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.
I don't believe marriage is a right. I believe equality is. I believe a person's immutable trait should not be used to discriminate against him or her unless that trait causes him or her to harm others.
Fail. Read our discussion on 14th Amendment arguments.
As a [mostly] gay guy, I don't see any problem with you making the argument that you make. However, I don't know why you want to make it.
The fact of the matter is that I could find any female who is 1) over 18, 2) not already married, and 3) not a close relative of mine, and we could get legally married anywhere. She could be terrible for me and we could bring no benefits to each others' lives, but it would still be legal. That seems like a really low threshold. Do you agree? But if it involves another male, then suddenly it becomes a taboo. Whatever.
So if you want to define biological sex as intrinsic and capable of pigeonholing people's life decisions, then go right ahead. But do you really want to do that?
What is the purpose of the institution of marriage, and why is the state involved in it?
Translation: "I am obviously suffering from cognitive dissonance, but it can all be explained if you accept that there's shades of rights and penumbras and shadows and other gobbledygook, so I can have what I want, even when it's totally contradictory"
No, I'll hear you renounce the utter folderol you made up just now.
This, too, is nonsense.
And it doesn't even apply.
There are no "collectively decided" rights. AT ALL.
No, you're deep into cognitive dissonance.
You know, this might make for an interesting debate if you were to actually present an idea and defend it by argument. Simply calling somebody clueless doesn't really lend much credence to your position.
All rights have limitations. Voting is a right, yet felons and underage people can't vote.
Owning guns is a right, but there are age requirements and felons can not own guns.
If denying a group furthers a state interest then that has to be shown. There has not been a compelling state interest shown for the gender restriction in marriage, just like there was no compelling interesting the race restriction.
There may or may not be a compelling interest in the consanguinity restriction. The restriction will stand or fall based on it's own merits. The current legal framework is made for two people. If the legal framework is changed so that it can work for more than two, then go for it. But again that restriction will stand or fail based on it's own merits.
The existing marriage laws allow for marriage of TWO non related persons. You can not marry more than one person neither can I. You can not marry a sibling, neither can I. You can marry a non related woman (assuming your a male) I can not.
Fail. This has been argued already, it's nonsense. You cannot argue "equal protection" unless you remove all limitations to being married.
You know, this might make for an interesting debate if you were to actually present an idea and defend it by argument. Simply calling somebody clueless doesn't really lend much credence to your position.
Making clueless arguments doesn't give credence to yours.
Your argument was that I am "not nuanced". Wow. Now that's one heavy duty train of logic. And then you went off into saying that the state is empowered to restrict rights anytime it thinks something bad might happen if someone exercises their rights. Which is to say, there are no rights, merely priveleges that the state allows - which contradicts ANY reliance on the Constitution, since it prohibits government from doing precisely what you argue it is empowered to do.
Fail. This has been argued already, it's nonsense. You cannot argue "equal protection" unless you remove all limitations to being married.
Really? You might want to call the supreme court and tell them this. Equal protection was used in the Loving v Virginia case it removed the race restriction and didn't remove any of the other restrictions on marriage.
I'm sure you know more about the constitution than supreme court justices.
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.
