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.
|
The questions the Justices asked were not rhetorical questions. When one asks a rhetorical question, they do not expect an answer. The Justices' questions were serious questions that required a response. And if you noticed, the lawyers answered those questions. They needed to answer them. The questions may have seemed absurd on the surface but they were serious questions. Considering that it would usually be considered unconstitutional for the government to compel people to buy a product, why would it not be unconstitutional for the government to compel people to buy health insurance? That was a legitimate question that needed to be answered and the lawyers answered those questions.
When the question of gay marriage comes to the Supreme Court, I can practically guarantee you that the Justices will be asking the same types of questions that I am asking you right now. I am going to predict specifically that they will bring up polygamy. They will bring it up because it is an almost perfect analogy. You obviously think it's a bad analogy. We will see if the Justices bring it up. I predict they will.
Here is a good argument as to why the current laws are not unconstitutional:
In the US, all men are allowed to marry one wife. So all men have the same rights. No man is being discriminated against. If a guy wants to have more than one wife, he cannot do it. That doesn't mean he is being discriminated against. He can marry one woman just like everybody else. It doesn't matter if he is gay. It doesn't matter if he's a polygamist. It doesn't matter what his religion is. He can marry one wife, period. He can't marry two women. He can't marry a man. He can marry one wife. There is no discrimination there. All men have the same right, which is the right to marry one woman.
A polygamist could argue, "I am a polygamist. Therefore I should be allowed to have more than one wife." A gay man can argue, "I am gay. Therefore I should be allowed to marry a man." Both of those arguments are the same. Both guys are saying that because they identify themselves as having a preference for a certain behavior, that the laws should be changed to accommodate them. The only possible argument you can make as to why these two behaviors should be treated differently (why the law should be changed to accommodate one behavior but not the other) would be that one behavior (being gay) is a born trait while the other behavior (being a polygamist) is simply a lifestyle choice.