Gay marriage bans vs. interracial marriage bans (Franken, compare, state)

[Langlen]

Originally Posted by momonkey

No one is banned from getting married. Anyone who wants may marry. They must marry one person of the opposite sex.

Which is discriminatory to the homosexual people.

When they legalize gay marriage, straight people can marry people of the same gender too. Nobody's getting "special rights".

[mississauga75]

Originally Posted by momonkey

What part of the Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage?

Here's a link.

LII: Constitution

What part of it denies the right to same-sex marriage? The burden of proof should reside on your side to deny same-sex marriages because you want to deny liberties and abridge priviliges/rights of citizens of the U.S.A

[karfar]

Originally Posted by mississauga75

What part of it denies the right to same-sex marriage?

For that matter, where does it give heteros the right to get married? Funny, the anti gay marriage crowd always like to mention that the right to get married is not in the constitution, however do you know of any heteros who were denied the right to get married? I'd like to hear from someone who knows some couple that were not allowed to get married.

[mississauga75]

Originally Posted by karfar

For that matter, where does it give heteros the right to get married? Funny, the anti gay marriage crowd always like to mention that the right to get married is not in the constitution, however do you know of any heteros who were denied the right to get married? I'd like to hear from someone who knows some couple that were not allowed to get married.

Exactly AND using their logic they would also have to advocate denying marriage to individuals who do not intend to procreate by using birth control measures or can't procreate. I mean what is the point of their marriage? By eliminating and infringing on the rights of one group - you advocate eliminating and infringing the rights of any other.

The bottom line is denying any citizen the right to marry is uncontitutional. It was in Canada and these groups wanting to deny same-sex marriage lost - in time they will lose in the U.S.A it is only a matter of when not if.

[karfar]

Originally Posted by mississauga75

Exactly AND using their logic they would also have to advocate denying marriage to individuals who do not intend to procreate by using birth control measures or can't procreate. I mean what is the point of their marriage? By eliminating and infringing on the rights of one group - you advocate eliminating and infringing the rights of any other.

The bottom line is denying any citizen the right to marry is uncontitutional. It was in Canada and these groups wanting to deny same-sex marriage lost - in time they will lose in the U.S.A it is only a matter of when not if.

Exactly. I'm sure there are plenty out there who would like to deny marriage to people who have no intention of having kids, however since that right is already in place, they'd never be able to reverse it which is why they're focusing their attention on gays.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

What do you think the similarities are, if any? The differences?

One is an oxymoron, the other is not. One was instituted strictly out of ignorance and racial prejudice to deny the law respecting legal claim through blood relation. The other is simply a hijacking of a definition based on emotional reasoning.

[mississauga75]

Originally Posted by Nomander

One is an oxymoron, the other is not. One was instituted strictly out of ignorance and racial prejudice to deny the law respecting legal claim through blood relation. The other is simply a hijacking of a definition based on emotional reasoning.

You are very selective with your logic. Logically you would also deny marriage to opposite sex individuals if the intention of that marriage was not to procreate and maintain the bloodline.

[the one]

i see similarities.

a minotiry is not allowed what everyone esle is allowed.

simple as that.

as for antimiscegenation.

it was first fought at the state level when in CA, a black man wanted to marry a mexican. they could not marry because at the time (1940's) mexicans were considered white (altho in the same state, which also dealt with school segregation before the feds, mexicans could not attend school with white kids). the court ruled in the couples favor and in CA, two people of any color could marry.

though these battles are not the same, there are many similiarities.

a group is being denied the right to marry.


OH and that lil procreation argument is TIRED!
should barren or sterile peoples not be allowed to marry? what about the many many people who have no intention of having kids, ever? should htey not be allowed to marry because they dont want to procreate?

AH, another similarity is tha the bible was used in both instances by the ANTI marraige crowd. "god put blacks in africa and whites in europed to keep them seperate... bla bla bla." god this, god that. yack!!!

[Nomander]

The fact is, redefining the language to appeal to emotional demands is pandering to ignorance and childish behavior. This argument keeps getting made and it keeps being explained as to why it exists. Each point people keep regurgitating over and over again like a child demanding a toy in a toy store. If they don't get what they want, they run to the other parent and persist in demanding it from them. Each time, the child refuses to listen to any valid reason the parent might give as they are insistent on getting their way. You can not reason with this child as they are beyond reason while their emotion drives their tantrums.

Look, I am all for discussing the issues, but thread after thread people keep coming in throwing out the same argument that they have been shown invalid in previous threads. It is not intelligent or rational, frankly it is nothing short of stupidity.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by mississauga75

You are very selective with your logic. Logically you would also deny marriage to opposite sex individuals if the intention of that marriage was not to procreate and maintain the bloodline.

We have been here before. I explained your lack of ability to properly apply logic. In each case, I respectfully suggested some reading on the issue. You took offense as if I were trying to compare my intellect with you and continued on misusing arguments, mixing up principals of subjective and objective and proclaiming yourself valid through lists of logical fallacies.

I suggest that you refrain from using the word logic or concepts related as you have no understanding of them. This isn't an attack, it is a statement of fact which is evident through your constant misuse of the concepts.