|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay marriage and the law | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I get it just fine, you're the one who is too dense to get it. I know you are, but what am I?
The current definition also is not discriminatory against blacks, you're right. However, that has nothing to do with it not being discriminatory against gays as well. It has everything to do with it. Sexual orientation is exactly the same as race when it comes to determining "groups." And the point, CS, was not that "blacks cant get married." It's that blacks couldn't marry whites. Just like men can't marry men. The exact same argument you are using today was used 50 years ago to deny interracial couples the right to marry. It's almost word for freaking word.
Your gender is not defined by your sexual orientation so you're just plain wrong here. Your gender is not defined by your racial orientation so you're just plain wrong here.
A point you've failed to address. All you can do is try to smear my argument by comparison, a good indication that you have nothing to stand on. Your argument is faulty becasue it is exactly the same as a previous, faulty argument. If interracial marriage must be permitted under fair treatment, homosexual marriage must also be permitted. There is zero difference. None.
You're just trying to make it discriminatory because you want it to be so that it can be changed. I guess it is not really because you're dense, but more because you're biased. Feel free to scream bias instead of actually supporting an argument. In what way is homosexual marriage any different from interracial marriage? Be specific. Not just becasue gender and race are two different properties. How do you claim that the property (race) is different from the property (sexual orientation) without special pleading? You need to find a difference in your argument from the racist, bigoted, "seperate but equal" bullshit arguments of the past, or your argument is exactly the same. If all I have to do is change all of the sexual orientation words in your arguments to racial words, and turn homosexual marriage into interracial marriage, and the points are exactly the same, how can you claim your reasoning is different? How can you claim bias, when you are the one claiming there is a difference where none is apparent? Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Since nwr has made mincemeat of your horrific math, let's move on to this:
I could come up with all these biased articles that this or that assertion, just as you do, but really all its going to do is prove there is a bias in both directions. Nope. I cite the scientific literature. You link to 2 creo sites full of hogwash.
What!?!?! Are you joking? Are... you.... kidding.... me? 2% of all pedophiles are homosexual? 2 percent? Like it or not, Juggs, thems the stats.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4146 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: True, but the previous versions of marriage were discriminatory. Blacks couldn't marry period. Then blacks could only marry other blacks. The simplest way to get around this is for marriage to once again become purely a religious event outside the scope of government. All marriages should be reduced to civil unions with no discrimination on homosexuals.
quote: True it's not, but modern marriage has very little to do in practice and in legal sense with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
You need to find a difference in your argument from the racist, bigoted, "seperate but equal" bullshit arguments of the past, or your argument is exactly the same. More particularly to the topic of this thread, find a difference that shows how blacks were a discrete and insular minority but gays are not, since that's the standard established by the Supreme Court to determine what level of scrutiny it will apply to a challenged law. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4146 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: Not true. If your spouse is from another country, the marriage tax laws are rather nasty to them. For instance, if you die, they can only get $100,000 free of taxation, where if your spouse was a citizen, they'd get up the credit, which I recall is around several million. That's pretty discriminatory. Furthermore, marriage is virtually restricted to those under the age of 18 without special considerations. They are citizens yet they virtually cannot marry. That's 26% of the citizens in 2000. And it obviously discriminates towards people who want to marry someone other then a non-related opposite sex. How can something not be discriminatory when it clearly is written to prevent, bar, or limit choices and groups from access?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4707 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
NJ writes: But then, you didn't honestly believe that laws are passed against things that are inherently good, did you? That's Right!!! All laws are passed against bad things, only!! Blacks shouldn't have their freedom, dammit! They shouldn't be allowed to vote...bring back Jim Crow!!! Or go to the same school as my children....bring back segregation!!! The poor shouldn't be allowed to vote....bring back voter tax!! I believe the passing of the mentioned laws (slavery, literacy to vote, segregation, voter tax) in the past in this country, kinda negates your assertion that inherently good things don't have laws that restrict them. Unless, of course you believe that all people being free is a bad thing. Seriously, discrimination against a group of people whose actions do not harm others is guarded against by the Constitution. It doesn't matter whether their inclusion in a group is by choice (religion) or not (handicapped). If DOMA is not discriminatory then why are federal courts being prevented from making rulings concerning it? Does specifically defining marriage as a contract between only two persons of opposite sex constitute discrimination as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment? Seems like it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I know you are, but what am I? Well, now I'm beginning to think you're a moron. That, or your bias is severly clouding your judgement. You think you're actually saying something by replacing gender with race and you keep repeating it while it doesn't have anything to do with my argument. And this part:
Your gender is not defined by your sexual orientation so you're just plain wrong here. Your gender is not defined by your racial orientation so you're just plain wrong here.
That doesn't even make any sense. Of course your gender is not defined by your racial orientation, that's one of the reasons that having genders as a part of the definition of marriage does not discriminate against any race, just like it doesn't against any sexual orientations. Are you really that dense? Why can't you get it?
Your argument is faulty becasue it is exactly the same as a previous, faulty argument. If interracial marriage must be permitted under fair treatment, homosexual marriage must also be permitted. There is zero difference. None. The difference is that the law defines marriage as between a man and a women and this is not discriminatory against any group of people like it would be if it refered to race. Because your gender is not determined by your sexuality, having gender restiction does not discriminate against any particular sexuality.
In what way is homosexual marriage any different from interracial marriage? It doesn't matter how different they are. The definition of marriage is with respect to gender, not sexual orientation.
If all I have to do is change all of the sexual orientation words in your arguments to racial words, and turn homosexual marriage into interracial marriage, and the points are exactly the same, They are not exactly the same though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Heterosexuals can marry the person they love. Homosexuals cannot marry the person they love. What is that not discriminatory?
Strawman. My position is that the law, the topic of this thread, that defines marriage as between a man and a women is not discriminatory against gay people because they are still men and women. Your sexual orientation and your gender are seperate. Laws that limit things by gender do necessarily limit them by sexual orientation as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
It's not a strawman, it's precisely the point! Heteros can marry the person they love, gays cannot. That's discriminatory, regardless of your hand waving.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't see how the first half of your message has anything to do with my position.
That's not backlash. That's redlining. What do you mean by "redlining"? Even the title of the act, the Defense of Marriage Act suggests that it was responsive.
All the more reason to make certain that all citizens have equal access to federal and state benefits. I don't have a problem with gay people having equal access to federal and state benefits. I do have a problem with changing the understood definition of marriage without considering the ramifications that it will have on thousands of laws.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this is law: only a man and a woman can have sex with each other. Your argument would sound something like this: sex, as defined, is afforded to all our citizens and does not discriminate against any group; therefore, there’s no reason to change it. If the law defined sex as between a man and a woman, then whatever gay people are doing would not be considered sex by the legal definition. They wouldn't be being discriminated against, because they could still do whatever they were doing, the state just wouldn't recognize it as sex. Since they could still have sex, according to the legal definition, that definition would not discrimiate against gay people.
Eee hee hee! Oh, I hit the nail on the head. It's no wonder you're hesitant to venture a reply! lol, riiiight. You're not going to goad me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It's not a strawman, it's precisely the point! Heteros can marry the person they love, gays cannot. That's discriminatory, regardless of your hand waving. But the legal definition of marriages remains indiscriminatory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
But the legal definition of marriages remains indiscriminatory. Nuh uh. Your turn. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
"No, you're not being denied anything. You could marry people of the same race any time. Have a nice day!" What happens when the son of a black father and white mother, tries to marry the daughter of a yellow father and a brown mother? What are their races and can they get married? What about the child of those two people? What is his/her race? Would they be allowed to marry anyone at all? Clealy, the law is discriminatory.
"So, we're being denied the right to marry our partner of choice because of our sexual orientation?" Its not because of their sexual orientation, though. Its because of their gender. Their sexual orientation has nothing to do it. The definition of marriage refers to gender, not sexual orientation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Not true. If your spouse is from another country, the marriage tax laws are rather nasty to them. For instance, if you die, they can only get $100,000 free of taxation, where if your spouse was a citizen, they'd get up the credit, which I recall is around several million. That's pretty discriminatory. Furthermore, marriage is virtually restricted to those under the age of 18 without special considerations. They are citizens yet they virtually cannot marry. That's 26% of the citizens in 2000. That's all off-topic. I'm not familiar with the laws regarding non-citizens and minors anyways.
And it obviously discriminates towards people who want to marry someone other then a non-related opposite sex. It doesn't explicitly. Its a consequence of the definition of the word marriage.
How can something not be discriminatory when it clearly is written to prevent, bar, or limit choices and groups from access? Every group falls into the categories of man or women. No group is prevented or barred from access. Sexual orientation is independent of gender.
Except for true hermaphrodites and those have been descussed already and are off topic as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Well, now I'm beginning to think you're a moron. That, or your bias is severly clouding your judgement. Or you're just wrong. I'll tell you what - I'll stop calling you dense, you stop the insults too, and we both avoid suspensions.
You think you're actually saying something by replacing gender with race and you keep repeating it while it doesn't have anything to do with my argument. It has everything to do with your argument.
That doesn't even make any sense. Of course your gender is not defined by your racial orientation, that's one of the reasons that having genders as a part of the definition of marriage does not discriminate against any race, just like it doesn't against any sexual orientations. But the law used to discriminate against interracial marriage. The 14th Amendment eventually forced the Supreme Court to rule that the wordings and laws that forbade interracial marriage or sex were unconstitutional. The rationale for the arguments against interracial marriage were exactly the same as the arguments you're using now. You admit that disallowing interracial marriage was discriminatory, so how do you now claim that disallowing homosexual marriage is not without special pleading? Let's use another argument. Say there was a law against inter-religious marriage - only Jews could marry Jews, for instance. Let's make it nice and bad by saying it even has to be of the same denomination for religions as varied as Christianity. The wording of the law say that marriage is a legal union of a man and a woman who must be of the same faith. Under your logic it can't be discriminatory, because nobody is being blocked from marriage - they simply have to choose a spouse of the same religion. Isn't this religious discrimination? Would not the 14th Amendment override this law? If so, why does it not override homosexual marriage? How about yet another angle. What marriages do we all agree should not be allowed, and more importantly, what is the legal rationalization against allowing them? We'll use some of the retarded ones NJ might bring up, just to illustrate the point:
quote: The reason is that both parties entering into a contract must be consenting adults. Since children below the age of consent cannot enter any contract, they cannot be married.
quote: The reason is that both parties entering into a contract must be consenting adults. Since dogs and other animals cannot give consent, they cannot enter a contract and thus cannot be married.
quote: I won't repeat myself again. Now let's apply this logic to the real points:
quote: This was the law not too many years ago. But because both parties are consenting adults, and letting them enter the marriage contract does not restrict the rights of anyone else (meaning refusing is also a violation of their right to privacy), the law was overturned on Constitutional grounds.
quote: They're both consenting adults, and letting them marry doesn't restrict anyone else's rights...so why can they not enter the marriage contract? The wording of marriage laws is irrelevant if the Constitution overrides it.
The difference is that the law defines marriage as between a man and a women and this is not discriminatory against any group of people like it would be if it refered to race. Because your gender is not determined by your sexuality, having gender restiction does not discriminate against any particular sexuality. It's not racial marriage, CS, it's interracial marriage. Blacks were allowed to marry...other blacks. It's the exact same logic you're using, CS. Being sexually attracted to people of a different race has nothing to do with your gender, so having a racial restriction does not discriminate against any particular race. A gay man is still legally allowed to marry a woman, so he's treated the same, in exactly the same way a black man is still allowed to marry a black woman, and so they're treated the same, too. Since the prohibition against interracial marriage was abolished as Unconstitutional, and the arguments against gay marriage are exactly the same, the prohibitions against gay marriage are also Unconstitutional.
It doesn't matter how different they are. The definition of marriage is with respect to gender, not sexual orientation. It does matter, because defining marriage as a man and a woman is Unconstitutional, exactly the same way that the old law that added "of the same race" was Unconstitutional.
They are not exactly the same though. How, and in what way? Stating it is so does not make it so. Sexual orientation defines an identifiable group. Race also defines an identifiable group. If prohibiting interracial marriage is Unconstitutional, prohibiting homosexual marriage must also be Unconstitutional. I'll quote the Supreme Court from Loving v. Virginia, where anti-interracial marriage laws were finally deemed Unconstitutional:
quote: Now let's change a few words.
quote: Replace "gender" with "sexual orientation" if it makes more sense to you...but you should hopefully be able to see my point. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024