Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
lol
yeah, i get what rhetorical questions are. yours was an absurd question tho, not rhetorical. the absurdity of yours was to imagine a world with no gays, which i'm figuring is one you'd rather have.
a question regarding purchasing one or another of things that exist is nothing like your question.
lol you use the supreme court to justify your question. that is too rich.
as for your bs polygamy point...if they ever allowed some polygamy, but not other, that would also be unconstitutional.
it's really that simple. we're all supposed to be treated equally here. the govt has no business granting certain privileges only to some. the govt should never have gotten into the marriage business in the first place, but they did...so here we are.
the only arguments i've seen against allowing gay marriage have been religious arguments. that should get the opponents nowhere.
|
"If they ever allowed some polygamy?" Do they allow some gay marriage? No, they don't allow any gay marriage as of right now.
I don't think you understood my hypothetical question about a world with no gay people. I wasn't referring to a world with no sex between same-sex people. I was referring to a world where gay people did not label themselves as gay and where gay people were not considered a specific group. I was referring to a world where people engage in the same behavior but they are not labeled as a result of the behavior. If that were the case, I wonder whether people would still make the same types of arguments about it being unconstitutional for same-sex people to not be able to get married.
The only reason I bring that up is because I think it is a legitimate argument that if people are born gay (which I believe they are in at least 95% of cases), then they are a specific group like any group (such as an ethnic group) that is born that way. And if that is the case, then an argument could be made that the group is being discriminated against if they aren't allowed to marry people of the same sex. I'm not saying that I agree with that argument, but at least the argument makes sense. If being gay is simply a life choice, then I don't think there is any type of discrimination argument to be made.