CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Ben Kenobi]

The bolded part you quoted does not mean that marriage had to be defined ONLY between a man and a woman. It means that both, men and women, have equal rights to choose whom they want to marry -- that means marrying a person of opposite gender, or person of same gender.

It says men and women. If it said this, then they would say, without regard to race, sexual orientation, etc, which it does not. The absence of sexual orientation is conspicuous.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The absence of sexual orientation is conspicuous.

off topic...

It was actually left out of the Canadian Charter on purpose then read in by the courts.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


This could mean a bunch of things.

1. You are closeminded, and even if I have an open mind, you percieve my disagreement to be closeminded on my part.

2. You are close minded, and correctly percieve me to be closeminded, without recognising your own state.

3. You are open minded, and correctly perceive me to be closeminded.

Why is 3 more likely then 1 or 2?

Because you are the one forbidding, I am the one permitting. Pretty basic.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It says men and women. If it said this, then they would say, without regard to race, sexual orientation, etc, which it does not. The absence of sexual orientation is conspicuous.

You keep finding more and more desperate lows to reach in this thread.

[Elok]

If you're going to be that literal about it, you might as well say that "men and women" implies that only group marriage (two or more of each gender) is a right. It doesn't say "one man and one woman," after all, it says "men and women."

[Wiglaf]

Having read this opinion I think the dissent is much better reasoned than the majority

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Elok
If you're going to be that literal about it, you might as well say that "men and women" implies that only group marriage (two or more of each gender) is a right. It doesn't say "one man and one woman," after all, it says "men and women."

Polygamists win!!

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How do you propose to do that?

Education, which has a compelling inverse relationship with population growth rates. I appreciate you taking the time to ask me that, though it was only after a hilariously stupid strawman argument.

Obviously not. I did say between gay marriage and population control. I would be very surprised to find any person who agreed with gay marriage and did not also agree with population control.

Do you agree with me that the two views are most often found hand in hand with one another?

If they are, it's your own fault. Gay people are not automatically liberals. If the Republican party didn't obstruct their equal rights, the correlation wouldn't exist - just look at the values of Black people in America, which are often quite conservative, and yet they vote overwhelmingly Democratic. There is nothing intrinsically connective between views on gay rights and views on population.

I believe all people ought to be enfranchised. The right to vote is an individual right.

The right to vote is not the only meaning of "enfranchised."

So how does this support your argument? In fact, it rejects your argument here. You cannot appeal to the code and at the same time say that it says something which it does not.

It says that "men and women (...) have the right." It doesn't say that they have a right to do so only with a member of the opposite sex. In many societies around the world, men's rights differ substantially from women's rights when it comes to marriage; the UDHC states that men and women both have the "right to marry and to found a family." Sorry, no reference to gays here.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It says men and women. If it said this, then they would say, without regard to race, sexual orientation, etc, which it does not. The absence of sexual orientation is conspicuous.

Incredible as it sounds, gay rights was not on an issue on anybody's radar in 1948. It's preposterous to think that its omission was a result of anything other than that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In many societies around the world, men's rights differ substantially from women's rights when it comes to marriage

Yep... just look at the rights on divorce for men and the differences in those for women in the Islamic world.

[Ben Kenobi]

Incredible as it sounds, gay rights was not on an issue on anybody's radar in 1948. It's preposterous to think that its omission was a result of anything other than that.

Obviously then we should rely on my interpretation then which is consistent with what they meant.

Again, that doesn't get you to where you need to be. If they didn't have gay rights in mind, why would they write the thing to approve of gay rights. Clearly they intended to be for men and women only.

Nice try.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because you are the one forbidding, I am the one permitting. Pretty basic.

Which is why you feel the need to call your opponents bigots. I got you.

Totally wide open about everything obviously, including the benefits of religion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, all he was really doing was rebutting your assertion that marriage isn't an individual right. After that is established, then equal protection can come back into play.

And, of course, countries have interpreted the UNDHR to protect gay marriages... it be a living document too .

[Ben Kenobi]

Education, which has a compelling inverse relationship with population growth rates. I appreciate you taking the time to ask me that, though it was only after a hilariously stupid strawman argument.

Point taken. Usually when I ask 'hilariously stupid questions', it's to draw out these ones which aren't stupid.

If they are, it's your own fault. Gay people are not automatically liberals.

Neither are population controllers for that matter. So this objection isn't sufficient.

If the Republican party didn't obstruct their equal rights, the correlation wouldn't exist - just look at the values of Black people in America, which are often quite conservative, and yet they vote overwhelmingly Democratic. There is nothing intrinsically connective between views on gay rights and views on population.

No, I suggest that in most cases their values align, just as you accused all those who oppose this ban as being Christians. I'm sure there are more then a few non-Christians who have a problem with the ban on ideals far ranged away from what the bible says.

I would argue they are. The whole concept of the word 'breeder' is an excellent conjuction of both ideals. It would make sense for a population controller to elevate gay people above the breeders, as this would accomplish several ends at the same time.

I would be intrigued in anyone who supported gay rights, who also was against the population control movement, I've not seen anyone who was for one and against the other.

The right to vote is not the only meaning of "enfranchised.

That is the analogy you are making. You are arguing that the right to marry is as fundamental a human right as that of voting. I think there are some significant differences, which are reflected in the fact that it isn't an individual right, and that it requires the consent of another person to exercise. In what way is such a right inalienable if it cannot be exercised without the consent of another person?

[Ben Kenobi]

Let me put this another way Imran. You have the right to pursue happiness. You have the right to pursue marriage. You have the right to pursue a family. But you do not have the right to a marriage and a family.

Does this make sense? This is why it is called the pursuit of happiness. You do not have a right to happiness, merely to pursue.