Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Definitions of Marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    No. I am saying that Marriage should remain exactly what it has been for centuries in this country, and that there is no good reason to expand its meaning to cover same sex "marriage".
    Except that it disenfrahchises thousands of marriages-in-all-but-law. But if depriving those people of their constitutional rights is "no good reason" to you, then that's all you can say.

    You do realize, I assume, that the courts have been asking about harm. And have been concluding that denying legal marriage to many couples in fact harms them without helping anyone, and that granting them legal equality helps them without harming anyone. To the courts, this is like "found money" - that is, a "free" way to extend real benefits to many without any cost whatsoever.

    I have asked many people, many times, for any indication that the same-sex marriages now happening are harming their own marriage. So far, nothing but silence.

    Comment


    • I'll give this a more serious look-through sometime this weekend and put together a more serious post. I think I've been using these threads more as a way to release midterms stress than as a venue for serious debate.
      Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by phank View Post
        Except that it disenfrahchises thousands of marriages-in-all-but-law.
        Forgive my insensitivity, but so what? As I tried to show, being in a committed relationship is no reason for the government to intervene, nor is the act of sex a determining factor in which partnerships get benefits and which ones don't. If you don't fit the mold, too bad. That's your choice.

        But if depriving those people of their constitutional rights is "no good reason" to you, then that's all you can say.
        Their rights are not being violated. They were just as equally protected as individuals under the 14th as I am. I've already explained how. Their CHOICES should not be subject to changing everyone's equal protection to include more options.

        You do realize, I assume, that the courts have been asking about harm.
        Yes, I am aware. But they have been asking about harm for reasons that do not hold water when scrutinized by those who do not demand "doctrinal evolution".

        And have been concluding that denying legal marriage to many couples in fact harms them without helping anyone, and that granting them legal equality helps them without harming anyone.
        So? Giving me $1 billion instead of Solyndra would help me without hurting anyone else, since Solyndra went bankrupt anyway.

        To the courts, this is like "found money" - that is, a "free" way to extend real benefits to many without any cost whatsoever.
        But there IS a cost. See the amount of money involved in Windsor. Where will that money come from? A magic hat?

        I have asked many people, many times, for any indication that the same-sex marriages now happening are harming their own marriage. So far, nothing but silence.
        Because that's the wrong question. The real question is WHY should the definition of marriage be expanded to include same sex spouses (that involves someone other than the couple)
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        - Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Because that's the wrong question. The real question is WHY should the definition of marriage be expanded to include same sex spouses (that involves someone other than the couple)
          Because under the U.S. Constitution all citizens are afforded equal rights under law unless there is a compelling reason to deny them those rights. That there is no compelling reason to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples that are now given to hetero couples has been a recurring theme in court decision after court decision in the last few years.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
            Because under the U.S. Constitution all citizens are afforded equal rights under law unless there is a compelling reason to deny them those rights.
            As INDIVIDUALS, yes.

            That there is no compelling reason to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples that are now given to hetero couples has been a recurring theme in court decision after court decision in the last few years.
            Because they are looking at it like the couple is already an individual entity, not 2 individuals with separate rights. The plain fact remains that the law was equally applied as written in every state that the judges ruled in.

            Human A can marry Human B if human B is of the opposite sex, not already marrried, over the legal age limit, and not closer related than first cousins (in most states). That was the law, and it was equally applied regardless of what these activist judges stated. There is no refuting that fact. They are forcing the law to equally remove the first exception for everyone.
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            - Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              As INDIVIDUALS, yes.
              If two hetero INDIVIDUALS have the right to marry then so do two same sex INDIVIDUALS. Equal rights under law.

              Because they are looking at it like the couple is already an individual entity, not 2 individuals with separate rights. The plain fact remains that the law was equally applied as written in every state that the judges ruled in.
              If it's legal for a hetero couple then it's legal for a gay couple. Equal rights under law.

              Human A can marry Human B if human B is of the opposite sex, not already marrried, over the legal age limit, and not closer related than first cousins (in most states). That was the law, and it was equally applied regardless of what these activist judges stated. There is no refuting that fact. They are forcing the law to equally remove the first exception for everyone.
              The operative word there is WAS. It WAS the law that you could only marry someone of the same race. Bad laws get changed all the time. Equal rights under law for everyone, even those you don't personally approve of, unless you can supply a compelling reason to deny those right.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                If two hetero INDIVIDUALS have the right to marry then so do two same sex INDIVIDUALS. Equal rights under law.
                Precisely. I now have the right to marry someone of the same sex, were I single. I did not have that right before. No one did. The rights were equally applied before. They have now been effectively changed for everyone. That destroys the argument of violating the Equal Protection clause of Amendment 14


                If it's legal for a hetero couple then it's legal for a gay couple. Equal rights under law.
                See? You too are treating the couple as a legal individual entity instead of 2 individuals with distinct rights on their own.


                The operative word there is WAS. It WAS the law that you could only marry someone of the same race.
                No it wasn't. It WAS the law that a white person could not marry outside their race. There was no such law forbidding Orientals and Hispanics from intermarrying. Loving made that clear that unequal application was the reason those laws were to be rejected as unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection Clause. Because it was strictly to preserve white supremacy, which was considered not a state interest. It singled out ONE race, forbid them to marry outside their race, but completely ignored any other race marrying outside theirs (except a white person). Loving then stated why these unions COULD meet the state interest of encouraging procreation between married spouses (and notice that I did not say procreation was required by Loving, so don't even try that road).

                Bad laws get changed all the time. Equal rights under law for everyone, even those you don't personally approve of, unless you can supply a compelling reason to deny those right.
                The law was equally applied. That's what you can't seem to grasp. How about this...


                Human male A (25, unmarried US Citizen) is standing in a room with 10 other people. 5 are female and 5 are male

                Human female B is 21, unmarried US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
                Human female C is 14, unmarried US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
                Human female D is 25, married US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
                Human female E is 19, unmarried US Citizen, and is Human male A's sister
                Human female F is 30, unmarried British Ciitizen, and is not related to human male A
                Human male B is 21, unmarried US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
                Human male C is 14, unmarried US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
                Human male D is 25, married US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
                Human male E is 19, unmarried US Citizen, and is Human male A's brother
                Human male F is 30, unmarried British Ciitizen, and is not related to human male A


                Who could human male A marry under the law (before the recent changes in the law)
                Last edited by Bill the Cat; 03-06-2014, 09:55 AM.
                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

                  The law was equally applied. That's what you can't seem to grasp.
                  Bad laws get changed. It's happening as we speak. That's what you can't seem to grasp.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                    Bad laws get changed. It's happening as we speak. That's what you can't seem to grasp.
                    Do you admit that they were equally applied prior to being changed or not?
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    - Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • As Anatole France wrote, "the law, in its majestic equality, prohibits the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges."

                      The laws were NOT equally applied prior to being changed. They permitted certain beneficial actions to some that were prohibited to others, without any compelling reason for making the distinction. You might as well argue that, for example, a law that permits ONLY atheists to drive drunk is being "equally applied" because it doesn't distinguish one atheist from another, and because Christians can always return to sanity and become atheists. It's a free choice, after all, isn't it?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by phank View Post
                        As Anatole France wrote, "the law, in its majestic equality, prohibits the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges."
                        Yes. Equal application. What I've been saying all along.

                        The laws were NOT equally applied prior to being changed.
                        Then perhaps you can take the challenge I offered to Beagle:

                        Human male A (25, unmarried US Citizen) is standing in a room with 10 other people. 5 are female and 5 are male

                        Human female B is 21, unmarried US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
                        Human female C is 14, unmarried US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
                        Human female D is 25, married US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
                        Human female E is 19, unmarried US Citizen, and is Human male A's sister
                        Human female F is 30, unmarried British Ciitizen, and is not related to human male A
                        Human male B is 21, unmarried US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
                        Human male C is 14, unmarried US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
                        Human male D is 25, married US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
                        Human male E is 19, unmarried US Citizen, and is Human male A's brother
                        Human male F is 30, unmarried British Ciitizen, and is not related to human male A


                        Who could human male A marry under the law (before the recent changes in the law)


                        They permitted certain beneficial actions to some that were prohibited to others, without any compelling reason for making the distinction.
                        No they didn't. No one prohibited human A from marrying human B if human B is of the opposite sex, not already marrried, over the legal age limit, and not closer related than first cousins (in most states).

                        You might as well argue that, for example, a law that permits ONLY atheists to drive drunk is being "equally applied" because it doesn't distinguish one atheist from another, and because Christians can always return to sanity and become atheists. It's a free choice, after all, isn't it?
                        No. That is not equal application. It singles out atheists while not allowing non-atheists to engage in the behavior.
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          No they didn't. No one prohibited human A from marrying human B if human B is of the opposite sex, not already marrried, over the legal age limit, and not closer related than first cousins (in most states).
                          So some people can marry the life partner of their choice, and others are prohibited from doing so, and you for the life of you can't find any difference there. And you seem to expect anyone to believe this? If you were that stupid, you wouldn't be able to identify a computer with both eyes.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by phank View Post
                            So some people can marry the life partner of their choice,
                            That has absolutely nothing to do with the Equal Protection clause

                            and others are prohibited from doing so, and you for the life of you can't find any difference there. And you seem to expect anyone to believe this? If you were that stupid, you wouldn't be able to identify a computer with both eyes.
                            Why are you refusing to take the challenge? Because you know it will destroy the Constitutional objection and leave you with whiny emotional blackmail material?
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            - Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              That has absolutely nothing to do with the Equal Protection clause
                              Tell that to the people, the judges, and the constitution.

                              Why are you refusing to take the challenge? Because you know it will destroy the Constitutional objection and leave you with whiny emotional blackmail material?
                              I answered your challenge. You are championing the right to deprive a certain group of people of equality under the law because you don't like them. The law is changing, pretty much on the grounds that you not liking some people you've never met is not a compelling reason for the State to relegate them to second-class citizens.

                              You can keep pretending that being prohibited from marrying the partner of your choice is not discrimination because you can marry someone else you're not interested in. But I don't think even you believes this is equalty.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by phank View Post
                                I answered your challenge.
                                You did not. Answer the question at the bottom of the list I offered. Until you do that, your response is nothing more than a giant whine fest. When you do, then you will see that the law is applied equally.
                                That's what
                                - She

                                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                233 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                310 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X