Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Honestly...you're the one whining about people not being able to marry when we all have the exact same rights.
And if you're smart enough to operate a computer, which you obviously are, you're smart enough to recognize how intellectually dishonest that position is.
You just don't want to admit it, because you "disagree" with same-sex marriage.
No it is not. Not applying existing laws equally is a violation of the 14th Amendment. There is no law or amendment (state or otherwise) that acknowledges marriage as a civil right. As far as the US Constitution is concerned, marriage is nothing more than a public act. Like being issued a driver's license.
Both are certainly civil rights (actually, they're collections of civil rights). In our society, laws provide things to people. These things are either benefits, responsibilities, protections, or privileges. These things, collectively, are civil or legal rights.
Laws that carve out and create something called "driver's licenses" define the civil rights (the privileges and responsibilities) of driving. Laws that carve out and create something called "civil marriage" define the civil rights of marriage.
Our constitution requires that all people have equal access to these civil laws and the civil rights they provide - hence it's unconstitutional to make law banning homosexuals, or Christians, or left-handed people, or Atheists, or blonds, etc, etc, etc from accessing the civil rights of driving or civil marriage.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"
That statement was written in the ruling of the case by the Supreme Court. It is now legal precedent and can be used for reasoning in any other case involving marriage laws.
You must have flunked basic civics. Last time I checked, Congress and the state legislatures enact the laws, not the courts. Try again.
How do you identify a homosexual? Is it the way they talk? Their faaaaaaaaaaabulous shoes!!??? What is it?
Or is it the gender they choose to be intimate with?
What does that have to do with my post?
The post I quoted compared legal marriage to getting a driver's license. So, I asked if he/she would be OK with homosexuals being denied the legal ability to drive.
Really? A straight person generally falls in love and wants to marry someone of the opposite sex. A gay person generally falls in love and wants to marry someone of the same-sex. The straight person gets to marry the person of their choosing. The gay person doesn't.
How is that the same? You don't want to marry another man, so that prohibition is meaningless to you.
Let's look at this a different way. Suppose the laws were different, and you were allowed to marry someone of the same-sex, but not the opposite. Gays were under the same restrictions.
Would you care that the law only allowed you to marry a man?
whatever. I'm going to keep calling you out on your faulty logic whenever I see it.
Then please do identify the logical fallacy that I, and the judge in the case quoted above, are making here. Be specific. Let's find out what you really know about logic. Tell us why you logic should prevail here when every court and judge that has touched this won't even consider your argument - because IT ISN'T BEING MADE BY LAWYERS FOR YOUR SIDE.
Show me case that proves me wrong. You've already got mine.
Quote:
No one is being denied the right to marry. That's been explained to you several times already.
This argument is asinine. Read an actual court decision or two - or three.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.