At the center of it all
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
chcr said:
Yes.
What the hell are you talking about? Semantics? If you want to talk semantics, then start with th every issude of GAY MARRIAGE. That is blasphemous to the religious. It was also never intended to happen, by any group.
The state has the power to stop any marriage from happening. Thus, it is NOT a right.
Thulsa Doom
New Member
ok so heres the logic circuit then:
· heterosexual CAN marry heterosexual. sanctioned by the state. blessed by god.
· homosexual can NOT marry homosexual. banned by the state. forbidden by god.
looks pretty unequal to me.
Lets look at the reasoning.
Why CANT homosexuals marry homosexuals?
The loophole argument: They CAN marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex. They could force themselves to ignore every fiber in their body that caused them to be repulsed with the very idea of a life long emotional and sexual bond with someone of the opposite sex and do it anyway. Nooooobody’s stopping them. :smug technical legality look:
The slippery slope argument that cant actually be used in court: Because if they let that happen then the next thing you know pigs will be marrying pie tins! And our society will spontaneously combust! And my home value will plummet!!
Theres one or two other arguments I hear commonly but they all come down to BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO! and are therefore inadmissible as actual legal reasons for maintaining the inequality.
But none of this explains why it should be ILLEGAL. Why should it be illegal? Thats the key to this. For WHAT reason should it be illegal to join two men or two women of adult age and sound mind in a marriage? I really cant think of any that would actually hold up under court conditions. Can you?
· heterosexual CAN marry heterosexual. sanctioned by the state. blessed by god.
· homosexual can NOT marry homosexual. banned by the state. forbidden by god.
looks pretty unequal to me.
Lets look at the reasoning.
Why CANT homosexuals marry homosexuals?
The loophole argument: They CAN marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex. They could force themselves to ignore every fiber in their body that caused them to be repulsed with the very idea of a life long emotional and sexual bond with someone of the opposite sex and do it anyway. Nooooobody’s stopping them. :smug technical legality look:
The slippery slope argument that cant actually be used in court: Because if they let that happen then the next thing you know pigs will be marrying pie tins! And our society will spontaneously combust! And my home value will plummet!!
Theres one or two other arguments I hear commonly but they all come down to BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO! and are therefore inadmissible as actual legal reasons for maintaining the inequality.
But none of this explains why it should be ILLEGAL. Why should it be illegal? Thats the key to this. For WHAT reason should it be illegal to join two men or two women of adult age and sound mind in a marriage? I really cant think of any that would actually hold up under court conditions. Can you?
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Thulsa Doom said:
The point we're arguing is not about the legality of the situation...at least I'm not. My main argument is this...if you intentionally break the law, regardless of how bad that law may be, you've still broken the law. If the law needs to be changed, then it should be challanged in the courts first, and, if that doesn't work, then go ahead and do your 'civil disobedience'. The mayor who started this whole thing was in the wrong. Good law, bad law, or otherwise, he was wrong for breaking the law without first using his legal options to change said law. He compounded his mistake by inviting others to break the law as well.
Did you know that the state of California is not honoring those licenses because they violate state law? The media hasn't put that little tidbit out, have they? So what does that say about his whole plan to legalize gay marriage? It says that all he's done is waste the time, energy, and money of several thousand people. It also says that, even though they got 'married', that their marriages have no basis in law. No other state will recognize those marriages, so those people are back to the beginning. Had they chosen to fight the correct way, then this might not have happened.
freako104
Well-Known Member
once again i bring uip the Jim Crowe laws. they were laws. they have since been repealed but they were laws. they were broken.but I guess it wasnt justified since they broke laws? Now I will pose another question I made to Gonz.
If it wasnt illegal would you have a problem with the marriages?
If it wasnt illegal would you have a problem with the marriages?
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
freako104 said:
And I'll answer this once again...The Jim Crow laws were against the US Constitution when they were written. In fact, there were clauses in the constitution giving those with African Descent equal protection under the federal law. See Articles 14 and 15 of the US Constitution for clarification. The Jim Crow laws were written to specifically undermine the Constitution, and were written AFTER the slaves were freed and those articles were added. The two cases don't compare.
