I can believe that nobody has been able to convince you otherwise... but no logical refutation?
ummm, how about the WHO you are allowed to marry is never discussed in the constitution?
if marrage is truly defined as man and woman, then gays are equally allowed to marry. If marrage is defined as being with a loved one, then they are not.
historically, marrage has been about the owning and trading of women by men.
You are looking to redefine a term in a way which has no legal prescidence before the civil rights era. That whites are allowed to choose black mates is probably the only legislative situation where you could draw a legal argument from.
If marrage is legally defined as man and women, homosexuals currently have legal equality.
(My personal opinion is that there should be no government involvement in marrage, so if you want to marry your sister or a car or a tree, i could care less, just saying, its ridiculous for you to say there isn't a logical refutation to the point you are making)
Maybe the "all men are created equal" and the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" might have something to do with it, just saying.
Odd that this country wa founded on the principe that people should be free to do what they like, unless of course, you're a ******.
Now, if someone could prove that allowing gays to marry would indeed cause harm to other people's marriage, then I can see the grounds for denial, maybe.
Edit: Yes, I know that's from the Declaration, not Constitution.
Perhaps you should start a thread to discuss the legality and legitimacy of douchebags, and he'll feel like he has a place to vent his frustration over his life and rights being the providence and talking points of strangers and bigots.
The sad part? Even douchebags can get married.
The sad part, part 2? This is a country full of douchebags.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
And you seem to think everyone that has agreed that the rights of another human being should not be up for debate are somehow, what, sucking up to me, placating me? I don't know what you think. But I'm fairly certain if you saw the vitrues of your life repeatedly being at the center of debate, you'd be irritated. You're hispanic. It doesn't matter if your parents were born in this country or not; many a white American consider you a burden to our nation just because they can look at you and see you're hispanic. And when I dismiss that, it's because it's bullshit. What I know is not bullshit is that you wouldn't tolerate someone bringing up the notion that, citizens or not, there should be one set of rules for hispanics and another for everyone else.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
No, i was just wondering if Gay people truly care more about the "sanctity of marriage" than they do about the rights marriage brings. Do they care if they are made a union in God's eyes or do they just want the same rights that straight people have. I wasn't trying to stir any fecal matter man
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Police on Saturday charged two West Raleigh, North Carolina men with a "crime against nature" for having sex early that morning. Each faces up to two years in prison if convicted of the Class I felony.
That's so ridiculously absurd. They won't do ANY prison time. I guarantee it. On point, they probably could win a "counter"-sue case against the municipality that charged them.
Is there anything they can do against the state for such absurd laws?
ok, but gays are equally allowed to marry someone of the other sex.
Liberty and pursuit of happiness, sure, I'll conciede, although again, it is a definition of both that is far more modern than traditional.
preaching at the choir my friend. I'm really glad I'm from Canada. It was a national outrage when the conservatives up here even mentioned bringing the debate about gay marrage back up (gays are allowed to marry here)
ya, I'd love a country that only made illegal that which harmed others. Where might I locate this magical land?
Depends, if they were consensually having sex in private, yes, the Lawrence Vs. Texas should cover this. If they were caught in public, then they're screwed.
KMC Community Forums
May 23rd, 2008 05:47 PM
