LiveUninhibited
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2009
- Messages
- 548
- Reaction score
- 140
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Yes, but under anti-discrimination laws, this argument would fail. A white man not being allowed to marry a black woman is discriminatory under the law, because it prevents something that is legal, with the exception of race.
Well citing the law to support the law is a bit circular, and one reason I distrust the law, but let me correct something. Whatever conservative lawyers might say (most lawyers are nothing but charismatic idiots anyway, as evidenced by Congress), anti-miscegenation laws logically had no more to do with race than anti-SSM laws have anything to do with gender. The relevant issue in both cases is really sexual preference.
A white man not being allowed to marry a black MAN is not discriminatory under the law. At this time, when it comes to marriage laws, sexual orientation is not recognized as discriminatory.
That's incorrect. The California Supreme Court cited many decisions to support their contention that sexual orientation is a suspect criteria for discrimination. Though again, I care more about who is being harmed. Gay marriage harms nobody.
In order to change the law, you have to have cause.
No, the Constitution is written in such a way that limits what sorts of laws can stand up in court. In order to challenge a law, people have to be wronged in some way. Being denied the legal ability to marry who you want who also wants to marry you is being wronged. In some cases, this is secondary to some other interest. But in the case of gay marriage, the only party with any real stake in the matter are the gays who want to get married. Nobody is being wronged by the gay marriage in a way that counters the interests of the gay couples.
The discrimination argument doesn't cut it because gay folks can already marry...just not someone of the same sex.
I already explained why that doesn't make sense. Denying a group of people the right to marry at all was not what anti-miscegenation laws were about, or anti-SSM marriage laws are about. Blacks could get married, they just couldn't marry Whites. Whites could get married, they just couldn't marry Blacks. Everybody could get married, but they're SOL if they happen to like the wrong person. Putting arbitrary restrictions on rights robs those rights of any meaning. Suppose somebody told you that you can marry, but you have to marry a specific kind of person regardless of whether you like them or not. Would you be able to meaningfully exercise your right to marry? Of course not.
You cannot legislated "love" or "want to". It is not logical. Currently, a man can marry a women, regardless of sexual orientation. Going with the "love" argument, is a loser argument. What if someone "loves" their dog? I've done this debate many, many times. The discrimination is a failed argument. Far too many potholes.
"want to" is consent. Informed consent is CENTRAL to contracts.
The dog argument is not comparable, because a dog is mentally incapable of comprehending a marriage contract. And without comprehending a contract, meaningful consent cannot be given. Adult lesbians, however, obviously can consent to contracts.
I do not assume sexual orientation is a choice. Nor do I hold that not legalizing gay marriage is right. But it's not about what is right; it's about what can be proven and what is a winning argument. Discrimination is a loser argument. I am pro-GM, and I've already shredded your position on this. An anti-GM person will do better.
You didn't even come close to shredding it.
"Love" cannot be legislated. Gays can still marry...no one is telling them they cannot. They have the same rights as anyone else.
Love is only one possible motive. It's presence isn't necessary, I was just hoping that those against gay marriage would learn to have empathy for other people.
The argument is the winning argument in this debate, You did not read the entire thing. It is not only about children, though that would be a cornerstone. Married couples live longer, are healthier, do more to support the government, do better economically, are more stable, socially, etc... The position is not only about children. It's about creating a more solid society. The government has an interest in all of this, and that is how to win this argument. Find what the government has an interest in and exploit it. There is nothing to be gained from the discrimination argument alone and there are far to many solid refutations. The family/society/benefit of the government is the winning argument.
The government isn't set up to look after it's own interests, but that of the people. Since nobody has a tangible stake against gay marriage, there is no basis to deny gay marriage. The purpose of marriage is not only to benefit society. We don't subject marriages to a test to check to see if it would benefit society. The relevant criteria is that both people consent to the contract, and provided that contract doesn't harm anybody there is no basis to deny it.
Last edited: