- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,058
- Reaction score
- 514
- Location
- San Diego
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
No, you're simply pulling this out of thin air. The equal protection argument is very much about discrimination against homosexuality. Look, if we can't even agree on that, then it's pointless to continue. What you say doesn't even make any sense.
And again, you're saying I'm arguing that homosexual couples "can't be included," which isn't the argument and not at all what I was talking about.
If I am not grasping your point, it's because you are being rather nebulous here. You maintain that sexual attraction and sexuality are not requirements for marriage, yet I never said anything about what requirements are necessary for marriage. The issue is not about the requirements, anyway - this is something that you brought up, presumably to show why you are against gay marriage.
And I do need to point out that you claim here "The equal protection argument is very much about discrimination against homosexuality" as if i'm not getting it, when I specifically said "Actually, the argument is that they are discriminated against because of they are of the same gender". You'll notice that I address the issue of discrimination directly.
Dude. Get it through your head. I am not arguing that homosexuals should be excluded from marriage. Nothing I said equates to that, at all.
I'm explaining why the equal protection argument fails, which is only one argument, and I prefaced this by saying I found other arguments compelling. But you don't actually want to argue "equal protection" at all; you're arguing the whole gamut of gay marriage.
And the whole point, dude, is not that homosexual attraction doesn't matter to marriage, it's that sexual attraction of any kind -- homo, hetero, or bi -- isn't a necessary component to marriage at all. So, seriously, if you want to argue this, keep it together.
First of all, I never said anything about sexual attraction being a necessary component to marriage. So why are you even bringing that up? This is a discussion about gay marriage, and what legal basis exists as to why homosexual couples cannot be included.
The argument against prop 8 is that it violates the 14th Amendment, a strategy that the legal team used in federal court (and won). And they are pretty much dead on, as the wording is very specific. No citizen shall have their immunities or privileges abriged by the state without due process. If you wish to continue, THIS is what you need to argue. I would stop bringing up sexual attraction or sexuality as an uneccessary component of marriage as if it is some sort of defense that nullifies the 14th Amendment protection, because that makes zero sense, and certainly wouldn't hold up in a court of law. In addition, I already addressed your sexual attraction concern. If heterosexuals can get married without that component present, then it stands to reason that homosexuals can, too.
Last edited: