California and Mob Rule

[Jon Miller]

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.

It is still a man and a woman. Marriage has never been, previously, between two humans. It has always been between a man type human and a woman type human.

Therefore, it is an expansion to make a male/male marriage (for example).

I did not say or imply that homosexuals aren't human or people.

Basically, stop being willfully obtuse.

JM

[Drake Tungsten]

JM

[MrFun]

So what was your point about haven proven that people of all races are human since marriage, according to your knowledge, has never been between two humans?

[Jon Miller]

Because a black man and a white woman is still a man type human and a woman type human.

By the way, you should maybe read up on homosexual relationships in history. There have been many societies which were very open about homosexuality, or even where it was expected, none of the ones I read about had homosexual marriage.

JM
(There might be a formal relationship thing, but it was different from (And sometimes in addition to) marriage.)

[The Mad Monk]

I am in favor of gay marriage, SO LONG AS religious groups are under no obligation to recognize them.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

Marriage is traditionally much more than a civil contract. In fact, the idea of marriage long predates the idea of contracts per se. It wasn't possible for two men to enter into the civil contract of marriage because the prerequisite for that was the idea that the two people were actually married. Of course, the line between marriage and the contract of marriage has blurred, but arguably that's a line actually worth protecting!

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.

Why don't you try? I'm not arguing that the law can make these definitions at all - the definitions are social constructs completely independent of the legislature.

[Jon Miller]

I have often leaned towards having an alternate type fo relationship rather than expanding the definition of marriage. For the last two years I have been pretty pro exanding the definition of marriage, but am reconsidering right now something similar to 'brotherment' again.

It was between men, and they shared their stuff, they didn't have to be lovers (but probably were sometimes), they had many of the same rights/etc that marriage was given. We could have this for people who wish to have a formal relationship who were gay but also for people who wanted a formal relationship but who weren't necessarily having sex at all...

JM

[Theben]

Better still, relegate the institution of marriage to churches only and civil unions (or any other name) to the state, for all parties, gay or straight. That would also keep church-state separation intact.

[The Mad Monk]

That works too.

[Ben Kenobi]

Better still, relegate the institution of marriage to churches only and civil unions (or any other name) to the state, for all parties, gay or straight. That would also keep church-state separation intact.

I'd go with that as well.

[MrFun]

Because a black man and a white woman is still a man type human and a woman type human.

By the way, you should maybe read up on homosexual relationships in history. There have been many societies which were very open about homosexuality, or even where it was expected, none of the ones I read about had homosexual marriage.

JM
(There might be a formal relationship thing, but it was different from (And sometimes in addition to) marriage.)

I own a copy of a book on homosexuality in history but it's been a long time since I've read it and I'm sure there are newer more updated books on this history topic now.

And your above explanation of your point on being human in so far as it fits within the definition of man and woman type of marriage is just plain ridiculous. Just because marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman does not invalidate the need to grant equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

Whether we're talking about slavery, voting rights for certain minority groups, equal rights for gays and lesbians, or any other civil/human rights issue you can think of, opponents of such extension of rights willingly used the "tradition for tradition's sake" argument to claim why their position and the current status quo was justifiable and perhaps even a positive good.

[MrFun]

I am in favor of gay marriage, SO LONG AS religious groups are under no obligation to recognize them.

I agree with you. Besides, no one here is arguing that churches should be forced to marry gay couples.

[Kuciwalker]

And your above explanation of your point on being human in so far as it fits within the definition of man and woman type of marriage is just plain ridiculous. Just because marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman does not invalidate the need to grant equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

PEOPLE ARE NOT CLAIMING IT DOES. MRFUN YOU ARE A MORON.

[MrFun]

I thought JM was making the point that a black man marrying a white woman for an example still fits in the traditional definition of man+woman marriage whereas marriage between two gay men or two lesbians does not.

[Edan]