Proposed rule for same-sex marriage threads...

No it is not...

...and don't try to kid me.

More accurately, everything that is fundamental to the institution of marriage resides in natural law.

Anyone who believes such considerations are an indispensable component of marriage is mired in disgracefully shallow thinking.

So if this were a thread about celestial mechanics and I were the only one talking about gravitational effects, would the majority be discussing the topic intelligently? Hmmmm?

Not really.

And you find that noteworthy because...?

 

Homos are sick perverts.
End of discussion.

 

No one person get's to make that call. But yes, we do discriminate when there is a demonstrable need. We don't let 12 year olds drink, blind men drive, or prisoners vote.

We don't have equality, we just have as close to it as we can afford. And it doesn't cost anything to recognize a marriage without regard to race, religion, or sex.





​

 

Do you discriminate against pedophiles? Rapists?

I'll bet you do, and rightly so. Homos are just as sick and perverted.

Maybe you're a homo?

 

Sick perverts still have rights. Sorry, I know that bothers you.

 

- - - Updated - - -

Ha ha. Oh I can't wait for Immortals response to this one!

*Throws popcorn in the microwave and sits back to watch the fireworks.*

 

It's exactly what you are trying to do so you can tone it down or else let's discuss your proposition.

OK so which of the absurd arguments your side makes are you willing to give up in return?

How about the one about we shouldn't even have legal marriage in the first?

 

What is it your missing, we do not live in anarchy your know.

And you seem to forget they regulate and do a lot more than the federal government does such as requiring schooling of the children of the state because it is in the best interest of our society to do so.

A just and civil and secure society. You know the founding fathers were NOT against government.

That would REALLY require an explanation to you? Why does government promote education and not pornography?

What is the cost to liberty when we as a society do not encourage or promote homosexuality?

What is the cost to liberty when we as a society do promote and encourage heterosexuality?

Please elaborate?

 

And it doesn't cost anything to recognize that only women giver birth and only men are legally responsible for them doing so. OTHER than offending the oh so delicate sensibility of homosexuals.
AND it doesn't cost anything to recognize a marriage between any two consenting adults, other than it doesn't do anything to win more "respect and dignity" for homosexuals if just any two people could marry.

 

Then go recognize it. I don't see the problem.




​

 

Once you acknowledge we don't have equality... then continuously trumpeting "equal rights", "equality" and "legal parity" only when it's beneficial to your cause is exceedingly dishonest and hypocritical.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? I agree with him as far as discrimination is concerned.

We absolutely do discriminate against certain groups and rightly so... Homosexuals are one of those groups that should be discriminated against.

 

I don't remember doing that, maybe you're confusing me with someone else?




​

 

No I meant a generalized "you" ... not you as an individual.

Once we acknowledge that we don't actually have equality, then trumpeting equality as a justification for why this group should receive this "right" or that "right" is exceedingly dishonest.

 

Equal protection clause.

 

So because I concede we don't have equality, in that we don't let blind men drive, 12 year olds drink alcohol, or prisoners vote... it would be dishonest to say a black man should have an equal right to drive, drink, and vote as a white man?

We don't have equality. There are places where we can't treat people the same. But we allow inequity in our laws only when the community has a compelling interest that requires that inequity. It ain't dishonest to point that out.





​

 

No no no. It would be dishonest of you to say something to the effect of "because we must have equality black people should have the same rights as whites". That's not a justifiable argument. It sounds nice, but it's not accurate and in fact is hypocritical.

If you said "black people should have equal rights with white people". That's fine but you would need to back up that position. But that's wholly different than saying "because the constitution guarantees equality, black people should have the same rights as white people."

Do you see the difference? In one situation you're using equality as your justification for why they should have equal rights. And that's a position of hypocrisy. Because you don't actually believe in equality... you only believe in equality insofar as you can't justify discrimination to yourself. But when you CAN justify discrimination to yourself such as in the situations you described (blind driving, children sex, etc) equality goes out the window.

So in reality, that person doesn't believe in equality... they are using it as propaganda to gain support for their cause.

 

How about if I said all citizens should have equal protection under the law, unless society finds it necessary to deny them that right?




​

 

But... and this time I'm speaking about you specifically... you don't believe that. You've made it clear that even though society found it necessary to deny rights to black people that it was not acceptable either.

 

I don't believe society found it necessary to institute slavery. I believe society found it convenient and (in the short term) profitable. I believe there was a better way. I'm glad our society has since discovered that better way.

We have a partnership of 316 million people. We have all agreed to form this very difficult partnership composed of rules which strive to make it fair, keep the peace, protect us from others, and serve as a basis for our well being. I don't like all those rules or believe that our system is perfect, but I do believe we've got a better system overall than most. I'd like to see it continue to grow and improve.

One of those rules is we are equal under the law unless society finds it necessary to do otherwise. I believe that's a good enough rule and I believe we should stick to it until we find one that does the job better.




​

 

Hey TheImmortal, does the US feel any different now than it did a week a go?

 

YOU limited the prohibited characteristics to race, religion, or sex.

 

Society has found it necessary to do otherwise by statewide referendums, and the courts are overruling their judgements.

 

That's because he only believes that society can change things if HE agrees with it. Then it's not cool.

 

You're mistaken.



​

 

Society has not. The proponents of those referendums were unable to demonstrate any such necessity in a court of law. Which is why society rejected those proposals.




​