[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Raphael07

You could marry a man if you want. The thing is, its likely only gay people would take part in it.

Or we could just leave marriage as it is and gay people could choose not to get married if they don't want to. That seems a lot simpler.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I think they're wrong because they are ignoring the Constitution. That's it. You are correct, in that the Constitution really doesn't address marriage. So why are the lefties whining about their rights being supposedly trampled again?

Because the law does not recognize sexual preference in any way when considering marriage. Gay people are no more discriminated against than anyone else. I'm not allowed to marry another man, and neither is any other man--regardless of sexual preference. There is no discrimination. To suggest there is would be to manufacture an issue. Any judge who rules for 2 men to get married because of sexual preference is legislating from the bench.

And you're wrong because you don't know Constitutional law. The 9th Amendment states that just because a certain right is not spelled out in the Constitution, that does NOT mean that the right does not exist. Furthermore, we already have case law (Loving v. Virginia) where the Supreme Court declared marriage a "basic civil right."

Your argument has absolutely zero legal standing.

Also, DentalFloss pointed out the 14th Amendment issue that is killing your argument as well.

Originally Posted by Calvinist

My argument is not in any way about the victims. If you're unable to see that after all this time then I really can't do much for you.

I never said that was your argument. Your argument is actually much dumber, basically breaking down to "pedophiles say they're born that way too so we shouldn't let gays marry off that argument." What I did is point out how that argument fails under the well established legal principle of strict scrutiny. You can legislate against pedophilia...even if it is a natural born condition...because there is a compelling argument for protecting children from sexual abuse at the hands of adults. A major part of meeting the strict scrutiny test is finding a victim, or at least someone negatively effected by the practice you are trying to prevent.

There are no victims of consensual homosexual relationships, thus another of your arguments has zero legal standing.

Originally Posted by Calvinist

so you can't have a special form of marriage for gay people?

No, and they wouldn't get it. They would simply be included in the already standing practice.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

And you're wrong because you don't know Constitutional law. The 9th Amendment states that just because a certain right is not spelled out in the Constitution, that does NOT mean that the right does not exist. Furthermore, we already have case law (Loving v. Virginia) where the Supreme Court declared marriage a "basic civil right."

Your argument has absolutely zero legal standing.

Also, DentalFloss pointed out the 14th Amendment issue that is killing your argument as well.

What "right" does a gay person have that I don't? I"ve repeatedly asked this question and I don't know if you're just not able to comprehend it or what...but gay people can and do get married. You're like the leaky faucet that just won't stop.

I never said that was your argument. Your argument is actually much dumber, basically breaking down to "pedophiles say they're born that way too so we shouldn't let gays marry off that argument." What I did is point out how that argument fails under the well established legal principle of strict scrutiny. You can legislate against pedophilia...even if it is a natural born condition...because there is a compelling argument for protecting children from sexual abuse at the hands of adults. A major part of meeting the strict scrutiny test is finding a victim, or at least someone negatively effected by the practice you are trying to prevent.

There are no victims of consensual homosexual relationships, thus another of your arguments has zero legal standing.

So then you agree that the argument of "they were born that way" is stupid?

No, and they wouldn't get it. They would simply be included in the already standing practice.

You mean the one that does not discriminate against gay people? I got no issues with gay people getting married. It just needs to be by the same rules as me.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

What "right" does a gay person have that I don't? I"ve repeatedly asked this question and I don't know if you're just not able to comprehend it or what...but gay people can and do get married. You're like the leaky faucet that just won't stop.

I don't know of any rights gay people have that you don't. It actually works in reverse, hence the whole argument here.

So then you agree that the argument of "they were born that way" is stupid?

I agree that it's ultimately irrelevant to the debate. Whether it was choice or innate really has no effect on the legal argument.

You mean the one that does not discriminate against gay people?

Sure. It's the states that regulate the institution doing the discriminating.

[Raphael07]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Or we could just leave marriage as it is and gay people could choose not to get married if they don't want to. That seems a lot simpler.

Lets talk again when you have a better argument than "That seems a lot simpler"

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Raphael07

Lets talk again when you have a better argument than "That seems a lot simpler"

Keeping the status quo has never been a valid legal argument either.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Raphael07

Lets talk again when you have a better argument than "That seems a lot simpler"

I'm still waiting for a real argument from the "we just want to marry who we love" crowd. Carry that one to a logical conclusion. It results in lots of pretty wild and stupid stuff.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

I don't know of any rights gay people have that you don't. It actually works in reverse, hence the whole argument here.

Start legislating based on sexual preference and they'll have some.

I agree that it's ultimately irrelevant to the debate. Whether it was choice or innate really has no effect on the legal argument.

Sure. It's the states that regulate the institution doing the discriminating.

Nope. Gay people can get married right now. Just like non-gays can.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Start legislating based on sexual preference and they'll have some.

Examples?

Nope. Gay people can get married right now. Just like non-gays can.

So two men in Nebraska can enter into a legally recognized marriage with each other? That's news to me.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Examples?

A new definition of marriage?

So two men in Nebraska can enter into a legally recognized marriage with each other? That's news to me.

Nope. I certainly never said that. That would be lunacy.