. "is that so hard to understand?" I fully understand, you are just wrong and you are contradicting yourself. "neither joe doe, nor jane doe, nor john smith nor anyone else has the right to get a polygamy recognized by law" Why not? Why do you discriminate? "they only get the right to live in polygamy when it's their religious practice. " And you have the right to live with someone of the same sex. You can also live with many partners and have that right (beyond zoning laws) and not be religious. You do not want to recognize polygamy which contradicts your discrimination stance. Gay people can always live with each other, same with those practicing polygamy. Thing was the government did not recognize their marriage. "they won't get any licence, but are free to live as they please." Same with gay marriage. "no discrimination at all, no one gets different rights than others" Uh, yes they do. They are still married. "states have to follow the constitution" I agree. " if states don't offer equal rights, then they act against the constitution and such laws are struck down" I know, but you have no right to have your marriage recognized by the government. ". distinction upon sex is discrimination" It is distinction upon the action, not sex.
1
" nope, if it distinguishes between same-sex and opposite-sex, it makes a distinction based on sex," It is distinction upon action, not sex. Distinction upon sex is allow two males to get married but not two females. You understand? Same sex marriage, for both men and women, is not recognized and thus it is not discrimination. If a man and a woman get married than both receive the same benefits, thus no discrimination. "but it does. a female would be able to get a marriage recognized with a male, a male would not be able to get a marriage recognized with that same male, just because of his sex" And that is equal for all.
1
"the right to get my marriage recognized is fundamental" Nope, not listed in the constitution at all. That is why it is a state issue. "nope, no one has the right to get a marriage recognized with someone already married," I agree, but according to you they do. "i don't, no polygamy for anyone" Ok, then no same sex for anyone. "but i don't have the right to get a marriage with a specific person recognized" Same with polygamy. "no one is able to get his polygamy recognized by law " And same with same sex marriage. "nope, you said a female can get a marriage to a male recognized, but a male cannot get a marriage recognized to that same male. that means two people have different rights because they differ in their sex," Nope, those males have to find a female to get married to. It is similar to if a man is married to a woman, and another woman wants to marry that same man, than they can't have that marriage be recognized. That woman has to find another man.
1
" but it is" No it isn't as the same rules apply for both men and women. "like a black man is not allowed to get a licence with a white woman, but a white man is" Poor comparison. The government is saying there is an advantage in recognizing a marriage between a man and a woman. They are recognizing that action. They cannot differentiate between race. But they can say there is no advantage in recognizing same sex marriage. As long as they do it for both men and women it is not discrimination. " nope, it's different for these two people. " Nope, it is equal.
1
If you want your marriage to be recognized it has to be with one person and with the opposite sex. That is the rule and it is equal for everyone.
1
" but it is. any standing scotus decision is part of the constitution" So the SC has not made wrong decisions in the past? Look up Kelo vs City of New London "nope, i told you there needs to be a divorce first" And thus you discriminate "that's unconstitutional unless you say no marriage licences for anyone. " Not true. "with polygamy no one gets a licence," Same with same sex marriage. This conversation is over.
1