Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
The issue being debated, allowing a man to marry another man or a woman a woman, is currently not a right afforded to ANYONE, regardless of race, gender, orientation etc.. Henceforth, denying gays and lesbians the "right" to marry a person of the same gender as themselves cannot be discriminatory, else it would have long been struck down by SCOTUS.
|
We are talking state constitutions here. Proposition 8 changed a state constitution. And actually, the right for gays to marry is afforded in several places. It will be afforded in more and more places.
Quote:
|
Marriage, itself, isn't a right (That includes both heterosexual and homosexual marriage). I believe I said in my first post on this thread. As marriage is not a right established anywhere in the Constitution, then how does the allowance or denial of a certain group of people to enter into a marriage either fall in line or conflict with the Constitution?
|
I don't know. Why don't you consult one of any of the number of state supreme court decisions which have affirmed that denying gays the right to marry is problematic. If it wasn't a constitutional issue, then why would proposition 8 need to change California's constitution?
Quote:
|
Banning divorce wouldn't make make marriage any more sacred. Remember, most people believe that marriage was created by God to between a man and a woman-- Nothing more and nothing less.
|
From what I can tell, most marriage vows use the term "forever". Marriages are essentially a way to formalize your eternal commitment to someone before god. Divorce cheapens marriage by turning each one of those promises into lies. Gay people just want that same opportunity to lie directly to god's face.
Quote:
|
All right. I'll bite. How so?
|
Because they all boil down to contrived justifications for being a busybody.
Let's play finish the sentence:
It's not that I hate gays, its that:
--marriage is only for reproduction, and gays can't reproduce
--my god thinks gays are sinners
--homosexuality is unnatural
--they never had the right in the first place, and don't deserve it now
--the definition of marriage is immutable, and has always been exactly the same as it is now
--allowing them to get married would cheapen the institution of marriage
--if we let them marry, then soon people are going to be marrying animals
These are all ridiculous, and that ridiculousness is easy to demonstrate for anyone to doesn't feel the need to rationalize their dislike of homosexuality.
All these justifications really do is serve as the spoonful of sugar that helps the bigotry go down.