California and Mob Rule

[Kuciwalker]

KH, that only works if "a guy marrying another guy" even makes logical sense. And it only does AFTER YOU'VE ALREADY DECIDED that marriage is any relationship between people with those few properties I mentioned, rather than something with a more restricted definition. Your reasoning is circular.

[KrazyHorse]

And it only does AFTER YOU'VE ALREADY DECIDED that marriage is any relationship between people with those few properties I mentioned, rather than something with a more restricted definition. Your reasoning is circular.

No it isn't, sweetheart.

The fact that you claim that makes me worry about your logical abilities.

Marriage is a civil contract. Restricting those who may enter into a given civil contract based solely on the class they belong to is discriminatory.

You can't attempt to argue your way around the fact that you're practicing discrimination by claiming that the discrimination is merely a definitional matter. Otherwise a law which stated that "a person is a member of the white race; all others are not people" would not be discriminatory, as it is merely a definitional matter.

Perhaps you should stop to think before posting.

[Jon Miller]

The law does not make the definition.

Firstly, we can scientifically prove that all races are fully human. I admit that scientific evidence has only been a recent thing.

Blacks have been considered fully human beings (excluding a small minority of people in the last couple hundred years... basically to excuse their own terrible behavior "I am not doing this to a human"). Marriage has always been between a woman and a man. Even polygamy has had marriage between a woman and a man, it is just that the 'contract' was not exclusive.

The fact that this (homosexual marriage) would never arise in (most of) history is proof of this.

It is now that the definition is changing. It is changing in the populace first, I think it is a beneficial change and so should be included in our laws... to encourage it.

And I agree that just because a law is discriminatory doesn't mean it is wrong.

JM

[MrFun]

So blacks are human beings but not gays and lesbians?

[MrFun]

Jon's argument is far smarter than yours. The similarities between anti-miscegenation laws and the refusal to create a right to gay marriage are superficial at best.

Shows how little you understand law and history.

[Jon Miller]

So blacks are human beings but not gays and lesbians?

Non sequitor much?

JM

[Jon Miller]

Shows how little you understand law and history.

While gay relationships have often been a broader and more open part of society than they were in the US in the 50s... in all cases (asia, africa, europe, etc) it hasn't been marriage that they occured in.

In fact, generally those who were homosexual would get married too... often later (many of the homosexual relationships in asia/etc were age related, younger (often male) with older (male)).

To go beyond "brotherment" (which existed in medieval europe) for example to marriage between two guys or two girls is a step beyond what has occured in history.

JM
(my understanding is that "brotherment" didn't imply sexual relations, but people guess it was probably used on occasion for such things... this places it significantly different than what occured in China/Japan/etc)

[Asher]

Now they have to change the constitution. If they want it fine, put it up, but the people have had their say.

I sure wish they had done the same up here and let the people decide.

America.

The people did decide in Canada, in two ways:
1) It was an election issue and the people's representatives held a free vote (a vote not along party lines) which legalized gay marriage
2) Polls show an overwhelming majority of Canadians support gay marriage

Welcome to reality, Ben. Enjoy your stay.

[Asher]

You said I believed they should be second-class citizens. They were by definition second-class citizens when they couldn't vote.

The situation with gay men is totally different.

Voting is not the whole criterion for "second-class citizen" status.

[Asher]

Right, now we get to it. The siren song of progressivism.

Lets ignore the fact that liberal bastions like Wyoming were the first to give women the franchise, and that a Republican named Lincoln freed the slaves.

Are gay men being lynched?

Yes

Both physically (gays ARE assaulted all the time, both in the major death-way (several every year in the USA) and in the usual bullying and homophobia).

In what way are they second-class citizens in America?

Culturally, "gay" is an insult. Look at any high school and tell me gay students are treated the same as straight students.

Politically gay people cannot marry their loved ones. Only straights can.

[Jon Miller]

Culturally gay is still an insult.

This needs to change. I actually think this is more important than adding homosexual marriage to support gay relationships.

JM

[MrFun]

Non sequitor much?

JM

Well, we can scientifically prove that people of all races are human as you said in your post.

We can also scientifically prove that people of all sexual orientations are human.

So I want to know how you reconcile with extending equal rights based on fact that all people are human regardless of race, but not for gays and lesbians who are also human.

[MrFun]

Let's use some of the so-called "arguments" against gay marriage and apply some of them to "arguments" against interracial marriage.

1. Allowing blacks and whites to marry one another will change the traditional understanding of marriage as people predominantly marry a person of the same race.

2. Interracial couples are unfit to raise children, as the black partner's race has lower average performance in education and experience grater instability in their family structure compared to white families. These negative effects could be passed onto their children.

3. Also, children of interracial marriage will face constant prejudice and ostracization when dealing with white and/or black people in society.

4. Blacks have higher rate of STDs, so they should not be allowed to marry white people. This way, we minimize transmission of any STDs through interracial marriages.

5. And finally, blacks would not be denied the right to marry - they are free to marry other black people so there is no discrimination.

[SlowwHand]

Your argument, although passionate, is illogical and compares two different circumstances.

[MrFun]

Your argument, although passionate, is illogical and compares two different circumstances.

Yes, the "arguments" I posted are illogical just as the "arguments" against equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians are illogical.

And thanks for pointing out the obvious that they are two different circumstances. However, different circumstances can still have parallels.