Gays have just as much of a right to marry

It is not a matter of how these are now. That has very little value in my mind.

If the present is good enough to justify this or that law, then what good is progress? Why allow women to vote? They were not allowed to at one time. Why allow minorities to use the same bathroom? They were not allowed to at one time.

I can not care less about how things are. What I am interested in is a decent argument that justifies the denial of equal civil rights, and I have never heard one that does not contradict itself in two posts.

 

The law works by establishing logic, and precedent. If being gay is a right--logically all sexual attractions are. True some judges legislate from the bench instead of devising interpetations of the law. And that is what gay rights activists like....legislating judges.

And then...when a precedent is set---activists start coming out the woodwork for THEIR special sexual attraction that is their right to be recognized and protected.

The government can not discriminate against race. Nor can government discriminate based on religion or establish a favorite religion.

Now...the government COULD recognize only homosexual marriage if it wanted to. But that would be stupid. Hetersexual marriage is too important and vital. So it won't.

You are calling me arrogant! That interesting. I am trying to help you out by showing you a way to get what you want....an argument that might resonate with the majority of Americans---but some people are too vain and "important" to hear it.

 

Way to dodge.

 

We already have legal precedent in the court recognizing the ability of someone to marry the person of their choosing as essential in the protection of the right to marry. This was applied to black-white couples, who already had the right to marry someone of their own race, but did not have the right to marry the person of their choosing. Same-sex marriage extends off this precedent, asking if sex is a reason for limitation.

But then you bring up the slippery slope of who else may demand their rights. These groups will likely have other obstacles in their way - the ability of parties to consent, and the risk to third-parties (i.e. children) to contend with. Homosexual couples do not face these other obstacles. It's a slippery slope fallacy to assume anything else will pass if homosexual couples are allowed to slide - it just looks at a superficial similarity while ignoring the other issues that distinguish them.

Oh, but the government could legislate based on the fact that I like broccoli? Or because I have blue eyes?

There may be justifications specifically against race and religion discrimination, but that doesn't imply any other arbitrary discrimination is allowed - be it behavioral or natural-born. There must be a narrowly and sufficiently executed, legitimate purpose in the creation of classifications.

I'll hazard a guess that you find "heterosexual, non-related of consenting age" narrow and sufficient for some given (yet unspecified?) purpose, but that doesn't change the fact that arbitrary discrimination is still not allowed.

 

So now you're an expert on what gay rights activists like?

"legislating from the bench" is basically the dodge that some people run to when the court doesn't interpret the law in a way favorable to their arguments.

Funny thing - no one has ever been able to provide me with an example of how same-sex marriage sets a precedent for other groups that hasn't quickly fallen apart upon careful examination - because the facts matter. Rhetoric doesn't.

Ah, but if we apply your reasoning, it wouldn't be discrimination, since you claim marriage isn't a right.

So you think the government can't restrict marriage to white Christians, but it could restrict it to same-sex marriage. Thanks for the laugh.

Oh please, you're not fooling anyone with this BS.

 

I answered your question, you just don't like the answer. It is not constitutional so is a moot point. That is why the States handle it.

 

Again--race is not behavior or sexual attraction.

The closest I think you have to precedent is that law in Texas where a judge legislated against a sodomy law. And I do believe that was based on privacy issues.

The Gay Right agenda's argument is entirely about the unalienable RIGHT. Gay people don't justify the reasons why they want to have their marriage equalized. Why should anyone else? What makes a gay person THAT special where they and they alone own the criteria of what sexual attraction is a bonafide unalianable "right"?

Plus...the well-being of children isn't in your argument. Why is it expected in anyone elses? You aren't the only important people around ya know. And I think Nambla would do an awesome job of arguing that children would flourish in their life-style. I hate to say it...but the well-being of kids would be at the forefront of their argment. They can twist a good tune.

They might have a couple of sociologists along--giving expert testimony on how well adjusted and happy a young child is in a loving sexual relationship.

Kind of like the studies done on children brought up in gay homes.....

Yeah probably...but if representatives want to get re-elected they probably wouldn't head that direction.

 

Whoever said that was being tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic. Clearly it means the only acceptable marriage is that between a man and a woman. So I won't waste time trying to come up with a rebuttal towards a sarcastic remark.

 

They don't have to, once they have established similarity of situation with couples already eligible for the contract it's up to the government to provide a compelling and necessary reason to withhold the contract from them and they can't.

Nobody is making this claim, only that gays have proven themselves to be similarly situated to most heterosexual couples (those that can procreate naturally with each other) and identically situated to the rest (those that can't).

It's irrelevant because children are not a requirement of marriage. Two heterosexual octogenarians can marry but two homosexual octogenarians cannot. Two paraplegic heterosexuals can marry, two paraplegic homosexuals cannot. It's purely a gender based restriction.

If those kids want to marry adults then it's up to them to lobby for inclusion in the contract because they are the ones subject to a temporary denial of the right. If a 14 year old girl wants to marry a 40 year old man all she has to do is wait four years. If a 14 year old boy wants to marry a 40 year old man, it doesn't matter how long he waits, he still can't do it. Once again purely gender based. BTW if those kids want to argue for the right to marry adults then maybe they also need to argue for the right to work, pay taxes and vote. You know the kind of things that other fully emancipated adults can do except marry if they're gay.

Once again it's the kids who are denied to the right so they have to prove they're qualified and similarly situated to an emancipated, tax paying adult. Good luck with that.

You don't have much patience for legitimate research which questions your worldview do you?

 

The states are not exempt from the equal protection clause; they are its target.

 

There's that arrogance raising its ugly head again.

Strawman. Not a claim we've made.

It is, you just conveniently ignore it. Maybe if you actually bothered to read any of the testimony that has been given in the various cases, you'd know this.

Perri's third law: Any discussion of gay issues will eventually lead to opponents attempting to associate gayness with pedophilia or NAMBLA.

Get a new argument.

I will debate with people who appear to have half a brain. But people who wear their bigotry that openly on their sleeves earn themselves a one way trip to the ignore bin.

 

if a man can marry a women, why can't a women do the same? it's really as simple as that...

for you, I would be fine with one legal marriage and two religious ones

 

What exactly do you think the equal protection clause is for? If we don't agree even on that, then nothing else really matters in the debate. Apparently it's all just up to the arbitrary will of the majority - an understandable position, but at the same time, also implies that homosexuals don't have to prove anything either.... all they have to do is convince the majority, and they're doing a good job at that.

 

I have no rebuttals because there aren't any.

 

There are uncontroversial reasons for the state not to allow incestuous marriages like the one you describe. There is no evidence that allowing same sex marriage carries any risk at all, either societal or genetic.

Marrying more than one person has numerous implications for the tax code, inheritance, immigration, divorce, child custody, healthcare coverage, and many others. Allowing same sex marriage would merely enable the new couples access to the existing legal benefits straight couples have.

So it's not a case of arbitrarily considering one new way to marry, bringing the total number of ways to 2. It's a recognition that the current restrictions are arbitrary, do not serve the public good in any way, and will not affect the rights or lives of anybody who isn't homosexual.

This isn't giving in to a bunch of people who are loud enough to get our attention. This is reforming a system which currently discriminates for no demonstrable reason.

 

Your argument would make a lot more sense if this were true - if there were places in the US where same sex couples could marry and be granted the same rights we take for granted. But nowhere in the US can a same sex partner qualify for a green card, for example. This right is taken for granted among straight people and is such an enormous benefit to those involved it's almost not worth considering any currently legal same sex unions as marriages.

Rather than claiming the other side are guilty of whining, can you explain what good it serves to discriminate the way we do? Equal protection has plenty to say if you can't.

 

And, quite clearly, that right doesn't exist. If it did, this thread wouldn't exist, would it?

I personally support the right of gays to marry, and then divorce, but right now the government controls marriage and that combination is proscribed. As are many others that I realize don't interest gays.

So, this thread has announced it's only interested in Wolverine and Johnny's opinions.

Fine. Good=bye.

 

Sad thing is, they are serious.

They refuse to admit the contradiction in their own argument.

 

Right. Do you apply that argument to all rights movements?

Should the folks of DC just moved if they wanted to own a gun? What about Chicago? Should they just move? Or should rights be extended to people so that they may enjoy their life in their home instead of being forced to move due to the actions of closed minded bigots?

Your argument makes very little sense. I foresee a contradiction in one post.

 

That is correct!!

 

The deafening silence of the procreation argument amuses me.

 

first you try to draw parallels to race

next you tried to draw parallels to animals in nature

and now you attempt to draw a parallel to the 2nd amendment


good grief man, stop the spinning

 

Which is relevant. Neither opposition against interracial marriage nor same sex marriage have good reasons for denial.

Homosexuality exists in nature (a simple point you continuous avoided, moved goal posts, and used red herring on instead of simply conceding the point). Accept it and move on.

Should people simply move or attempt to change the law where they live?

It is common sense.

 

I'm all for gay marriage. This is supposed to be the land of the free, then we tell a group of people that they can't do the same thing as other people even though it's not hurting themselves or others. That doesn't make much sense to me.

 

I don't know. It makes sense that a white woman can't be the property of a black man, as would be the case in a "traditional" marriage involving an interracial couple.

Oh wait, conservatives don't mean truly traditional, just modern traditional of an equal partnership, when they defend "traditional marriage."