Grounds to strike down Prop 8

Desh said:
You can not offer one citizen a legal contract and then force other citizens to have to spend lots of money and time to get the same protections under the law.

A marriage a cheap and easy way to construct a legal agreement between to citizens. When you tell other citizens they are not the right sex to obtain the same easy and cheap legal protection you have given one citzen rights the other is denied.


Married men and women dont have to prove its a "traditional" marriage to obtain this finacial solution to their needs so why should we make other citizens unable to obtain this solution to their financial needs?
Click to expand...

Gay people are not being denied the right to marry persons of the opposite sex. IF that were the case, you would have a legitimate argument, but that is NOT the case, so you DON'T! There is no "unequal" protection under the law, gay people have the exact same identical rights as everyone else.

Marriage is not defined by sexual behavior, and God forbid it ever should be. There are any number of things we don't "have the right" to do. We can't waltz around nude in public! We may like to do this, we may feel more free and comfortable doing it, and it may even be something we personally believe is okay and acceptable, but it's not legal. It doesn't matter what your personal beliefs and preferences might be, it is equally illegal for all of us, no one is being "denied" a "right" to waltz around nude in public.
 
Watermark said:
Ronald Reagan didn't love you. Do you understand "consenting adults"? Clearly not. Ronald Reagan would not consent to marrying you. Therefore, he would not be a "consenting adult".

And I'd like to point out that serious critics of same-sex marriage shy away from the "they're not being denied any rights because they can marry withing their own sex just like everyone else" argument because it's exactly the same as the "they're not being denied any rights because they can marry withing their own race just like everyone else" argument the interracial marriage guys used.
Click to expand...

Even if Ronnie loved me too, we couldn't have married. Even if he had divorced Nancy, we still couldn't have married. It's not legal, and that isn't marriage.

It's not the same argument as interracial marriage. With interracial marriage, men and women were being denied the same rights as other men and women, to do what men and women do, based on race alone. With Gay Marriage, no one is being denied anything that others are able to do, marriage is the union of a man and woman, not same sex. Gender fundamentally has to do with what marriage is, race doesn't. So it is an invalid comparison.

If we take your logic to the next logical step, why shouldn't people be allowed to marry animals or inanimate objects? Apply the same argument! Who the fuck are YOU to deny their "right" to marry the one they love?
 
Dixie said:
Even if Ronnie loved me too, we couldn't have married. Even if he had divorced Nancy, we still couldn't have married. It's not legal, and that isn't marriage.

It's not the same argument as interracial marriage. With interracial marriage, men and women were being denied the same rights as other men and women, to do what men and women do, based on race alone. With Gay Marriage, no one is being denied anything that others are able to do, marriage is the union of a man and woman, not same sex. Gender fundamentally has to do with what marriage is, race doesn't. So it is an invalid comparison.

If we take your logic to the next logical step, why shouldn't people be allowed to marry animals or inanimate objects? Apply the same argument! Who the fuck are YOU to deny their "right" to marry the one they love?
Click to expand...

what a bullshit argument that is.

Dixie, lets see how true to the constitution you really are.

where, in the US Constitution, do 'we the people' give government any power or authority over marriage?
 
Dixie said:
It's not the same argument as interracial marriage. With interracial marriage, men and women were being denied the same rights as other men and women, to do what men and women do, based on race alone. With Gay Marriage, no one is being denied anything that others are able to do, marriage is the union of a man and woman, not same sex. Gender fundamentally has to do with what marriage is, race doesn't. So it is an invalid comparison.
Click to expand...

You've given me the distinction without the difference.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
what a bullshit argument that is.

Dixie, lets see how true to the constitution you really are.

where, in the US Constitution, do 'we the people' give government any power or authority over marriage?
Click to expand...

The federal government doesn't regulate marriage. The state government do. The feds do, however, have clauses dependent on the state you are in giving you married status, like in the tax code.
 
Dixie said:
Gay people are not being denied the right to marry persons of the opposite sex. IF that were the case, you would have a legitimate argument, but that is NOT the case, so you DON'T! There is no "unequal" protection under the law, gay people have the exact same identical rights as everyone else.

Marriage is not defined by sexual behavior, and God forbid it ever should be. There are any number of things we don't "have the right" to do. We can't waltz around nude in public! We may like to do this, we may feel more free and comfortable doing it, and it may even be something we personally believe is okay and acceptable, but it's not legal. It doesn't matter what your personal beliefs and preferences might be, it is equally illegal for all of us, no one is being "denied" a "right" to waltz around nude in public.
Click to expand...


Its not just gay people you are keeping from this cheap and easy legal agreement.

Its two elderly adults who chose to join their finances and happen to be of the same sex.

Its two single fathers who want to use this cheap legal contract to help raise their families in combination.

Its not about Gay or straight its about choosing who you can go into a contract with and having the government allow some people to use this cheap legal contract and tell us who cant.
 
Watermark said:
The federal government doesn't regulate marriage. The state government do. The feds do, however, have clauses dependent on the state you are in giving you married status, like in the tax code.
Click to expand...

If they touch marriage, even in the tax code, they are regulating it to an extent. Look up your commerce clause.
 
Those couples are being denied equal rights based on GENDER, nimrod.
 
Watermark said:
Yes, and I think going back to a Madisonian definition of the federal government is moronic.
Click to expand...

then not only will you have to fight the californians on marriage rights, but you'll have to fight all 49 other states as well. that seems pretty moronic. let me know when you get tired of that fight.
 
Watermark said:
You've given me the distinction without the difference.
Click to expand...

*sigh* I gave you the difference. Gender is a fundamental prerequisite concerning marriage, race is not. Marriage is the union of a MAN and WOMAN, not a WHITE and BLACK. Race does not define marriage.

Here is an example... It's legal to sell ice cream... you can serve chocolate and vanilla ice cream... together in the same cone... you can't sell vanilla ice cream with chunks of shit in it, because shit is fecal matter and subject to health regulations. Granted, it may look the same, some people may like to eat shit with their ice cream, it may not hurt me one little bit to allow people to have or serve shit with their ice cream, but it is not the same thing as chocolate and vanilla ice cream! Is that a simple enough analogy for you, waterhead?
 
Dixie said:
*sigh* I gave you the difference. Gender is a fundamental prerequisite concerning marriage, race is not. Marriage is the union of a MAN and WOMAN, not a WHITE and BLACK. Race does not define marriage.

Here is an example... It's legal to sell ice cream... you can serve chocolate and vanilla ice cream... together in the same cone... you can't sell vanilla ice cream with chunks of shit in it, because shit is fecal matter and subject to health regulations. Granted, it may look the same, some people may like to eat shit with their ice cream, it may not hurt me one little bit to allow people to have or serve shit with their ice cream, but it is not the same thing as chocolate and vanilla ice cream! Is that a simple enough analogy for you, waterhead?
Click to expand...

Your comparisons are ridiculous, and even you know it. The reasons for not selling shit in ice cream have nothing to do with selling ice cream, but to do with health regulations.

To have the state offer benefits to couple that are male & female but not offering the same benefits to couple that are male & male is denying equal rights based SOLELY on gender.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
then not only will you have to fight the californians on marriage rights, but you'll have to fight all 49 other states as well. that seems pretty moronic. let me know when you get tired of that fight.
Click to expand...


This is why the government needs to be out of the marriage game.

Civil unions should be offered to ANY two people for whatever reason they deem.

Marraige should be left to the churches
 
Desh said:
This is why the government needs to be out of the marriage game.

Civil unions should be offered to ANY two people for whatever reason they deem.

Marraige should be left to the churches
Click to expand...

Wow crazy. I agree with desh.
 
Desh said:
Its not just gay people you are keeping from this cheap and easy legal agreement.

Its two elderly adults who chose to join their finances and happen to be of the same sex.

Its two single fathers who want to use this cheap legal contract to help raise their families in combination.

Its not about Gay or straight its about choosing who you can go into a contract with and having the government allow some people to use this cheap legal contract and tell us who cant.
Click to expand...

Then why not drop the extremist radical 'argument' seeking to redefine marriage based on sexual behavior, and undermine religious sanctity, and adopt benign 'civil unions' legislation? I actually think that might have a shot at passing and being accepted by a majority of people in America. I would vote for it. I'm just opposed to redefining marriage, and basing it on sexual preferences. I think it sets a dangerous precedent, and opens a can of worms our society doesn't really want to open.... bestiality...polygamy...necrophilia... etc. Rather than open that can of worms, why not remove the 'sexuality' factor completely, and adopt a universal 'civil unions' solution?

It seems to me, this would accomplish the same ends, and it would not compromise religious principles, sanctity of marriage, or redefine marriage based on sexual behavior. Civil Unions would not be confined to "gay couples" or any particular group of people, it would be open as an option to any two consenting adults, and non-sexual in nature. It could be used by an elderly mother and her son, two spinster sisters, gay couples, straight couples, platonic friends, or any two people who wanted to enter into such a contract.
 
Christ how do you get Dixie, Desh, and Me to all agree on something and it still hasn't been accomplished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top