Active Users:510 Time:06/04/2025 12:06:08 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: Burr Send a noteboard - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
..and you should really be more hesitant before asuming what someone else's beliefs are.

Claiming that gay people are being denied their rights is logically false.

1: There is no "right" to marriage. Marriage is a specifically crafted legal entity that EVERYONE has the ability/privilege to participate in on the exact same grounds.


If men can only marry women and women can only marry men, then those are different grounds. If everyone could only marry men, or if everyone could only marry women, then the law would be giving the same grounds to everyone (however absurd such a law would be). But the current law very clearly defines two different types of marriages, one to men and one to women, and then it doubly discriminates by restricting men from benefiting from the first type of marriage and by restricting women from benefiting from the second type of marriage. Boiling it down to the phrase "the opposite sex" or "between one man and one woman" to refer to the union as a whole does not change the fact that, on the level of individuals, the law is treating some individuals very differently from other individuals.

2: There is no "Equal Rights" issue because there is no "right" and everyone has equal access to the exact same legal entity. That is the definition of Equal Rights.

3: What is being requested/desired is an NEW legal entity in place of, or beside, the currently existing legal entity. My only complaint is that those who desire such are not brave enough, or honest enough, to admit it.

4: IF there was some sort of discrimination being performed, the current advocates are not seeking to eliminate it, only to place themselves as one of the accepted classes. Otherwise you would see those same advocates in favor of polygamy, or legalized incest. I guess one type of "discriminated class" is more politically acceptable than another...

As I said before I could not care less who anyone "marries". I was married once, and frankly everyone should share in the misery. I just object to the methods and dishonesty being employed. Legislating through judicial arguments is virtually ALWAYS a bad idea.
||||||||||*MySmiley*
Only so evil.
This message last edited by Burr on 20/10/2012 at 11:04:09 PM
Reply to message
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional. Burr - 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM 970 Views
An excellent ruling. Thanks for the post. *NM* Ghavrel - 18/10/2012 08:47:54 PM 270 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: Burr - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM 753 Views
I always knew that DomA guy was bad news. Nate - 18/10/2012 09:05:13 PM 505 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law. HyogaRott - 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM 558 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional. Legolas - 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM 599 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause? Tim - 18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM 671 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But... Burr - 18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM 689 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM* Burr - 19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM 245 Views
I wonder about that one as well. Joel - 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM 625 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well. Burr - 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM 610 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not. Joel - 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM 506 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point. Burr - 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM 607 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it. Tom - 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM 668 Views
There is a good chance it won't happen Roland00 - 19/10/2012 03:02:50 PM 735 Views
Kennedy will go along with them. *NM* Tom - 19/10/2012 10:05:38 PM 255 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading. Joel - 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM 702 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM* Tim - 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM 264 Views
I believe we typically use the terms "affirms" or "upholds." Joel - 19/10/2012 12:23:50 AM 662 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause Joel - 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM 749 Views
Not really HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM 670 Views
Not quite Roland00 - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM 546 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." Joel - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM 645 Views
joel, please stop moondog - 19/10/2012 05:42:51 PM 606 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument. Ghavrel - 19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM 621 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment. Joel - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM 554 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon... HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM 588 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM* moondog - 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM 272 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM* HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM 263 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't moondog - 19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM 662 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed. HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM 665 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts moondog - 19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM 569 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM* HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM 275 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM* moondog - 22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM 257 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM* HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM 247 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM* moondog - 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM 259 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school. HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM 592 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic moondog - 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM 556 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM 626 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it. moondog - 23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM 704 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM* beetnemesis - 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM 267 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white? Dannymac - 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM 542 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM 521 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument. Dannymac - 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM 535 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions. HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM 690 Views
It was only a matter of time. Tom - 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM 596 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion. Joel - 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM 748 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb. HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM 669 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself moondog - 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM 635 Views
There is no right being denied... HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM 602 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way moondog - 19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM 667 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM 724 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives moondog - 19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM 562 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada... HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM 603 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"? moondog - 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM 502 Views
You obviously have no idea what a right is. HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 11:49:26 PM 840 Views
No? snoopcester - 19/10/2012 11:34:36 PM 573 Views
Really HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:29:38 PM 581 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: Burr - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM 622 Views
Nope I am not HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:34:59 PM 558 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious. Joel - 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM 571 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular... HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM 546 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes