Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Hahahahahahahah.....  |
Laugh all you want. It doesn't change the fact of the matter.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hektore
No, it's not discriminatory because no one, black, white or otherwise, has the ability to enter into an inter-racial marriage. It's not inherently discriminatory against blacks.
Seriously, it's not discriminatory because whites can't use the blacks' fountains either...
|
Even though you tried, this argument ignores the fact that some group of men/women had the ability to marry another group of women/men they "loved" (I don't really want to use that word, but I will), respectively, while another group didn't. And unless there was a valid reason for denying the second group the same ability as the first, then the restrictions on the second group must have be inherently discriminatory. Indeed, since those restrictions were based on race-- Which is considered to be a fully protected class under the 14th Amendment-- Then those restrictions were discriminatory and, therefore, unconstitutional.
The entire problem with your argument is that you first assume marriage is a right; that sexuality is a class protected by the Constitution; and by denying gays the ability to enter in same-sex marriages that we're discriminating against gays, when we're not. A heterosexual looking to enter into a same-sex marriage will be denied the ability to do so just as a gay person looking to enter in a same-sex marriage will be denied the ability to do so. Yeah, scoff at that argument as you will, but this fact alone keeps it from being an issue of discrimination.
To claim discrimination, a subset of the population must first be allowed the ability to do something while another subset of the population restricted. If you don't have that to begin with, then there-- By definition and by law-- Cannot be discrimination. Gays aren't disallowed from marrying because they're gay. They're disallowed from entering into same-sex unions because they are not consisting of one man and one woman. And until you realize this, then your argument becomes, essentially, moot because you're arguing something which is simply untrue.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dippin
But interracial marriage laws never prevented anyone from marrying someone from the opposite gender. Everyone had the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, as long as they were of the same race. How is that any more or less discriminatory than bans on gay marriage? No one, black, white or Native American, had the right to marry someone of a different race, so it must not be discriminatory, following your logic.
|
See my response to Hektore.
Quote:
|
Im sorry, but this is basically an admission that you have no solid arguments that a marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman, and so to prevent it you must link it to other, more unpopular types of unions, with the only link again being that you have no solid arguments to oppose those either, so they must be related, and thus must be stopped.
|
You asked a question and I answered it. And, for the record, there's nothing wrong with there, either. Not only are slippery slopes not always a fallacy, but you're ignoring the fact that there's no reason the courts would have to determine one arbitrary distinction to be any more or less arbitrary than another distinction.
So let me ask you a question, specifically. Which is more arbitrary? Gender of the person you're looking to wed or the number of persons you're looking to wed. And why?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Derwood
I thought you weren't playing the semantics game.
And you STILL haven't quantified (outside of your slippery slope fallacy) why people shouldn't be allowed to marry someone of the same gender.
|
I'm going to reiterate this once more. A slippery slope is not always a fallacy. Understand? Just because you can throw out the term doesn't invalidate an argument.
But, anyway, it's not up to me to prove why same-sex marriage should be illegal, but you to show why it should be legal, since it is you who is trying to change the proverbial status quo. And, so far, the only reason you seem to have is "Because heterosexuals can get married!" which kinda' ignores the fact that gays can get married to-- Just not in the way they'd most like :P