Really? Telling a gay man "You're free to marry anyone you want, so long as they're not another guy" sounds an awful lot like telling a black man "You're free to marry anyone you want, so long as they're not white."

You're denying people rights based on an innate characteristic of who they are. That's the very definition of discrimination.

I agree with you, Frau. My comments were just intended to be silly.

You fail to make the distinction between natural rights and legal rights. You argue that it does not discriminate, but the truth is that it actually guarantees the "right" to marry only whom you say they can marry.

What is certainly being denied is the "right" to marry whom they want to marry.

Deny it all you like, it is without question discriminatory.

Then they wouldn't be homosexuals then, would they? That's a silly argument. Almost like the famous Ford quote about being able to have a Model T in any color you like so long as it's black.

you are quite correct, and I apologize for poorly wording my comment. What I meant was that the people proposing Prop 8 should have gotten some guidance from constitutional lawyers on the constitutionality of the proposal before putting it to a public vote.

If the constitutional advisers has said "hmm this is in a gray area constitutionally" then the proposers could have had a chance to modify it, or formally requested a pre-legislative judicial ruling.

:yep: Good point.

I could be wrong, but I suspect August's comment was meant to be just a little tongue-in-cheek.

If a straight person has the right to marry the person of his/her choice, and a gay person doesn't, they do not have the same rights, period. One person has a right to do something, and the other person has been denied the same opportunity. Wanting the right to do the same thing that someone else can do is not wanting a "different right." It's wanting the same right. How is that not obvious?

That's like arguing that suffragettes were demanding "different rights" because they wanted to be able to vote just like their menfolk did. Winning the right to vote didn't give them "special rights" on account of them being female. It gave them the SAME RIGHTS that non-females already had, and rights that they had to qualify for in the exact same way that non-females did.

Saying that giving another citizen a right or opportunity they are denied but which you already have just by virtue of being a citizen same as them, is giving them a "special" right - it's basically admitting that their citizenship is already of the second-class variety and that a special exception msut be made to allow them the privileges that "real" citizens get just by being alive.

Duly noted. :up:

I've seen so many wacky points of view argued here in GT that it becomes kind of hard to tell anymore. :rotfl2:

It's a pretty big stretch to call a ballot measure formally voted and enacted in accordance with the law and "mob rule".

I used "tyranny of the majority" earlier in the thread and SteamWake laughed at me. :cry: Tryin to switch it up for variety's sake. :DL How's "majoritarianism?" "Ochlocracy?"

On the other hand if the majority actually takes away the rights of the minority, what do you call it?

What about them? It's a whole different issue.

If someone wants to argue that "marriage is about procreation" (which means making babies, not raising children other people made) and therefore same-sex couples should not marry because they cannot bring forth offspring without the help of a third opposite-sex individual, then logically marriage should only be allowed to couples who are able to do just that.

If the purpose of marriage is to procreate, and the state is supposed to uphold that, then no one who is unable or unwilling to procreate should be allowed to marry regardless of their sexual orientation.

When the people who argue that marriage is about procreation start calling for the nullification of childless-by-choice marriages, or for the denial of marriage licenses to couples who can't prove they're at least able to produce offspring, then I'll be willing to believe they actually believe it and aren't just using any excuse they can find to oppose same-sex marriages.

Where is it written that gays have said rights to GAY MARRIAGE to be taken away to begin with?

Wrong. You mis-stated it. A straight person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex of their choice. The same as a gay person. Whether or not you "like" reality doesn't make the principle unreal.

Frankly, I really don't give a damn one way or the other on the issue. That being said, this judge was out-of-line. I guess that most people have an inability to reconcile what they WANT to be true with what reality dictates is true.

If it were up to me, gays would have the same rights to unions as heterosexual couples, but it would be termed differently, and I think it is small and trite of gay activists to repudiate such a gesture repeatedly simply because they want a term traditionally applied to straights.

How does it harm anyone if gays are allowed to marry?

Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. James Madison didn't want a Bill Of Rights at all, because he firmly believed that ALL rights belong to the people and none to the government, and that if he left anything out somewhere down the line someone would say "They didn't mention that one, therefore they didn't want it there!" The Ninth Amendment was Madison hedging his bets against that very argument.

"It is to secure these rights that governments are instituted among men." I'm sure I read that somewhere.

As I've said before, and will continue to say, I have the right to do anything I want, as long as it doesn't infringe anyone else's right to do the same. We create govenments to protect our rights, and we make laws to protect ourselves from each other. Anything more is an attempt to legislate morality.

I myself would like to know the answer to that, but nobody has presented one yet. :hmmm:


EDIT: What I've been able to surmise so far is that it scares the bejeezus out of those who oppose it. That leads to another question of: Why?

How does it harm anyone is gays are allowed the same exact rights as marriage but it is termed something else out of respect?