Gay marriage bans vs. interracial marriage bans (education, claims, support)

[Hoarfrost]

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.

They then introduced the principle of symmetry – the claim that no violation of equality or discrimination on the basis of race had ensued because both blacks and whites convicted under the statute faced the same legal penalty (Id., see also Bank).

Anyone who wanted to marry then could get married, they simply had to marry a person of the same race.

[Theliberalvoice]

Originally Posted by Hoarfrost

Anyone who wanted to marry then could get married, they simply had to marry a person of the same race.

And that is wrong.

[Frankie117]

Originally Posted by karfar

That's a nice thought but in actuality, I truly don't think that's the reason for the hatefulness towards gay marriage. If it were true, these same people would loathe couples who choose not to have kids w/the same vengeance as they do about gay marriage.

Well if what I said came across as a 'nice thought' I may have screwed up the wording.. Nevertheless many childless couples do have judgments made about them. However, many couples who choose not to have children generally come from large families where it would be a non-issue. I always thought that was ironic..


And holy crap my 2,000th post.

[mississauga75]

Originally Posted by Nomander

If you walked into some place and they asked your relationship, and you made the statement of "We are married", it won't change anything as they will treat it the same anyway. I seriously doubt someone is going to say "correction, you mean you are a civil union". So the only place of relevance that it will have is on the legal document for legal records and that to be honest is the only place it needs that clarification.

What I hope you see is that this is not an issue of rights concerning the word marriage, but a logical issue of definition. Most people have no problems with civil unions and them affording the same rights and privileges of a marriage contract. Now if people were demanding that they not be allowed, that would then be a violation of rights.

Well perhaps i will evolve with my learnings... until then - all i see you doing is having an emotional attachment to ownership of marriage by denying same-sex marriage, even though you're very own constitution states nothing of the sort.

[mississauga75]

Originally Posted by Frankie117

And holy crap my 2,000th post.

LOL i got similarly excited when I reached 100 Rep points

[Jaymax]

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.

I can just imagine the wedding vows. "I promise to insert my pee pee into your hoo hoo at least 3 times for the purpose of impregnating you to carry my seed and continue my bloodline...preferably 3 sons. Forget all that love stuff and emotional crap. Just as long as you obey me give me sons."

[mississauga75]

Originally Posted by Jaymax

I can just imagine the wedding vows. "I promise to insert my pee pee into your hoo hoo at least 3 times for the purpose of impregnating you to carry my seed and continue my bloodline...preferably 3 sons. Forget all that love stuff and emotional crap. Just as long as you obey me give me sons."

LOL yes to some of us - this is logic - and lucky shooting - though luck is irrational hehe. I was trying to convey that not all laws can be based solely on logic - you have to include emotional and logical elements because humans are emotional and logical beings - with hearts and brains (even though emotion is located in the brain )

[Langlen]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Marriage is just a definition, but it serves a valid purpose of understanding and the change of it will not change rights, it will merely change to a meaning that does not serve any real purpose.

If it doesn't serve any real purpose, then what's the harm in changing it?

If you walked into some place and they asked your relationship, and you made the statement of "We are married", it won't change anything as they will treat it the same anyway. I seriously doubt someone is going to say "correction, you mean you are a civil union". So the only place of relevance that it will have is on the legal document for legal records and that to be honest is the only place it needs that clarification.

Again, if this is how you feel, then what is the harm of changing the definition of marriage? All it would be is "one man and woman" to "two people".

What I hope you see is that this is not an issue of rights concerning the word marriage, but a logical issue of definition.

Which is silly. Definitions have been changed all the time. Why take an issue with it now?

[Jaymax]

Originally Posted by 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.

I know, your bloodlines argument keeps getting thrown out, but yet you still persist with regurgitating it and creating the same silly strawman arguments so that you can justify ignoring anyone else's points. Are your little feet sore from all that stomping? Is your face red from demanding that people think only YOUR way?

You don't "discuss". You just tell everyone else they are wrong and you are right - with lot's of patronising insults thrown in.

[Jaymax]

Originally Posted by mississauga75

LOL yes to some of us - this is logic - and lucky shooting - though luck is irrational hehe. I was trying to convey that not all laws can be based solely on logic - you have to include emotional and logical elements because humans are emotional and logical beings - with hearts and brains (even though emotion is located in the brain )

I've always found the "pompous git" type who "pooh pooh" anything emotional, to be very fragile emotionally themselves. They are so uptight, robotic and obsessively rule bound, because they fear they will fall apart in a big blubbering incoherent mess in the face of any strong emotions.