major blow to heterophobes

[SMR 368]

I can't say that I'm curious about the rebuttal but it's quite clear to me that this thread contains no logical rebuttal to the slippery slope argument other than "it's not being debated right now." This is a terrible argument, since it could easily be debated in the future and based on gay precedent.

However, I would like to point out that if you don't allow gay marriage, you aren't allowing some people rights while denying them to others. Everyone has the same rights: to get married to someone of the opposite gender. There is no legal precedent for couples having rights, only individuals. Every individual has the same rights, since everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender and no one is allowed to marry someone of the same gender. That is equal. Everyone can do the same thing.

It's like saying that if someone likes to eat condor meat, they should be allowed to because people who like turkey meat are allowed to eat turkey. They are completely different birds. Everyone is allowed to eat turkey meat; no one is allowed to eat condor meat. That is equal.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I can't say that I'm curious about the rebuttal but it's quite clear to me that this thread contains no logical rebuttal to the slippery slope argument other than "it's not being debated right now." This is a terrible argument, since it could easily be debated in the future and based on gay precedent.

However, I would like to point out that if you don't allow gay marriage, you aren't allowing some people rights while denying them to others. Everyone has the same rights: to get married to someone of the opposite gender. There is no legal precedent for couples having rights, only individuals. Every individual has the same rights, since everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender and no one is allowed to marry someone of the same gender. That is equal. Everyone can do the same thing.

It's like saying that if someone likes to eat condor meat, they should be allowed to because people who like turkey meat are allowed to eat turkey. They are completely different birds. Everyone is allowed to eat turkey meat; no one is allowed to eat condor meat. That is equal.

Yeah, OK, but who can blame lesbians for what they like to eat? Have you no empathy?

Actually it is a good point. But it would require much more thought on the subject than I am willing to give it. Personally I don't give a damn (or a thought) to who someone else has sex with or wants to marry.

[SMR 368]

Yeah, OK, but who can blame lesbians for what they like to eat? Have you no empathy?

Actually it is a good point. But it would require much more thought on the subject than I am willing to give it. Personally I don't give a damn (or a thought) to who someone else has sex with or wants to marry.

Admittedly, my argument is not about gay marriage directly. My argument is that gay marriage is not a constitutionally guaranteed right and does not have a legal precedent. It is not guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can't say that I'm curious about the rebuttal but it's quite clear to me that this thread contains no logical rebuttal to the slippery slope argument other than "it's not being debated right now." This is a terrible argument, since it could easily be debated in the future and based on gay precedent.

Why would anyone bother to rebutt an unreasonable and unfounded premise? If you want to trigger a rebuttal, you'd first have to make a case that supports your premise that discontinuing the state sanctioned discrimination against homosexuals wanting to enter into civil marriage must naturally lead to anything beyond that.

However, I would like to point out that if you don't allow gay interracial marriage, you aren't allowing some people rights while denying them to others. Everyone has the same rights: to get married to someone of the opposite gender same race. There is no legal precedent for couples having rights, only individuals. Every individual has the same rights, since everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender same race and no one is allowed to marry someone of the same gender a different race. That is equal. Everyone can do the same thing.

See the problem with your line of thought there? We may then as well stipulate that everyone may only marry someone of their same age but not someone older or younger. Again, it applies to everyone so therefore it must be equal. Or how about limiting marriage to people of the same national origin? Or faith? It's all equal, right? Applies to everyone so there would not be any problem with that.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Admittedly, my argument is not about gay marriage directly. My argument is that gay marriage is not a constitutionally guaranteed right and does not have a legal precedent. It is not guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

It's a shadow argument - nobody but you is making it. The question is whether it is within the rights of the states to deprive people protected by the US Constitution of the benefits of the institution of civil marriage based on their sexual orientation.

[Peikko 1,575]

You do not have to change it from male/female to race. It works just the same. This idea that because you can marry someone, just not the person you want to your rights are not being infringed is ridiculous. Marriage is not an institution to deliberately saddle together two people who share no or limited compatibility.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I've been saying for years here that gays have equal rights to marry, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex like the rest of us. It's the same right affirmed in Loving v. Virginia, and Loving has been rejected more than once in rulings as a precedent for same sex marriage.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

About as much as you live for my posts, judging by the constant string of responses.

How inane can you be Sofi

Ooh - I've left it open for you to say "as inane as you are". Woohoo!

you keep coming back to me. That's the bottom line.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Sofiyya

[SMR 368]

Why would anyone bother to rebutt an unreasonable and unfounded premise? If you want to trigger a rebuttal, you'd first have to make a case that supports your premise that discontinuing the state sanctioned discrimination against homosexuals wanting to enter into civil marriage must naturally lead to anything beyond that.

However, I would like to point out that if you don't allow gay interracial marriage, you aren't allowing some people rights while denying them to others. Everyone has the same rights: to get married to someone of the opposite gender same race. There is no legal precedent for couples having rights, only individuals. Every individual has the same rights, since everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender same race and no one is allowed to marry someone of the same gender a different race. That is equal. Everyone can do the same thing.

See the problem with your line of thought there? We may then as well stipulate that everyone may only marry someone of their same age but not someone older or younger. Again, it applies to everyone so therefore it must be equal. Or how about limiting marriage to people of the same national origin? Or faith? It's all equal, right? Applies to everyone so there would not be any problem with that.

We're talking about what is Constitutionally protected. The right to marry is not constitutionally protected. Restrictions based on age would be Constitutionally fine. The issue with race is that race is a subjective and malleable concept. There is no way to objectively prove what race someone belongs to and definitions of race could be redefined without cause or proof.

It's a shadow argument - nobody but you is making it. The question is whether it is within the rights of the states to deprive people protected by the US Constitution of the benefits of the institution of civil marriage based on their sexual orientation.

You missed the point. The question I am asking is whether or not the Constitutional right exists. I contend it doesn't. If the right doesn't exist, it's pointless to debate whether or not the states can take it away.

Your wording here is crafty but somewhat ignorant. A person is not protected by the US Constitution. Rights are protected by the US Constitution. A right to marriage is not protected by the US Constitution.

You do not have to change it from male/female to race. It works just the same. This idea that because you can marry someone, just not the person you want to your rights are not being infringed is ridiculous. Marriage is not an institution to deliberately saddle together two people who share no or limited compatibility.

And you can eat a bird, just not the one you want to. The issue is that gay marriage and straight marriage are objectively and legally distinguishable. Thus, you can make laws that apply to one and not the other (just like turkeys and condors are objectively and legally distinguishable, so you can make laws that apply to one and not to the other). Just as long as those laws apply to everyone equally, there is no violation of the Constitution.

Your argument implies that all laws are unconstitutional. You are arguing that if someone wants to do something and someone else doesn't, then restricting it is discriminatory and unconstitutional towards the person who wants to do it. If that were the case, all laws would be discriminatory and unconstitutional, as long as you could find someone who had no desire to break it and someone who had the desire to break it. And I'm pretty sure that applies to all laws.

Gay marriage does not have legal, historical, Constitutional, or moral precedent or support. If you want to make a law to allow it, go for it. But don't base that law on a non-existent precedent or right.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, it really isn't.

No one is arguing that marriage is a constitutional right.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No, it really isn't.

No one is arguing that marriage is a constitutional right.

Yes, a Constitutional right to marry is a common and erroneous claim made frequently. SMR makes great points, ones that I have made many times before, to no avail.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why would anyone bother to rebutt an unreasonable and unfounded premise? If you want to trigger a rebuttal, you'd first have to make a case that supports your premise that discontinuing the state sanctioned discrimination against homosexuals wanting to enter into civil marriage must naturally lead to anything beyond that.

Indeed.

[SMR 368]

Indeed.

Of course, homosexual marriage is legally distinguishable from polygamy, bestiality, and incest. And a sound set of laws could be constructed to allow homosexual marriage and not the rest. That isn't really the point.

The point is, all of these things are prohibited by traditional morality and little else. Incest, where at least one of the partners is sterile and both are adults, has no more solid scientific problems than homosexuality. Similarly, there is nothing objectively wrong with bestiality or polygamy.

If you cast traditional morality to the wind to allow homosexual marriage, you can't reasonably invoke it to disbar the others.

So what I am looking for in terms of a rebuttal is a reason why the law could reasonably not allow polygamy, bestiality, and incest while allowing homosexual marriage. Note, I'm not looking for a way to word the law such that those things wouldn't be allowed. Any moron could do that. But why would you make the law that way? For incest, assume that one partner is sterile.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You're assuming that all of those issues are equivalent, they aren't.

We've been round the houses on the subject in other threads, yet the same tired old crappy arguments keep getting brought up.

From a purely practical perspective, most of those things just aren't workable under the system of laws we currently have.

[SMR 368]

You're assuming that all of those issues are equivalent, they aren't.

We've been round the houses on the subject in other threads, yet the same tired old crappy arguments keep getting brought up.

From a purely practical perspective, most of those things just aren't workable under the system of laws we currently have.

No, I didn't assume they were all equivalent. They are simply all typically seen as wrong by traditional morality. Why aren't they workable under the system of laws we currently have?

I'm still waiting for a rebuttal.