[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What you were talking about would regulate who you could marry based on your skin color. A persons sexual orientation does not in any way change who you are allowed to marry under prop 8.
[/quote]
The miscegenation laws regulated your choice to marry someone of a different race.
Proposition 8 regulates your choice to marry someone of the same gender.
In both cases, the person’s choice of whom to marry is disallowed by law. In both cases, a biological feature of the person you want to marry (skin color or gender) is the determining factor on whether or not you are allowed to marry that person.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Huh? If you favor state recognized marriage between a man and woman, and even a man and a man, you’re a bigot. Why leave out the polygamist, straight or bisexual? Why not hetero same sex marriages? Should they be descriminated against because they don’t fit your definition of marriage?[/quote]
You’re justifying discrimination against one group by pointing out discrimination against other groups. Two (or more) wrongs don’t make a right.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
What you were talking about would regulate who you could marry based on your skin color. A persons sexual orientation does not in any way change who you are allowed to marry under prop 8.
The miscegenation laws regulated your choice to marry someone of a different race.
Proposition 8 regulates your choice to marry someone of the same gender.
In both cases, the person’s choice of whom to marry is disallowed by law. In both cases, a biological feature of the person you want to marry (skin color or gender) is the determining factor on whether or not you are allowed to marry that person.[/quote]
I agree they are similar. But what you are now talking about is sexism, not discrimination of gays. A woman can marry a man, so why can’t you?
If the application of a law changes based on you being gay, then yes, that is discrimination.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Anyone else notice the irony in Mormons supporting marriage = 1 man + one woman?
Polygamy what outlawed in the Mormon church decades ago.
Kicking and screaming the church abandoned the practice.
Did you check the date? 1878?
When it comes to religious practices, 130 years is not that long. The point was that the church didn’t give it up on its own accord. It was forced. Still there are adherents:
[/quote]
130 years removes anyone alive today by at least a generation, realistically probably two for the really old farts from this practice.
This is as ridiculous as saying you owe black people a mule.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Huh? If you favor state recognized marriage between a man and woman, and even a man and a man, you’re a bigot. Why leave out the polygamist, straight or bisexual? Why not hetero same sex marriages? Should they be descriminated against because they don’t fit your definition of marriage?
You’re justifying discrimination against one group by pointing out discrimination against other groups. Two (or more) wrongs don’t make a right.[/quote]
I think this is a non issue. I support homosexual couples being afforded the same legal rights as married couples.
But marriage is a union between a man and a women. Its goals include the formation of a family unit and the bearing of children.
Its that simple. That is a brief but succint definition.
There is not question of ‘rights’ but a question of definition.
I fully support the legal reconginition of defacto couples (be they homosexual or hetrosexual). Loving couples are awesome and benefit society - Rock on!
But if you take this as a rights issue then why am I not allowed multiple wives? Why can’t I marry a wombat?
Look at what marriage is. It is the creation of a new family unit in our society. And I see no problem with declaring the standard family unit as a man, women and children.
What is desired here is the redefining of the family unit. I don’t think this should occur.
Its not that homosexuals are asking for any rights to be bestowed upon them.
They are asking hetrosexuals to redefine marriage.
And this is wrong.
You can have the all the legal status, the tax advantages and the ability to adopt children (after thinking about this I figure a loving family is better than none - I do consider both a father and mother neccessary in the raising of a child however).
But marriage is not between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
You do not get to change the meaning of a word.
Notes:
I am agnostic - I do not follow any church but I can understand the importantance of the concept of a marriage and the family unit.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
…being gay is a lifestyle.
ROFL
What I am saying is that he is asking for equal rights extended to his relationships, not himself. He as an individual has the exact same rights pertaining to marriage that I do. In that since it is very different from discrimination based on something like race.[/quote]
He doesn’t have the right to marry a person he loves.
[quote]FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Anyone else notice the irony in Mormons supporting marriage = 1 man + one woman?
Polygamy what outlawed in the Mormon church decades ago.
Kicking and screaming the church abandoned the practice.
Did you check the date? 1878?
When it comes to religious practices, 130 years is not that long. The point was that the church didn’t give it up on its own accord. It was forced. Still there are adherents:
130 years removes anyone alive today by at least a generation, realistically probably two for the really old farts from this practice.
This is as ridiculous as saying you owe black people a mule.
[/quote]
Funny you should mention “black people”. Prior to 1978 God didn’t allow black Mormon men to marry a single white women in the Mormon church.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
…being gay is a lifestyle.
ROFL
What I am saying is that he is asking for equal rights extended to his relationships, not himself. He as an individual has the exact same rights pertaining to marriage that I do. In that since it is very different from discrimination based on something like race.
He doesn’t have the right to marry a person he loves.
Yeah, equal rights.[/quote]
There is no right to marry whom you love. No one has that right. Some few people have that privilege, but they are entirely different things.
What if the person you love is already married? Is the government denying you the “right” to marry the one you love by not allowing simultaneously marriages, even if the other is estranged? Or if you fall in love with a woman while married to another? Is not allowing polygamy denying someone that right?
How about the scenario the person you love, doesn’t want to marry? Are they then denying you a “right”.
No one is inherently entitled to marry the one they love straight or gay. Is it fair? I don’t think so, but people get way to lose with the term “right” these days.
The government will grant me a marriage certificate between me and a consenting woman, the same way it will him. Love and sexual orientation don’t factor into it at all from the government’s side.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I agree they are similar. But what you are now talking about is sexism, not discrimination of gays. A woman can marry a man, so why can’t you?
If the application of a law changes based on you being gay, then yes, that is discrimination.[/quote]
If you want to think of it as sexism, that is fine. By definition, gays are the only cases where one gender wants the marriage rights of the opposite gender, but regardless the discrimination exists.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So you support polygamy?[/quote]
Irrelevant, because for the third time you cannot justify discrimination against group X because discrimination exists against group Y. Multiple wrongs don’t make a right.
That said, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with polygamy as long as the medical and mental health organizations have determined it isn’t inherently harmful.
[quote]Spry wrote:
I fully support the legal reconginition of defacto couples (be they homosexual or hetrosexual). Loving couples are awesome and benefit society - Rock on!
[/quote]
I’m cool with that, what you call it is irrelevant to me.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Funny you should mention “black people”. Prior to 1978 God didn’t allow black Mormon men to marry a single white women in the Mormon church.
[/quote]
Not only that, but blacks were denied the priesthood and were unable to attend the temple, which effectively meant even same race marriages were for this life only, rather than for time and eternity according to Mormon beliefs.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
The government will grant me a marriage certificate between me and a consenting woman, the same way it will him.
Come on, I thought we were past that by now. If you want to play semantics:
You have the right to marry the person you love, given that both agree and neither is currently married.
I do not have that right.[/quote]
That’s a lot of stipulations on a “right”.Why are some stipulations okay and others not? Just because something isn’t fair, doesn’t make it a rights violation. I think most of what the government does is unfair.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So you support polygamy?
Irrelevant, because for the third time you cannot justify discrimination against group X because discrimination exists against group Y. Multiple wrongs don’t make a right.
That said, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with polygamy as long as the medical and mental health organizations have determined it isn’t inherently harmful.[/quote]
Do you support legally recognized polygamy, yes or no? Or, do you believe the state should discriminate against those who’d prefer such a relationship amongst consenting adults. Why are you reluctant to answer this question directly?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That’s a lot of stipulations on a “right”.Why are some stipulations okay and others not? Just because something isn’t fair, doesn’t make it a rights violation. I think most of what the government does is unfair.
[/quote]
It’s a rights violation when it contradicts the equal protection clause of the Constitution, as for example was found true by the California Supreme Court.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do you support legally recognized polygamy, yes or no? Or, do you believe the state should discriminate against those who’d prefer such a relationship amongst consenting adults. Why are you reluctant to answer this question directly?[/quote]
I’ve answered it numerous times. I’m no expert on polygamy and have no idea if it is inherently damaging. If it is, make it illegal. If it isn’t, make it legal. Got it yet?
Now how about addressing the point that multiple wrongs don’t make a right? Why are you reluctant to answer this question?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Do you support legally recognized polygamy, yes or no? Or, do you believe the state should discriminate against those who’d prefer such a relationship amongst consenting adults. Why are you reluctant to answer this question directly?
I’ve answered it numerous times. I’m no expert on polygamy and have no idea if it is inherently damaging. If it is, make it illegal. If it isn’t, make it legal. Got it yet?
Now how about addressing the point that multiple wrongs don’t make a right? Why are you reluctant to answer this question?[/quote]
I’m not sure what ‘wrong’ you’re talking about. As far as I know homos could get ‘married’ by their personal trainer without getting themselves thrown in jail for immoral acts. Seems to me that we’re really talking about additional benefits provided by the government, if one agrees to participate in a necessarily discriminatory lifestlye. Are you going to extend marriage to every concievable arrangement of consenting adults? No? Then it’s discriminatory. If yes, then what exactly was the point, again? Your assumption is that I believe discrimination is always a wrong. I don’t.