- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Messages
- 11,963
- Reaction score
- 3,543
- Location
- Naperville, IL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Gay Marriage has NOTHING to do with raising children as Gays can already LEGALLY raise children without gay marriage.
This is yet another of the poor "Think of the children" excuses that the right likes to throw out when they've lost any credible debate on a subject of legality.
Inferno is a well spoken and thoughtful person, so let the woman speak for herself. She's challenged me before, maybe she will again here.
LOL -- Get over yourself, jerry...:roll:
Like all other women, you can marry any man that will have you.
For this to hold water, you have to make the argument that the two issues can be interchanged at full value.This reasoning was struck down in Loving v. Virginia.
"There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause."
Replace "race", or likewise words, in the entire ruling with "sexuality" and the reasoning is fundamentally the same.
Who he marries is none of your business. Or mine. Or Jerry's or Benjamin Franklins or George Washington's or Ron Paul's.
For this to hold water, you have to make the argument that the two issues can be interchanged at full value.
Marriage, by definition, is a social institution, hence not truly private.
If two people want to live their life in privacy, they should not seek out a marriage license, which is a public record.
No. I am saying that you have to be comparing apples and apples. The apples need not be the same, but they do both need to be apples.I think you are saying that the issue of interracial marriage and same-sex marriage must be exactly alike in order for the Court to use one in a ruling with the other.
No... it addressed the agument regarding race, not sexual orientation.The point I am making is that the Court has already addressed this argument and found it to be no good.
No. I am saying that you have to be comparing apples and apples. The apples need not be the same, but they do both need to be apples.
No... it addressed the agument regarding race, not sexual orientation.
For this to hold water, you have to make the argument that the two issues can be interchanged at full value -- that you are comparing apples to apples.
This doesnt show that the two issues are interchangeable, this is you arguing that they eill be found interchangeable on the baisis that they are interchangeable.
Is marriage a contract between people and society? Is it a contract between people and the government?
It is a contract between the people involved and no one else. The people involved are not making any commitments to the government or society, they make commitments to each other.
This doesnt show that the two issues are interchangeable, this is you arguing that they eill be found interchangeable on the baisis that they are interchangeable.
Marriage is a social contract where you ask for others to recognize something that could easily be kept private if so chosen.
Yes... and you have not shown how race and sexual orientation are similar in this regard - that is, how sexual orientation holds a position similar to race and gender, when determining if a given class of persons is beng unlawfully discriminated against.It is on the basis of different cases that are similar being interchangeable when dealing with precedent.
Yes... and you have not shown how race and sexual orientation are similar in this regard - that is, how sexual orientation holds a position similar to race and gender, when determining if a given class of persons is beng unlawfully discriminated against.
Marriage, by definition, is a social institution, hence not truly private.
If two people want to live their life in privacy, they should not seek out a marriage license, which is a public record.
Contracts are promises made between parties. What promises are people making to society when entering a marriage contract?
Something being public record has absolutely nothing to do with whether it should be legal or not. Marriage licenses were of public record before and after blacks were allowed to marry whites. The fact that it's a public record changed nothing when it came to legalizing interracial marriage. It is still a private contract between the individuals involved. Not the individuals and the public.
The promise to enter into a relationship that the state deems advantageous to the state.
a marriage license is a secular contract between the parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that contract. Since the state is the principal party to the contract, how exactly is it private?
But they are not necessarily similar enough for the legal position ion one instance to be legitimately applied to the other -- one is based on race, and the other is based on orientation.Argument 1: Gays can marry people of different genders the same as heterosexuals.
Argument used in Loving v. Virginia:
White can marry white the same as blacks can marry blacks.
The arguments are similar....
the state is the principal party in the contract.
But they are not necessarily similar enough for the legal position ion one instance to be legitimately applied to the other -- one is based on race, and the other is based on orientation.
I have been asking you to show that, in terms of resolving discrimination issues, that orientation is on par with race and gender. You havent done that.
I am not aware of any marriage contract containing a promise that the parties involved will be deemed advantageous to the state. The promises made are between the individuals involved, not the state, so the principle parties are individuals.
Show how this was succesfully used as an argument against interracial marriage and you'll have something. Until then the state being the 'principal party' to a private matter that doesn't concern the public is irrelevant.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?