Hate to rain on anyone's parade, but the United States Constitution does NOT say anything about all men being created equal. That's the Declaration of Independence, which has absolutely not legal bearing in this country, i. e., it is NOT the law, but a statement of why we rebelled against England.
Gay people are not discriminated against. They can marry just like everyone else. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. There has to be lines drawn. Otherwise, what's to keep insestuous or polygamous relationships from being sanctioned as well? Many Muslims around the world have more than one wife. Do we allow that here in the US as well as gay marriage?
31 comments
Many Muslims around the world have more than one wife. Do we allow that here in the US as well as gay marriage?
You're ignoring the fact that most Islamic nations that have legal polygamy, do NOT allow gay marriage. Dumbass.
Gay people are not discriminated against. They can marry just like everyone else. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.
This black man right here has the same right to marry a woman of his race that you do!
No government has the right to determine what constitutes a formal and legal relationship between two persons.
Although it is illegal, I can assure you that polygamy is very much alive and well in the US. It's practiced by organized religious groups right under your nose and yet the legal system is powerless to stop it.
Mr. French raises an interesting point, as both of those practices come within the realm of that which could be considered consensual. So let's see:
-Incest: you could make a decent case that incestuous sexual relations, at least inasmuch they don't involve abuses of power (i.e. parent-child is Right Out), should be legal, at least inasmuch as reasonable precautions are taken to avoid children, though I don't see much sense in allowing incestuous marriage. Honestly, it's probably more trouble than it's worth, as even if the genetic issue can be disposed of by precluding children, there's still the matter of not really being able to police subtly abusive situations.
-Polygamy: Apart from it being a bureaucratic nightmare, it's also rife with abuse potential. I fully support polyamory as long as everyone involved is cool with it, but I stop short at the idea of complex marriage as the very nature of polyamory is that relationship geometries do change.
Well, the Constitution doesn't have the phrase "all men are created equal" but it does have this useful bit:
14th Amend. Sec. 1:
"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I'm not quite sure if the fundies recognize the implications of their own argument here. <i>If</i> requirements that marriage be opposite-sex are not heterosexist discrimination on the grounds that everyone, whether gay, straight, bixesual, asexual, etc., can marry a person of the "opposite" "sex," then the opposite-sex requirement for marriage is discriminatory on the grounds of <i>sex</i> -- and discrimination based on sex is considerably <i>less</i> legal in the U.S. right now than discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In the first part MF seems to think that he has found a loophole so as not to treat everyone equally.
The second half is ignorance and presupposition of events that have no bearing on gay marriage. Then he shores the whole thing up with a fox-news-style "What If?" fear statement. MF? You can stop sucking ann coulter's dick now.
In the first part MF seems to think that he has found a loophole so as not to treat everyone equally.
The second half is ignorance and presupposition of events that have no bearing on gay marriage. Then he shores the whole thing up with a fox-news-style "What If?" fear statement. MF? You can stop sucking ann coulter's dick now.
"Otherwise, what's to keep insestuous or polygamous relationships from being sanctioned as well?"
By defining marriage as being a social contract between two consenting adults.
Yes, they should be "allowed." The government should not have any power over marriage to begin with - it should be an entirely social thing. The concept of marriage licenses is as absurd as, say, parenting licenses. If you don't like someone saying they're married to a someone of the same sex/relative/animal/inanimate object, then don't recognize it. I don't understand how the "marriage" part of that is what creeps people out; those people will still have gay/incestuous sex anyway and be in a relationship, which you definitely can't stop.
The government should not be allowed to determine which relationships are "legitimate" or not, or committed enough. That's up for the people involved to decide.
"Gay people are not discriminated against. They can marry just like everyone else... as long as they're straight."
Yea, not letting them marry someone based on their gender is still discrimination.
Similar arguments:
(Please correct me if this is stepping too close to Godwin territory. I am not in top form lately.)
14th Amendment, bitch.
Also, not that anyone here needs the lesson, "marriage" by your definition is discrimination by gender. Ergo, gay marriage must be legalized to stop gender discrimination.
Or we could just stop all marriage until everyone can have one. If we let some people get married, pretty soon they'll start letting cats marry dogs.
Oh, and you totally ruined my parade, ass!
If we let gays marry all kinds of bad things can happen. People will be able to put catsup on hot dogs, for example, and talk on cell phones while they drive, and ... Oh. Never mind.
Well, except that the gov't grants certain legal benefits with marriage -- tax advantages, automatic inheritance of property, etc etc etc.
Now, I don't think the government should be controlling who should get married, beyond setting age limits -- I think it should be treated like any other contract -- but the government does have reason to be in the marriage business.
Bzzt. Two point no.
Check your amendments, dumbass. Re: "Equal protection under the law."
And the US Constitution says nothing about God. Only the Declaration of Independence does. So if we're not equal, there's no god in government. It's on the same paper, bitch.
Polygamy? Sure, why not? Who would it hurt? You and your repressed, lock-step, Fundie buddies?
Good, let's add polygamy to the mix.
As for incest, if the parties are adults, and have made the decision as adults and are not under undue influence ... ie: brother and sister, first cousins (in some jurisdictions this is already allowed, BTW), step-siblings ... Sure. As long as they don't have kids, then it's their own choice. Sure the rest of the world may think they're mentally ill, but if they're happy, again (if there are no children) who does it hurt?
The only classes of people who deserve special protection under the law are the mentally ill and children.
Other than that, who gives a damn? We (the majority) might think that their choice is awfully weird, but so what?
Bottom line? Butt out of other people's lives you nasty busybody, and tend to your own business.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
