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.
So you're saying it's Constitutional to deny a legal right (such as a civil marriage contract) to a group of citizens based solely on some inherent characteristic (gender, sexuality, race, handedness, hair color, etc)?
Nope don't speak for me, I wont play that BS, I said I could care less if you Homosexuals can get married or not because I don't have to accept it as being normal.
Are you going to try to force me to accept it?
Do people have to accept everything just because you think they should?
So you think we should all be forced to believe like you, oh I get it.
What right is being denied? I've repeatedly asked this question over and over and over again in these conversations...but nobody has shown me.
Gay people are not asked their preference when they get married or when they get a marriage license---they have the EXACT same rights any hetero does.
Such a false argument. They are denied the right to contract a civil marriage with the consenting adult of their choice. That's a denial of equal access to the law based on sexuality. That's never even been a legal question as it's patently obvious. The question is whether denying gays equal access to civil marriage law is legally appropriate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Having said that, there is a burden of proof on you that homosexuality is some inherent characteristic that is not chosen.
It certainly is not a choice, which mean's it's inherent (not that the cause of homosexuality is a major component in the legal argument).
In a nutshell, the Constitution says that all people must have equal access to the laws. Like everything, rights are balanced and there are exceptions. To allow an exception, the test is whether the exception serves an important government interest, which is decided upon the lines of does having the exception prevent a harm to the State and to its people. If the exception does not prevent a harm, then the liberty cannot be denied.
The issue is whether gay marriage harms the people. If it does, then the State has the legal authority to deny the liberty. If it doesn't, then the State must allow gays equal access to civil marriage law. Thats what the court cases on gay marriage come down to whether in California, Iowa, or when it reaches the Supreme Court.
In Iowa, in California, etc, one side argued that gay marriage bans were unconstitutional because gay marriage does not harm the people. Their opponents argued that, in fact, allowing gay marriage does harm the people and is therefore constitutional.
The argument that allowing gay marriage harms the people was rejected. If you want to make the case that allowing gay marriage harms the State and its people, I'd love to hear it.
Such a false argument. They are denied the right to contract a civil marriage with the consenting adult of their choice. That's a denial of equal access to the law based on sexuality. That's never even been a legal question as it's patently obvious. The question is whether denying gays equal access to civil marriage law is legally appropriate.
It certainly is not a choice, which mean's it's inherent (not that the cause of homosexuality is a major component in the legal argument).
In a nutshell, the Constitution says that all people must have equal access to the laws. Like everything, rights are balanced and there are exceptions. To allow an exception, the test is whether the exception serves an important government interest, which is decided upon the lines of does having the exception prevent a harm to the State and to its people. If the exception does not prevent a harm, then the liberty cannot be denied.
The issue is whether gay marriage harms the people. If it does, then the State has the legal authority to deny the liberty. If it doesn't, then the State must allow gays equal access to civil marriage law. Thats what the court cases on gay marriage come down to whether in California, Iowa, or when it reaches the Supreme Court.
In Iowa, in California, etc, one side argued that gay marriage bans were unconstitutional because gay marriage does not harm the people. Their opponents argued that, in fact, allowing gay marriage does harm the people and is therefore constitutional.
The argument that allowing gay marriage harms the people was rejected. If you want to make the case that allowing gay marriage harms the State and its people, I'd love to hear it.
What part of "exact same rights" do you not understand? I can't marry another man, neither can they. We all have equal access as defined in the Constitution.
You don't see me rationalizing it with some pragmatic argument about it "harming marriage" or anything...I think it's stupid to create a special same-gender marriage. I don't much care what you think about it...that's just how it is.
It certainly is not a choice, which mean's it's inherent (not that the cause of homosexuality is a major component in the legal argument).
The argument that allowing gay marriage harms the people was rejected. If you want to make the case that allowing gay marriage harms the State and its people, I'd love to hear it.
First there is no proof it is not a choice, none what so ever, a few Black birds stealing eggs and a few monkeys humping doesn't prove anything.
There is no physical harm to people if Homosexuals are allowed to marry but it is way beyond common sense that anyone would thing two men or two women would be the same as a Man and Wife, it’s more of an insult.
It does harm society by encouraging abnormal behavior in the people, all you have to do is look at the suicides because of the confused children who never received help for the disorder, it's sad that instead of working on the problem to correct it society condones it.
First there is no proof it is not a choice, none what so ever, a few Black birds stealing eggs and a few monkeys humping doesn't prove anything.
There is no physical harm to people if Homosexuals are allowed to marry but it is way beyond common sense that anyone would thing two men or two women would be the same as a Man and Wife, it’s more of an insult. It does harm society by encouraging abnormal behavior in the people, all you have to do is look at the suicides because of the confused children who never received help for the disorder, it's sad that instead of working on the problem to correct it society condones it.
Thank you for addressing the actual issue. The points you brought up in trying to prove that allowing gay marriage would harm the state (that homosexuality is a choice, is abnormal, is a disorder, etc) were argued in court and found to be factually incorrect.
Thank you for addressing the actual issue. The points you brought up in trying to prove that allowing gay marriage would harm the state (that homosexuality is a choice, is abnormal, is a disorder, etc) were argued in court and found to be factually incorrect.
IAs always you try to put words in people mouth, it doesn't work, i never said it harms the state, it harms society, all the poor misguided children killing themselves is proof enough of the sickness.
Nothing I said is incorrect just because an activist judge says so, he doesn't speak for me only I do that.
What part of "exact same rights" do you not understand? I can't marry another man, neither can they. We all have equal access as defined in the Constitution.
You don't see me rationalizing it with some pragmatic argument about it "harming marriage" or anything...I think it's stupid to create a special same-gender marriage. I don't much care what you think about it...that's just how it is.
You clearly don't understand how the law works. There's no effort to create a special same-gender marriage. Because of the Constitution (primarily the 10th and 14th amendments) and because the State gives legal rights to the civil contract of marriage, same-gender marriage is already there (sort of like how Loving v. Virginia points our that interracial marriage is already there). The legal question is can government deny gay people access to civil marriage rights by making specific laws banning same-gender marriage.
The test as to whether the government can deny this liberty is the does it serve a government interest, or does it harm the state and its people, test.
It's really that simple, and it's why same-gender marriage will be allowed nationwide once the Prop-8 case is heard before the Supreme Court (in what I imagine could easily be a unanimous decision).
You clearly don't understand how the law works. There's no effort to create a special same-gender marriage. Because of the Constitution (primarily the 10th and 14th amendments) and because the State gives legal rights to the civil contract of marriage, same-gender marriage is already there (sort of like how Loving v. Virginia points our that interracial marriage is already there). The legal question is can government deny gay people access to civil marriage rights by making specific laws banning same-gender marriage.
The test as to whether the government can deny this liberty is the does it serve a government interest, or does it harm the state and its people, test.
It's really that simple, and it's why same-gender marriage will be allowed nationwide once the Prop-8 case is heard before the Supreme Court (in what I imagine could easily be a unanimous decision).
Right now there is nothing stopping gay people from marrying--the question is who they will marry. If you want to create a law that allows them to marry someone of the same gender, then yes--it is a special law.
I'm sorry...but I find it discriminatory to allow gay people a form of marriage that I won't have access to.
Nope don't speak for me, I wont play that BS, I said I could care less if you Homosexuals can get married or not because I don't have to accept it as being normal.
Great, then stop opposing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roaddog
Are you going to try to force me to accept it? Do people have to accept everything just because you think they should?So you think we should all be forced to believe like you, oh I get it.
I'm certainly trying to convince you to accept homosexuality as normal. I've never understood why so many people (seemingly you included) equate giving equal rights to homosexuals as forcing you to accept homosexuality.
I don't accept Christianity or Judaism or Islam. I think organized religion is harmful to society, and I just don't understand it. However, I don't view allowing Christians, Jews, and Muslims the right to marry, or the right not to be fired from their jobs for being Christian of Jewish or Muslims, as somehow forcing me to accept Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. I fully support equal rights for the religious even though I don't accept it.
I'm sorry...but I find it discriminatory to allow gay people a form of marriage that I won't have access to.
Huh? What special marriage rights will gays get that you won't have access to?
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.
