Foxfyre wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Because
we can articulate reasoned arguments, Fox. You really should have realized that fact by now. I understand you won't write anything back about it; I wouldn't. But you may want to re-read some of your old posts and just ask yourself how much sense they really make in the face of logical examination.
But, here's a good and topical question:
Quote:Everybody who marries has to marry somebody of the opposite sex whether they are gay, straight, or something in between. So what discrimination is there in that?
What discrimination is there in forcing people to use seperate water fountains, based upon race? There is no difference between race and sexual orientation in terms of robbing someone of their right to happiness or equality. How can you say one is wrong, but not the other?
Another question I challenge you to answer, man, I
dare you: in what way are traditional or pre-existing marriages damaged by allowing gays to marry? In what way will society be damaged? If you cannot identify damage, there cannot be laws against it, and you know it.
Cycloptichorn
There is discrimination in forcing people to use separate water fountains? What does that have to do with marriage laws applying equally to everybody with nobody being forced to do anything any differently or denied any privilege that anybody else has? Nobody is forcing anybody to use separate licensing procedures or using separate ministers or judges or whatever to sign off on their marriage licenses. Everybody does it exactly the same. There is no comparison between that and separating the races. The marriage laws don't separate anybody. They're all the same. Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry exactly as everybody marries but they have to follow the same rules.
How society will or will not be damaged is a totally different discussion and one that involves why I oppose same sex marriages and you can look back through this thread and several others for that information.
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the marriage laws as they currently exist are discriminatory.
There is no 'damage' if you make Ajax Street one way either, but there can be a law that says it will be one way. So your 'damage' theory doesn't hold up when compared to other laws that are intended to effect an efficient and orderly society. Marriage laws fit into that category.
Now you tell me how anybody is robbed of their right to happiness and equality by following the exact same rules in exactly the same way that 100% of Americans must follow?
Okay, I'll go one paragraph at a time.
Quote:There is discrimination in forcing people to use separate water fountains? What does that have to do with marriage laws applying equally to everybody with nobody being forced to do anything any differently or denied any privilege that anybody else has? Nobody is forcing anybody to use separate licensing procedures or using separate ministers or judges or whatever to sign off on their marriage licenses. Everybody does it exactly the same. There is no comparison between that and separating the races. The marriage laws don't separate anybody. They're all the same. Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry exactly as everybody marries but they have to follow the same rules.
Of course they are being denied the rights the other have, Fox. Don't you see?
The right to marry the person they love. I know you understand that Gay folks actually love one another and want to spend their lives together. So why should they be denied the legal rights that straight people who
love each other get? Why can't they get insurance together, or see each other in the hospital, or adopt children? It is unequal. The pursuit of
happiness is a central tenet of American life, and unless you can show a reason that gay folk shouldn't enjoy the same rights as others, then they should.
Inter-racial marriage used to be illegal, too. Why was that wrong? Why was it wrong to discriminate against race? We found that it clearly was wrong to do so. In terms of
why we have a law preventing something, the legal test applied to that law is, 'what damage is done?' This is why you are seeing judges overturn laws in different states that prevent Gay marriage.
So, there is damage done; it limits the right to happiness. They would
not be happy married to someone of the opposite sex! Don't you understand that?
Quote:How society will or will not be damaged is a totally different discussion and one that involves why I oppose same sex marriages and you can look back through this thread and several others for that information.
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the marriage laws as they currently exist are discriminatory.
It is absolutely central to the argument. Do you know/remember why arguments against inter-racial marriage, against suffrage, against segregation, were overturned? For the same reason. There could be found no real way in which harm to society was done by doing so, and the laws infringed on the rights of those limited, including the right to happiness.
Don't dodge the question, either, which is what you just did.
What damage is done to currently existing or new straight marriages? I have most certainly
NOT seen this explained during the course of this thread. This is the question that each and every proponent of discrimination avoids, and you just avoided it again.
Quote:There is no 'damage' if you make Ajax Street one way either, but there can be a law that says it will be one way. So your 'damage' theory doesn't hold up when compared to other laws that are intended to effect an efficient and orderly society. Marriage laws fit into that category.
They most certainly do not. I want to hear you again state that marriage laws, laws that govern the most important relationship of people's lives, their families, their future, is in the same category as traffic laws. These laws are
not founded in order to keep society efficient and orderly, and here's why:
How do they do so, Fox? It should be clearly obvious if this is the reason the laws are on the books. Explain it to me clearly, plz.
Quote:Now you tell me how anybody is robbed of their right to happiness and equality by following the exact same rules in exactly the same way that 100% of Americans must follow?
I have done exactly this. The right to happiness includes the right to pursue a future with a partner based upon one's sexual preferences. Neither you nor anyone else has shown that damage is done to society by allowing them to marry. The rules cannot be shown to be based in a desire to keep order amongst the populace, this is proven by areas such as Mass., which don't seem to have fallen into any particular disorder.
I challenge you to stop evading the central question and take credit for your beliefs: how is society damaged? How are pre-existing marriages damaged? If you can't show this, your argument fails.
Cycloptichorn
