One Judge vs 7 million votes - Page 5

mookiemookie · 08-05-10, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

A law that marriage is between a man and a woman applies EXACTLY THE SAME to ALL men, and ALL women, despite their sexual orientation.

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.

Takeda Shingen · 08-05-10, 05:36 PM

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

Sailor Steve · 08-05-10, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

Again, how is that discriminatory? Men and women, REGARDLESS of sexual orientation, have the same exact rights. What they want are different rights.

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.

mookiemookie · 08-05-10, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

But that's not the case either, now is it. Homosexuals are free to marry a person of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

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.

Platapus · 08-05-10, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

For the simple reason that, contrary to the belief of some, judges cannot arbitrarily 'legislate from the bench',

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.

Sailor Steve · 08-05-10, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.

Good point.

Sailor Steve · 08-05-10, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

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

frau kaleun · 08-05-10, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

Again, how is that discriminatory? Men and women, REGARDLESS of sexual orientation, have the same exact rights. What they want are different rights.

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.

frau kaleun · 08-05-10, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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

Duly noted.

mookiemookie · 08-05-10, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

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

August · 08-05-10, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Mob rule doesn't allow you to vote the minority's rights away.

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

mookiemookie · 08-05-10, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

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.

Tryin to switch it up for variety's sake.

How's "majoritarianism?" "Ochlocracy?"

Sailor Steve · 08-05-10, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

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

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

frau kaleun · 08-05-10, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

How is it "utter nonsense"? What about adoption regulations?

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.

Aramike · 08-05-10, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

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

08-05-10, 05:36 PM	#62
Takeda Shingen Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 8,643 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	I agree with you, Frau. My comments were just intended to be silly.