Catholic Charities Mixes Politics with Community Services

[Ben Kenobi]

If they all wanted to abolish slavery, why didn't they do it?

They felt it was more effective to let it dwindle away.

As for Lincoln... how is that even relevant? How does that somehow prove slavery was unconstitutional at the time?

You really need to read what he said about the Missouri Compromise. It's quite pertinent to this discussion here.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are an idiot.

C'mon Imran, you knew that was coming with your seriously poor argument. Reductio Ad Absurdam wins again.

habeas corpus is statutory in the US, Ben. Not common law. Thanks for playing though.

Oh look! An argument. Apparently marriage is statutory law too! Gosh! What a surprise!

[MrFun]

So you are saying that gay people are confined to slavery? You just admitted that the comparison is entirely invalid.

I was not talking about slavery, idiot. I was talking about the history of the equal right to marry.


And tell me how the fvck would granting equal marriage rights to gays undermine the federal government's responsibility to preserve marriage?

[Ben Kenobi]

And tell me how the fvck would granting equal marriage rights to gays undermine the federal government's responsibility to preserve marriage?

If marriage is a natural right, how could it be restricted on the basis of polygamy, consanginuity and age?

[MrFun]

Again, we get back to the fundamental dispute here. Rights are not guaranteed by the government. Marriage isn't a right because it is guaranteed by the government. Natural rights exist in opposition to government as a constraint on the government. This is why marriage isn't a natural right.

So why can't government deny legal recognition of interracial marriages? Or even marriages between two people of a minority race?

After all, based on your twisted logic, allowing minority races the right to marry would destroy marriage!!

[MrFun]

If marriage is a natural right, how could it be restricted on the basis of polygamy, consanginuity and age?

If you don't want to answer my question, then just concede that you realize that thinking that allowing gays equal right to marry would destroy marriage is bull****.

I'm not going to get into the quagmire of polygamy, consanginuity, age, purple polka dots, Martians, cats and dogs, and whatever else the fvck you come up with in this context because all of that are strawmen and red herrings.

[giblets]

They felt it was more effective to let it dwindle away.

Okay, so they all wanted it to dwindle it away, but all they could manage to agree on was making it illegal to import more slaves...

You really need to read what he said about the Missouri Compromise. It's quite pertinent to this discussion here.

Maybe you should learn to make your own arguments...

[Ben Kenobi]

So why can't government deny legal recognition of interracial marriages? Or even marriages between two people of a minority race?

Equal Protection clause under the 14th amendment. Which doesn't apply to gay people, because you have the exact same marriage rights that I do.

[giblets]

How can life be a natural right when the government can't grant me immortality...?

[Ben Kenobi]

Okay, so they all wanted it to dwindle it away, but all they could manage to agree on was making it illegal to import more slaves...

Yeah, that's what they said.

Maybe you should learn to make your own arguments...

He said it before and better. I already paraphrased his argument.

[giblets]

Yeah, that's what they said.



He said it before and better. I already paraphrased his argument.

Really, you can quote every single founding father and show that they all wanted to get rid of slavery? Banning the importation of slaves seems more like a compromise between pro-slavery and anti-slavery people to me...

[giblets]

Equal Protection clause under the 14th amendment. Which doesn't apply to gay people, because you have the exact same marriage rights that I do.

But if you ban interracial marriage, doesn't that mean everyone has the same marriage rights? I can't marry someone of another race, and neither can a black person.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you don't want to answer my question

I already answered your question. The reason it wouldn't work is because natural rights don't work that way. You would open the door to polygamy, consanguinity and age restrictions being lifted as well.

So my question to you remains the same. If we were to follow your principles to the logical conclusion how would you avoid this happening?

I'm not going to get into the quagmire of polygamy, consanginuity, age

Then you've conceded the point. You might not want to go there, but you seem unaware that all of your arguments were made by the mormons who said the exact same things that you do now. They said that marriage should be a natural right and that regulation by the government was contrary to the rights and freedoms of people. The SCOTUS said that under the common law marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman, and that the English Common Law protects their natural rights which does not include marriage.

[MrFun]

Equal Protection clause under the 14th amendment. Which doesn't apply to gay people, because you have the exact same marriage rights that I do.

The Fourteenth Amendment applies to all citizens. Are you saying that there are no citizens in United States who are gay?

And no, I do not have the right to legally marry if I had a partner of same gender where there is mutual romantic love, and mutual desire to marry one another.

In 1950s, blacks were free to marry other blacks. So there was no need for US Supreme Court ruling in Loving vs. Virginia.

[Ben Kenobi]

But if you ban interracial marriage, doesn't that mean everyone has the same marriage rights? I can't marry someone of another race, and neither can a black person.

I think we already had this argument.

Example A White man white woman
Example B Black man Black woman
Example C White man Black woman
Example D Black man White woman.

The only difference between D and A and B and C is race. This falls afoul of equal protection. Equal protection states that the same regulation should apply equally to all persons and should come out with the same answer for all 4. Bans on interracial marriage do not, ergo they fail the criterion.

Then we have the whole question as to what constitutes, 'race'.