Your argument was that because gay people are allowed to marry people of the opposite sex, just as straight people are...there is no discrimination.
The same flawed logic could be applied to inter-racial marriage as well.
Because black people are able to marry people of their same race, just as white people are...there is no discrimination.
See the flaws in that logic?
Women (Nasty or otherwise) are going to be the reason that Donald Trump is NEVER President!
It is different because the issues are disparate.
I fully understand what your argument is here and that a Court may or may not except your reasoning.
Striking down the 'separate but equal doctrine' in regards to race discrimination has nothing to do with a persons sexuality.
One human has the same and equal right as every other human has in this country; The 'Right' to marry someone of the opposite gender.
Every person, whether homosexual, heterosexual, etc... has the same 'right'.
There is no discrimination in that and no separate but equal doctrine that could be struck down. Making the court case you cite, moot.
Yes it is.
It is your logic that you are applying here that race discrimination somehow equates with this, not mine.
Race discrimination disallowed the 'Right' for a person to marry a person of the opposite gender. Not so now, because it was discrimination.
Last edited by Coolguy; 04-03-09 at 06:41 PM.
It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.
It is not an equal right when the law removes the choice of who to marry in one group of citizens and not in another group. That is inherently unequal and the Fourteenth Amendment forbids it.
You are trying to separate homosexuals from the rest of mankind based solely on their sexual preference and then trying to equate it to race discrimination. And then demanding new and different rights be established based on grounds of sexual preference.
There is no separate but equal doctrine that can be overturned here as in 'Brown'.
People of any sexual preference are allowed, in the U.S., to marry someone of the opposite gender.
This is the 'right' that all have. It is equal in that it applies to all, regardless of race or sexual preference. (Of course with caveats. e.g. Age, relationship etc...)
Homosexuals willingly and freely partake in this 'right'.
The real argument being made is that homosexual couples want the same privileges and amenities that come with state sanctioned marriage.
There is no reason that they shouldn't have these.
They just do not need to usurp and try to redefine the term marriage to fit their purposes.
It seems to me that the terms "marriage" and "civil unions" seem to cause the bulk of this problem. Personally, I am a straight atheist with no desire to be married or have children. To me, the only reason that making gay marriage constitutionally illegal is the lack of benefits for the couple that come with marriage. I doubt very seriously most homosexual couples would be concerned about being wed in a church, and I do believe very strongly that each individual religious denomination should withhold that right, but to exclude homosexuals from rights awarded to all other married couples (insurance, death benefits, etc.) is downright unjust.
Keep the term marriage for the ceremony and title received through religious belief, but don't neglect those that believe differently just due to semantics.
As far as saying polygamy will stem from gay marriage is just impossible to know. While what both sides are saying make sense from an idealistic point of view there is just no way to know for sure. For every cause an effect and for everything that is fundamentally good, a side effect. To dismiss a change like this just for the problems that it MAY cause, seems foolish.
Last edited by Midwest Lib; 04-03-09 at 08:48 PM.
A decision made where it should be made, in the courts....
putting some issues to a vote is just plain stupid, the Prop. 8 fiasco in California proved that.....
Oracle of Utah
Truth rings hollow in empty heads.
But sshooosh, obviously pointing out that just because an end can be considered good doesn't justify any means is not the PC thing to do.
"It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke