This again? Sigh. (Not directed to you, in particular, lance strongarm, but this inapt analogy continually comes up.) There’d be no need to define mixed race couples. As long as they consisted of one man and one woman, they fit into the definition of marriage as it has been understood.
So you’re saying they should be separate but equal?
Please answer the question.
If a legislator had come to you in 1967 and said “The only way we’re going to let blacks and whites have a legal union in this here state is if we call it ‘civil unions’. They will not be allowed to call their union a marriage.” What would you say?
Yep. The rightwingers are already making videos saying “it gets better.”
IF there were ONE set of laws that applied top both, it would not be akin to the separate but equal notions going back to the '50s. Remember, they wanted one set of schools for Black kids and another set of schools for White kids. TWO different sets of schools.
Wait, what—now it’s not just a “right”, but a “natural right”? Where to you get this from? You may want to read up on “natural rights”. Here’s the short answer, if it necessitates an imprimatur from the government, it ain’t. It’s more akin to the opposite. Now, if you’d like to argue that their is a natural right to live your life with the person of your choosing, you’d be on much more solid ground there.
No. I’m saying that just because you call different things by different names doesn’t indicate any hierarchy of worth.
Also, please read what I just posted about the SbE canard.
It’s quite simple, you want them to be different, legally different, but they are not, they are equal to you. There is no reason to classify marriages differently based on the genitals of the couple.
Well, if I believed it was the ONLY way, I’d agree. If not, those people would not have the legal rights they are entitled to.
Question for you: do you believe Blacks and Whites are equals? If yes, how can that be, we refer to them by two different names?
I would say they are, in fact, by definition separate things. And that can’t be changed except by re-definition. So given that as the necessary starting point, I am against redefining marriage, so gay unions remain a separate thing, but should, by all means, be equal in every legal way.
Yes there is. Marriage has always been physical gender based. And that does not need to be changed to create equal rights for other physical gender combinations, which would be something other than marriage. And if you fear that something other than marriage will be seen as inferior, that’s your own paranoia and insecurity at work.
“Why do you keep making me beat you?”
The classic abuser’s lament…
reading down the thread And there’s our faithful friend, magellan. Look! He’s found a disciple!
TWO different legal definitions of marriage. Same thing.
Natural rights are “rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.” For example, I have a right to free speech because I’m a human being. This right can be infringed upon, but not removed from me.
Marriage is another such right.
White school, black school.
Marriage, civil unions.
Is it poisoning the well to warn someone about debating a poster who’s proven his unwillingness to consider any aspect of this subject from the viewpoint of the marriage equality supporters? I don’t believe I’ve seen you, Human Action, debate magellan about this before. I can tell you from experience that going out into the hallway and debating the cinder blocks in the walls would probably produce more movement of their mental viewpoint than debating magellan will move his.
Legally speaking, yes, Blacks and Whites are equals. Thats what we want for homosexuals. Pretty simple, really. You want separate-but-equal. In reality, there is no such thing. ONE of the separates is always at least a little inferior. Which do you think it will be in this case?
You have never answered the main question though: How does allowing gay people to marry have any impact on straight marriage? What is changes for the heterosexual married couple?
No, it hasn’t “always” been anything, and same-sex marriages have been performed before modern times.
If you think the important, core element of marriage is the gender of the spouses, you have a tragically limited view of what a marriage is. Your definition is worthless and should be changed.
No, it’s just a basic awareness of history. Homer Plessy was assured that seperate facilities for different races would be equal. Roy Torcaso was told (by lower courts) that Maryland’s religious test for public office wasn’t discriminatory, since he didn’t HAVE to be a public official.
How in the world did you get to two different legal definitions of marriage? Who the hell is advocating that? What I am advocating is one set of laws that accessed by two groups. Much like copyright or real estate laws that are accessed equally by two distinct groups, Blacks and Whites. You’re advocating one set of laws, too, correct? You just think gays should be allowed to “marry”.
Also, it seems that you might want to also read up on sets and subsets. Oh and analogies. The important thing is how things relate to each other. You’re way off.
Huh? Your conclusion is at direct odds with the definition you supplied. You posted a good definition that clearly shows that “marriage” does NOT qualify. Or did you miss the “not contingent upon laws, customs or beliefs” part?
This post was never answered by Shiloh, but it should have been.
Whenever two gays get married, the ether in the universe is disturbed, and this causes a straight marriage to explode somewhere.
Wonderful examples.
The Torcaso ruling is a perfect example of completely warped logic. I can’t believe a judge actually wrote that.