Social conservatives who argue gays have equal rights to marry opposite sex - are they really possibly that stupid? (statistics, homosexuals)
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.
Well that would depend on the definition of marriage would it not? What if cousins couldn't get together and enjoy those benefits?
It's all predicated on the definition of marriage.
No, not at all. In fact, your argument really doesn't make sense. I think the problem is you're conflating religious or traditional marriages with civil marriages. They are two separate, unrelated things.
The law is what defines civil marriage contracts. It doesn't make sense to say the law is discriminatory or not is based on some outside definition of marriage when it's the law itself that creates the definition of civil marriage.
I would argue any restriction of marriage is discrimination. Banning same-sex marriage discriminates against homosexuals. Banning opposite-sex marriage discriminates against heterosexuals. Banning Jews from getting married discriminates against Jews. Banning marriage between adults and children discriminates against pedophiles. Banning brothers and sisters from getting married discriminates against the incestuous.
The question then becomes is the discrimination allowable under the Constitution (specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment). We have a legal test for that. If the discrimination serves a legitimate government interest - in other words if the discrimination prevents a harm to the people - then it's allowable. If not, then the government is not allowed to discriminate in that manner.
That's why interracial marriage bans were struck down. The court found such discrimination under the law did not prevent a harm to the people, therefore it was not Constitutional. Likewise, a court in California recently found the law there banning gay marriage did not prevent a harm to the people, therefore it was not Constitutional.
Why don't you go ahead and try a few rounds. Argue to me how allowing gay marriage harms the people? Now argue to me how allowing adults to marry small children harms the people?
Last edited by hammertime33; 01-15-2012 at 08:20 PM..
I don't think it was argued "based on gender", but the notion of state gay-marriage bans violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment recently did find success in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. I don't think the issue will reach the Supreme Court via some back door DOMA way - Perry v. Schwarzenegger is almost certain to be in front of the Supreme Court in the next 2 or 3 years.
I don't think the current SCOTUS would strike down gay marriage bans. They would be likely to strike down DOMA.
I don't think you want Perry v. Schwarzenegger to go before SCOTUS now, because if they upheld gay marriage bans it would be much harder to get them ruled unconstitutional 5 years later, 10 years later, or however much later when they otherwise would strike them down.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 01-15-2012 at 08:34 PM..
I would be suprised if the Supreme Court takes jurisdiction of the Proposition 8 appeal (viz. Perry v. Brown); but then I was suprised when the court granted certiorari in Bush v. Gore; which, if there ever was a case for mandatory abstention, that was the case. The court seems reluctant to tackle the equal protection question head on; i.e., it is reluctant to rule that same-sex marriage is a "fundamental right" that raises the issue of equal protection.
This is the "back door" approach under the guise of "full faith and credit":
I disagree. The 9th Circuit could publish its ruling in Perry v. Brown any day now. If it upholds the lower court ruling (which I'd bet every cent I have it will), then gay marriage would be legalized throughout the entire Circuit: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington. Not only that, there would be two contradicting Circuit Level court rulings on the same issue (Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning). Do you really think the Supreme Court would stay out and leave the law in that state of disarray?
Let's say your state changed it's civil marriage contract law so that only couples of the same sex could get one - in other words, heterosexual couples were banned from contracting civil marriages and accessing the 1400 civil rights that come with a civil marriage contract.
Would you consider such a law a form of "discrimination"?
No, a case of collective insanity, which my state's legislature is perfectly capable of. Only the threat of unemployment and commitment to the loony bin stays their hands.
I disagree. The 9th Circuit could publish its ruling in Perry v. Brown any day now. If it upholds the lower court ruling (which I'd bet every cent I have it will), then gay marriage would be legalized throughout the entire Circuit: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington. Not only that, there would be two contradicting Circuit Level court rulings on the same issue (Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning). Do you really think the Supreme Court would stay out and leave the law in that state of disarray?
Ah, yes, The good old Ninth Circuit. Talk about a confederacy of dunces...
No, a case of collective insanity, which my state's legislature is perfectly capable of. Only the threat of unemployment and commitment to the loony bin stays their hands.
You're not even willing to acknowledge that that would be discrimination (you instead brand it as "insanity")? It's impossible to have a conversation with somebody like you who's that intellectually dishonest.
if u r a gay breadwinner--- GOP ---is your best friend, once gay marriage becomes legal then gay divorce will also be legal and with it u will get to know the reality of no fault divorce and community property law.
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 01-15-2012 at 09:33 PM..
Even Bachmann was out repeating this load of crap in public not long ago. I've heard this articulated on this forum as well. I heard it again just recently, and it just burns me up. "Oh, the gays have equal rights and the playing field is level...they just have to marry a person of the opposite sex, same as me. See? No discrimination at all!"
ba boom, crash. Nice joke. Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal, it's great.
The key right at stake here is obviously the right to be in a legally recognized union with a mature person of orientation that you desire to be with.
It's like telling a black person in the 1800s, "Oh, you have the exact same rights under the law as I do; all you have to do is be white-skinned, not black - see? I have to abide by the same law." Or telling a woman at the turn of the century that she has the same equal right to vote as men do...so long as she grows a penis and gets rid of her ovaries.
How CONVENIENT, of course, that "the law" just so happens to favor their skin / sexual orientation...
I still can't fathom how anyone over the age of, say, ten can't tell the obvious logical fallacy with this. So the question to me is: are those people who repeat this really that stupid, or are they being willfully ignorant hypocrites because their rigid beliefs force them to accept blindness to reason? I'm really on the fence on this one.
So you think that talking about the right to marry a person of the opposite makes one stupid. I wonder just who the stupid one really is since all peope have that right in every state. Stupid you say?
Even Bachmann was out repeating this load of crap in public not long ago. I've heard this articulated on this forum as well. I heard it again just recently, and it just burns me up. "Oh, the gays have equal rights and the playing field is level...they just have to marry a person of the opposite sex, same as me. See? No discrimination at all!"
ba boom, crash. Nice joke. Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal, it's great.
The key right at stake here is obviously the right to be in a legally recognized union with a mature person of orientation that you desire to be with.
It's like telling a black person in the 1800s, "Oh, you have the exact same rights under the law as I do; all you have to do is be white-skinned, not black - see? I have to abide by the same law." Or telling a woman at the turn of the century that she has the same equal right to vote as men do...so long as she grows a penis and gets rid of her ovaries.
How CONVENIENT, of course, that "the law" just so happens to favor their skin / sexual orientation...
I still can't fathom how anyone over the age of, say, ten can't tell the obvious logical fallacy with this. So the question to me is: are those people who repeat this really that stupid, or are they being willfully ignorant hypocrites because their rigid beliefs force them to accept blindness to reason? I'm really on the fence on this one.
The gay community should change their message then. Saying that they're denied the right to marry just isn't true.
They should say that the are denied the right to change the millennial long definition of marriage and want to marry each other.
Saying that gay marriage is not allowed is just not factual.
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.
Nice joke. Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal, it's great. 
