F
FallingPianos
And you think your personal insults score you any points?
Not at all. Just venting.
And you think your personal insults score you any points?
It was unconstitutional for very different and unapplicable reasons.
For example, the rational behind said racism was the expressed purpose to preserve racial purity.
No such equivalent argument of hetero purity exists.
Are people really taking Jerry seriously?
I mean, sometimes I'll debate him when I'm feeling squirrely, but for the most part I don't bother with people who are willfully ignorant.
Yes I cited this earlier in the thread to support my position...your point?
Jerry;
I went back and read the California Domestic Partnership law and it's subsequent amendments/additions, and it appears that California is, in fact, doing away with many of the inequalities. So many of the differences outlined in my post are currently being dealt with, or have been dealt with recently, by the California legislature.
I would love to see homosexual marriage become a reality and accepted by most people. I'm not sure you see it the way I do, but in any case, thanks for your updates on California law. I think it would be awesome if somehow those of us in favor of homosexual marriage could make you see it our way, but if we can't, your opinion is your own and I respect it, even if I disagree with it.
Take care and thanks again.
The "sanctity of marriage" arguments sound pretty close to me.
But regardless, the rationale behind the law is not as important as the actual impact of them. Those interracial marriage laws are unconstitutional REGARDLESS of what the rationale is, since not everyone had the same rationale for them. Similarly, anti-gay marriage laws are unconstitutional regardless of what the rationale is.
The "sanctity of marriage" arguments sound pretty close to me.
But regardless, the rationale behind the law is not as important as the actual impact of them. Those interracial marriage laws are unconstitutional REGARDLESS of what the rationale is, since not everyone had the same rationale for them. Similarly, anti-gay marriage laws are unconstitutional regardless of what the rationale is.
And now its sexual orientation discrimination.But it was a racial discrimination where skin color dictated who you could or couldn't marry.
Actually its sexual orientation. Not simply gender.This is gender discrimination which is rampant. :2razz:
The slippery slope defense is hardly convincing. But if you'd like to discuss the nuances between the issues we can.So for arguments sake I suppose the courts could step in and declare there could be no gender discrimination in regards to marital pacts. They could then defend age discrimination in marital restrictions by arguing minors can't be legally bound by contracts. And those who wanted multiple marital partners would be grasping at straws in trying to find the label for the discrimination they were suffering.
And for legitimate reasons. For example, men can't have babies or become pregnant so men arguing for male breastfeeding laws or maternity leave is silly (though maternity leave is provided to males by some employers).However gender discrimination is allowed and supported in a variety of arenas.
The point is that you CANNOT create two parallel institutions even if you make them equal under the law (which they aren't). "Separate but equal" institutions are unconstitutional.
We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The question of equality in this instance doesn't mean much. It cannot be specified, gay have equal rights today and yet they want equal rights, both situations are equal, they include different circumstances but to say which is more equal is a rather meaningless activity. It has to be something more than generalised calls for equality that the argument for GM rests on.
Then of course when invoking equality one has to consider exactly the value of equality is. Sure there is a degree needed in certain areas but then again extreme egalitarianism itself can be very dangerous, as old conservative wisdom can tell you, distinctions between groups and individuals are vital in maintaining liberty, so a simple call for equality, even if one could meaningfully say one situation was the true one of equality, itself must be looked at in detail and analysised to some degree with caution.
No. But as long as the government is restricting marriage, involved in marriage we are going to have this issue of how or why they restrict certain things.
Sexual orientation isn't concrete though. What if someone is bisexual and their only means of being completely happy is building a family that consists of two men and a woman and they want legal recognition of a three way marriage?
And for legitimate reasons. For example, men can't have babies or become pregnant so men arguing for male breastfeeding laws or maternity leave is silly (though maternity leave is provided to males by some employers).
I didn't follow this, I'm sorry to say.
Then he needs to name one or the other irreplaceable to himself and then work out the goings on of his own household in private.
But you need better legalese to support that. You can't just say, "well he needs to get with the program," otherwise the same may be said to you.
What would separate that man from you? What judicial reason would be given for supporting your request while denying recognition of his if he feels both partners are equal and further feels it is wrong for him to be forced into having one of his spouses be legally legit while the other is deemed superfluous from a legal and societal recognition standpoint?
Oh so you are for government involvment as long as it agrees to what you want.
Thank you for noting that you are for big government.
You are about as conservative as a liberal.
And disingenuous reasons as well such as women not being allowed to run around topless while males are free to.
Who said anything about involvement? The only involvement is to recognise the marriage in some circumstances as an irreducible unit and deal with it as such rather than with the atomised individuals. That is hardly a more involved gov't, in fact I'd say it is less involvement than when the state does not recognise such units of society and tries to deal with individuals cut off from them. As this is to a degree an invasion of their necessary autonomy and function.Oh so you are for government involvment as long as it agrees to what you want.
Thank you for noting that you are for big government.
You are about as conservative as a liberal.
For the first time in my life, I stopped at a rally on my way home. I have to confess that I have been painfully removed from doing what is right in my effort to maintain a balance which simply does not exist.
I will not continue to make the same mistake with the remainder of my life.
And disingenuous reasons as well such as women not being allowed to run around topless while males are free to.
I wasn't aware that this was a serious issue.