![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
View Poll Results: Regarding same sex marriage, I feel ... | |||
Only heterosexual couples can be "married" |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
5 | 14.29% |
Both heterosexual and homosexual couples can be "married" |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
19 | 54.29% |
Heteros can marry, but same-sex should be a "civil" union |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
7 | 20.00% |
Hetero marriage and same sex civil unions should get the same government tax breaks, etc. |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
3 | 8.57% |
Only hetero marriage and hetero civil unions should get government tax breaks, etc. |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 | 2.86% |
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Justice Antonin Scalia sharply questioned whether the Obama administration’s requirement that Americans have health insurance or pay a penalty—the so-called “individual mandate” at the heart of the law—might mean that “therefore you (the government) can make people buy broccoli.” Chief Justice John Roberts asked Verrilli whether Washington could compel cellphone purchases. Justice Samuel Alito wondered whether it could force Americans to buy insurance to pay for funeral costs. http://www.addmorejuice.com/?p=5410 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 05-12-2012 at 10:24 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
You don't have to worry yourself even a second more about THAT problem with your "argument." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
My question had to do with the Constitutionality argument. My question was whether the alleged discrimination of not allowing same sex marriage derives simply from the fact that a man can't marry a man, or does it derive because gay people are a group per se, and by not allowing same-sex marriage, you are discriminating against a group. That was what I was trying to ask Danzig. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Hey rup, old lawyer joke..
What do you call 100 lawyers holding hands underwater? A good start... ![]() P.S. my granddaughter is a young lawyer...
__________________
"If you lose the power to laugh, you lose the power to think" - Clarence Darrow, American lawyer (1857-1938) When you are right, no one remembers;when you are wrong, no one forgets. Thought for today.."No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong" - Francois, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, French moralist (1613-1680) |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() A short but good editorial on gay marriage:
Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|