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.
How so? Under the US Constitution, if a state crafts a marriage law, then equal access to marriage law is a civil right that cannot be denied. How does my argument fail?
It fails completely. If there is a right to marriage, it cannot be denied to anyone. Notice the last word. Yet, you're not arguing that's true, that it cannot be denied. Gay marriage AS A CONCEPT is discriminatory, in that refers only to people with certain sexual proclivities. But so is straight marriage. Both exclude polygamy - so, again, you're arguing that state marriage definitions, which, by law, discriminate against various people, are rights which cannot be denied anyone - your 'equal protection' argument.
Quote:
I agree 100% - civil marriage is NOT a natural right. I never said that it was.
But you just said it was A RIGHT that can't be denied anyone - that's what your argument based on 'equal protection' is based on.
Quote:
And how you define what is or is not a natural right really depends on your personal religious/philosophical beliefs. I don't believe in gods or the supernatural, so to be honest, I don't buy into the concept of natural rights.
Oh, i see. Ok. So, to you, rights are just whatever our government feels like letting us do.
Quote:
Um, a privilege (or a benefit, protection, responsibility) granted to the people by the state is called a LEGAL RIGHT. Civil marriage is a LEGAL RIGHT. Why? - because all 50 states have crafted civil marriage laws and granted associated privileges to the people.
But you just argued above that it's a CIVIL right, by using the "equal protection" argument. Legal rights are granted on a basis of discrimination between people. Obviously, you can't have an argument about denied rights, when the government is empowered to decide who has it and who doesn't.
Quote:
The process of granting legal rights is governed by a higher law - the Constitution. Again, our Constitution contains a collection of civil rights - rights that we've agreed we all possess and that no government within our boundaries can take way. One of those rights says that when a government creates legal rights, those legal rights have to be equally accessible to all. So if a state decides to make marriage a legal right, then the Constitution makes equal access to marriage a civil right.
I would like you see you make this argument by quoting the Constitution for me, to show what you base it on.
Quote:
I don't understand you desire to define rights as non-rights and then deny them to people. That strikes me as un-American and anti-freedom.
Because you can't, for the life of you, figure out what the heck you're talking about.
I don't? Please show me how I don't believe the 14th amendment.
Tablemtn and I are having the same argument.
You both assert that under the 14th Amendment, Ssection 1, that allowing straight people to marry, but not gays is a violation of "equal protection". That's all fine and good, but why are you not arguing that polygamists and so on can't marry? After all, if you believe in equal protection, then you are asserting that being legally married is an individual right, akin to freedom of speech and so on.
Yet, EVERY state's laws describe who CAN get married and either explicitly or by default, who CANNOT. Yet you're not arguing that's wrong. So, why do gays possess that right, but not polygamists?
how bout it liberals. brother marrying sister. two consenting adults.
Trust me, when enough people get behind that movement, they will push to legalize it. It may not happen in the near the future but I could definitely see this happening by the end of the century. They will probably look back at our time period saying things like "Well Gay Marriage was considered taboo and it became legalized so why can't things like sibling marriages and polygamy be legalized as well". They will also use justification for legalizing it by saying things that like "Society has evolved and has moved beyond what the people of the early 21 century thought was moral."
I know one day, this will be accepted. They didn't let Blacks and Whites marry for the longest.
Believe me my friend, as a black man who is married to a white woman, acceptance...both on the surface and and beneath, can be a VERY broad and loose term.
It doesn't bother me or my wife, but I won't say I don't notice it.
And that's the way marriage should be, a religious thing. That way if it's cool for two men to get married according to your religious belief then get married.
Why does the government even need to be involved? Oh yea, so they can get some money from you.
Marriage is a legal contract. Religious ceremonies have no legal power. And you seem to be saying that one who isn't religious cannot get married.
Before modern socialism, marriage was a legal union of property rights for the benefit of the progeny.
An illegitimate child could not lay claim upon the father for support nor inheritance.
Now, thanks to FICA / Social Security, any non-custodial parent can be compelled to pay support, married or not.
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.
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.
