Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Republicans really do hate gay people

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Guynemer View Post
    It is also frankly ridiculous to read a right to marriage for blonde people into the Constitution.
    Look. You and I both think the whole "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman!" argument is stupid, because definitions don't actually matter and letting gay couples call themselves married would make them very happy at almost no cost. We think that the whole "marriage is good because it produces babies!" argument is stupid, because we don't penalize married couples that don't have kids. And so on with all the various other arguments. But there are enough arguments, and they have enough logical coherence between them (even if they are wrong), that a legislator can honestly say "marriage and gay marriage are different things and gay people are perfectly free to marry, just not gay marry" and the court should not second-guess him. Laws should generally not be struck down on the basis that the legislators who passed them were mistaken on the facts or used poor reasoning, because the court is just as susceptible to those errors.

    Comment


    • #77
      It is frankly ridiculous to read a right to interracial marriage into the constitution. Thanks for clarifying what "equal protection under the law" means, right wingers

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
        Look. You and I both think the whole "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman!" argument is stupid, because definitions don't actually matter and letting gay couples call themselves married would make them very happy at almost no cost. We think that the whole "marriage is good because it produces babies!" argument is stupid, because we don't penalize married couples that don't have kids. And so on with all the various other arguments. But there are enough arguments, and they have enough logical coherence between them (even if they are wrong), that a legislator can honestly say "marriage and gay marriage are different things and gay people are perfectly free to marry, just not gay marry" and the court should not second-guess him. Laws should generally not be struck down on the basis that the legislators who passed them were mistaken on the facts or used poor reasoning, because the court is just as susceptible to those errors.

        To be fair, a panel of esteemed judges tend to be far more intelligent than South Carolina Republican state representatives. Y'all.
        "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
        Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

        Comment


        • #79
          Look, don't make fun of "Y'all" because after all it sounds way less dumb than "you guys" and everything else folks up here say.

          Comment


          • #80
            That's right, eh?
            No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by gribbler View Post
              It is frankly ridiculous to read a right to interracial marriage into the constitution. Thanks for clarifying what "equal protection under the law" means, right wingers
              You are bad at this.

              Comment


              • #82
                gribbler, is polygamy a Constitutional right?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
                  It is frankly ridiculous to read a right to gay marriage into the Constitution.
                  By definition of the Fourteenth Amendment, gay people who are born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States, yes?
                  A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
                    You are bad at this.
                    Nah, gribbler made a valid point. If marriage is not a right, then the US Supreme Court was out of bounds in ruling that laws prohibiting interracial marriage was unconstitutional.
                    A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
                      Look. You and I both think the whole "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman!" argument is stupid, because definitions don't actually matter and letting gay couples call themselves married would make them very happy at almost no cost. We think that the whole "marriage is good because it produces babies!" argument is stupid, because we don't penalize married couples that don't have kids. And so on with all the various other arguments. But there are enough arguments, and they have enough logical coherence between them (even if they are wrong), that a legislator can honestly say "marriage and gay marriage are different things and gay people are perfectly free to marry, just not gay marry" and the court should not second-guess him. Laws should generally not be struck down on the basis that the legislators who passed them were mistaken on the facts or used poor reasoning, because the court is just as susceptible to those errors.
                      I'm not sure I understand the point of your post; not a failing on your part, I'm sure, but on mine. Can you clarify, especially in regards to my previous post?
                      "My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
                      "The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
                        gribbler, is polygamy a Constitutional right?
                        No one is even born a polygamist so that is not a valid comparison. You are also exceptionally bad at this if you think people want bans on gay marriage to be struck down on the basis of whether the bigots are being stupid instead of on the basis of equal rights.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by gribbler View Post
                          No one is even born a polygamist so that is not a valid comparison. You are also exceptionally bad at this if you think people want bans on gay marriage to be struck down on the basis of whether the bigots are being stupid instead of on the basis of equal rights.
                          ^ This. The precedent of Loving v. Virginia appears to control here. Now if you want to argue that homosexuality shouldn't be a protected class because its a choice, I guess you could (though it'd be silly).
                          “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                          - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            How about the fact that the Constitution just doesn't have anything to say on the topic of homosexuality? It protects discrimination based on race and sex but not sexual orientation.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              The anti-miscegenation statutes existed to help preserve the unequal status of blacks. Bans on same-sex marriage exist to perpetuate the unequal status of homosexuals. People don't have a choice about being black, and gays generally don't have a choice in the matter. It is a very close parallel.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
                                How about the fact that the Constitution just doesn't have anything to say on the topic of homosexuality? It protects discrimination based on race and sex but not sexual orientation.
                                There is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly prevents sex-based discrimination (except on the issue of suffrage). Thanks conservatives for killing the equal rights amendment

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X