Stupid analogy. I am arguing for EQUAL protection of the laws and due process.
Well then you are IGNORANT, because the definition of marriage is
the union of a man and woman, the
LAW is applied equally now! Homosexual people have not been denied the right to obtain a marriage license,
(which is for the union of a man and woman.) They are as free to do that as anyone else! There is NO discrimination!
[REDACTED RACIST INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC]
The analogy is totally valid, and it illustrates the absolute absurdity of exactly what you are attempting to do here! Your alternate analogy is not worthy of my time to comment on.
Why don't you focus on trying to tell us how it is that Lawrence did not lead to overturning laws against incest, stat rape or bestiality.
I already explained it... you need a second dose? Okay... Lawrence dealt with the right of
consenting adults to engage in sexual acts within the privacy of their own home. It had
nothing to do with state interests. I think you made that point yourself, but maybe you don't comprehend what it means? The State has no compelling interest in what goes on in your bedroom, if you are of legal age. Now this might be of usage in this Gay Marriage argument, IF we were discussing that aspect, but it isn't what I am opposed to. I support the decision and finding of the court in Lawrence, and I don't see why you presume it would have 'led to' overturning laws against acts of a criminal sexual nature, it makes no sense to me... but whatever! It still doesn't have anything to do with the ISSUE AT HAND!
I am convinced, you are completely missing MY point and argument. This is
NOT about the deviate sex! It is about the
state granting a license for
marriage to people who are not traditionally
marrying, but rather, joining in a
'same-sex union' because of their
sexual behaviors. We can't start redefining words to include things that were never intended when the definitions and guidelines were made. That is called
'circumventing' the process, making the law in a way that is not conducive with our founding principles, or the principles of freedom and liberty. They aren't even in accordance with common sense!
The consequence of what you are trying to do, will cause a litany of debate over
other sexually deviate lifestyles, because you will have the legal precedent of establishing 'marriage' based on sexuality, and not on the 'traditional' criteria and definition that has always been used. Where we now have a construct which is based on the benign concepts of male/female unions for the purpose of wedlock and procreation and family... we would change that to having a state sanctioning of sexual deviate behaviors, ordained and legitimized through perversion of marriage because you've established this as the criteria for marriage. Granted, many things are still illegal, and wouldn't be considered, but laws can be changed, advocacy groups can make the arguments, and demand their 'rights' be recognized, because you've paved the way... you've blazed the trail! You have established that the government is obligated to recognize the deviate sexuality of the individual, when issuing licenses.
First up.... Polygamists... Now, I will bet you that RStringy probably has no problems whatsoever, with a man getting married to THREE women, more power to him, right? We can't possibly deny this individual the "right" to experience his true love(s)... what? You want to make him choose? It's not FAIRRRR! He should get to love them all equally! Who are WE to deny them happiness? As long as all parties are consenting adults, right? ...So we see, this road we're heading down will most quickly lead us to this... but there will be more to come...
Imagine an aged Geraldo... Like a Larry King... interviewing an older man and his boy lover... suing California for the right to get 'married' !!! See... it's a big debate now, from the NAMBLA people, they argue that it's against their "right to sexuality" to deny them access to young boys... 18 is FAR too old for them, the boys are grown men by then.... They are being denied their happiness and love because of your antiquated moral code! And if we've allowed homosexuals and polygamists to realize their true love, who are we to deny these arrangements? Consent? The young boys consent, in fact Geraldo asks him specifically about it, and the boy says that he would have sex with men no matter what the law said, he liked doing it. Yeah, I know... hard to wrap your little pinhead brain around, ain't it? But this is coming, as soon as YOU get brilliant and redefine "marriages" based on sexual behavior, and establish it into law.
