- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,834
- Reaction score
- 53,617
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Nice, homophobic remark.
To be fair, he didn't say he was against the idea!
Nice, homophobic remark.
Doesn't matter.
The amendment was duly adopted according to the terms of the constitution, and thus is now duly a part of the constitution.
And marriage is a union between a man and woman. You can create another legal union with a different name for homosexuals. However, by definition the homosexual union does not fit the definition of marriage. And even homosexuals can get married to anyone of the opposite sex that consents. It is still reserved for everyone.
This is, of course, silly. The oath is to defend the constitution, period, not the constitution as it stood at the time the oath was taken.The California Constitution hadn't been amended when they swore to defend it.
Marrige, as a legal entity, was created by the state - it exists only because the state created it, and would not exist had the state not created it.Where in the Constitution does it specifically state gay marriage as a privilege?
The California Constitution, which the United States Constitution trumps.
Because it's a legal entity, part of the public sphere, it's part of our legal system. As such, it must be equal in regards to the People, as per certain Constitutional protections; the Equal Protection clause, as an example. There are lots of protections in the Law which state that unfair treatment or persecution is unconstitutional.Marrige, as a legal entity, was created by the state - it exists only because the state created it, and would not exist had the state not created it.
As such, it can ONLY be a privilege, as rights are neither created by nor bestowed upon the people by the state.
That's not releally relevant to what he said.The California Constitution, which the United States Constitution trumps.
Yes... but that doesnt change the fact that marriage is a privilege, not a right.Because it's a legal entity, part of the public sphere, it's part of our legal system. As such, it must be equal in regards to the People, as per the Equal Protection clause.
It's a "Law" (or lawful entity) so it doesn't matter.Yes... but that doesnt change the fact that marriage is a privilege, not a right.
Those circumstances are when two people or groups of people are similarly situated, in legal terms.The -right- involved here, if any, is the right to equal protection under the law in that privileges may only be denied to people under certain circumstances.
It does when you are explaining to someone where the idea that marriage is a right/privilge to somone who asks - which is exactly what I was doing.It's a "Law" (or lawful entity) so it doesn't matter.
The point is that the 14th does not guarantee that -everyone- has access to -every- legal privilege granted by a state.Those circumstances are when two people or groups of people are similarly situated, in legal terms.
Hmm. Well, given that few, if any, opponents of same-sex marriage are afraid of homosexuals, you'll not oppose their arguments.It's insane to deny same-sex couples the legal institution of marriage on the base of homophobia.
Except that marriage is a Legal contract. That legal contract contains "rights, privilages, immunities, penalties and benefits."It does when you are explaining to someone where the idea that marriage is a right/privilge to somone who asks - which is exactly what I was doing.
I agree.The point is that the 14th does not guarantee that -everyone- has access to -every- legal privilege granted by a state.
I have never heard a valid argument against same-sex marriage, so I wouldn't be so sure.Hmm. Well, given that few, if any, opponents of same-sex marriage are afraid of homosexuals, you'll not oppose their arguments.
No, I am fully right. It exists only because the state created it, and as such, it must be a privillege.Except that marriage is a Legal contract. That legal contract contains "rights, privilages, immunities, penalties and benefits."
So, you were only half right.
You can hold that belief if you want - it remains to be seen if your belief has any lasting legal merit.I agree.
But where same-sex and opposite-sex coupels are similarly situated, I believe it violates Equal Protection and Due Process to deny same-sex couples access to a legal contract.
Irrelevant to what you said - your statement referenced positions rooted in homophobia. Since few, if any, people that oppose same-sex marriage are afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality, their arguments are not rooted in homophobia, and as such, you must not oppose them.I have never heard a valid argument against same-sex marriage, so I wouldn't be so sure.
That's a 'slippery slope' argument, not homophobia.Most arguments I've heard have been irrational fears about what "could" happen if homos are allowed to marry legally. That's the phobia I'm talking about.
It was highly relevent to what I said, you don't seem to understand the point I was making.Irrelevant to what you said
Everyone that opposes Homosexual-marriage, does so out of "concern" of the "homosexual" part.your statement referenced positions rooted in homophobia. Since few, if any, people that oppose same-sex marriage are afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality, their arguments are not rooted in homophobia, and as such, you must not oppose them.
To assume that "homosexuality" is a part of a "slope" that will lead to disaster is also assuming that "homosexuality" itself is inherently wrong.That's a 'slippery slope' argument, not homophobia.
To assume that "homosexuality" is a part of a "slope" that will lead to disaster is also assuming that "homosexuality" itself is inherently wrong.
Actually, it's a "subjective" judgment, not necessarily concerning morals. But nice try."Wrong" is a moral judgement, and irrelevant.
I often hear this argument from the Right; same people who believe everything in nature has a purpose. That's why they call it an "intelligent design."Which isn't to say that homosexuality isn't a genetic flaw or a developmental maladjustment. It clearly serves no evolutionary purpose, since it's consumation does not lead to progeny.
I do. And it has nothing to do with why I said what I said.It was highly relevent to what I said, you don't seem to understand the point I was making.
Ah, the irony.Everyone that opposes Homosexual-marriage, does so out of "concern" of the "homosexual" part.
Concern is a way of expressing a fear of a thing, life-style, person or whatever. You are just playing word games.
There is absolutely no necessary relationship between those two things.To assume that "homosexuality" is a part of a "slope" that will lead to disaster is also assuming that "homosexuality" itself is inherently wrong.
No, I am fully right. It exists only because the state created it, and as such, it must be a privillege.
Irrelevant to what you said - your statement referenced positions rooted in homophobia. Since few, if any, people that oppose same-sex marriage are afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality, their arguments are not rooted in homophobia, and as such, you must not oppose them.
That's a 'slippery slope' argument, not homophobia.
Voting is, at times -- your state grants you the privilege to vote for President; you have no right to do so.Can we then call voting, guns, speech, and trial-by-jury "privileges?"
Oh. So it isnt REALLY a phobia then. Why contine to use the term if it doesn't really apply?Phobia, in this context, does not necessarily indicate literal fear of danger.
And thus, it is a 'slippery slope' argument, not homophobia.No, it's deliberately putting the fear of the unknown into people.
Exactly. I'm glad someone understands the subject.Can we then call voting, guns, speech, and trial-by-jury "privileges?"
Phobia, in this context, does not necessarily indicate literal fear of danger.
No, it's deliberately putting the fear of the unknown into people.
Clearly you don't. Must be a miscommunication somewhere.I do.
So are saying you don't believe same-sex marriage is a slippery slope. Good, at least we agree on that.There is absolutely no necessary relationship between those two things.
Most likely your inability, willfull or otherwise, to comprehend a statement in the context it was made.Clearly you don't. Must be a miscommunication somewhere.
No.. I am saying that there is no necessary relationship between the two concepts your tried to relate together. As such, your argument to that effect is unsound.So are saying you don't believe same-sex marriage is a slippery slope. Good, at least we agree on that.
Logical Fallacy: Appeal to IgnoranceThere is no valid reason--legal or otherwise--to oppose same-sex marriage. I've never read a post that provided such a reason.
In correct. Trial by jury is an entity created by the Government, it's not a "right" given naturally to human beings. Neither is "voting." There is no natural "right" to own a fire-arm.Your legal ability to have a gun or a trial by jury were not granted to you by the government - they are rights that pre-exist government.
In other words, you are unable to simply make a argument on your own.Most likely your inability, willfull or otherwise, to comprehend a statement in the context it was made.
No.. I am saying that there is no necessary relationship between the two concepts your tried to relate together. As such, your argument to that effect is unsound.
Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance
Please cite for me the constitutional, legislative or regulatory languange that positively grants you the right to own a firearm.In correct. Trial by jury is an entity created by the Government, it's not a "right" given naturally to human beings. Neither is "voting." There is no natural "right" to own a fire-arm.
Nothing in anything that I have posted here requires me to make any argument regarding the constitutionality of state provisions that do not allow same-sex marriange.In other words, you are unable to simply make a argument on your own.