At the center of it all

Professur said:
Three very good, yet very disparate thoughts. But arguing one against the other isn't gonna work. Pick one, argue it, then move onto the next.
Click to expand...

:mope:
 
chcr said:
One more time: Do homosexuals have the same protection under the law that heterosexuals do? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Oh and evidently no one has the "right" to get married (semantic bullshit, but some are fond of it)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
1. Separation of Church and state???????????
2. Until now.

Once again, if they have equal protection under the law, you must let them marry, otherwise it's hardly equal now, is it?
 
Once again, you miss the point. It doesn't matter in the least whether it is a priviledge or a right. If heterosexuals may get married and homsexuals have equal protection, you must let them marry regardless. I know you don't think so, but you're wrong.
 
You miss the obvious. If it's not a right there can be limitations.

So, we're back to the original question since they are asking for special rights.
 
but people arent trying to marry their relatives for the most part. the homosexuals are trying to get married to each other. it is about equality I thought.
 
yea but they actually want to be married. most people tend to want to marry outside the family and such. if you can marry your wife why cant one guy marry the man he loves in the same way?
 
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?
 
Thulsa Doom said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
freako104 said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
ah but isnt this the same? it doesnt give equal rights to homosexuals. and also you didnt answer my last question
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top