Prop 8 Oral Arguments and Predictions

Dixie said:
No, it would be impossible to adhere to and still have marriage. Aside from maybe the Jewish people, there aren't any "pure" races anymore. I don't even know if most Jewish people are pure. The idea of "race" is antiquated anyway, it comes from an era where men determined statuses based on false beliefs and perceptions of people who weren't the same. We know better than that now, we realize that for the most part, there really aren't any pure races, and we're all part of the HUMAN race.

The constant comparing of interracial marriage to what you are wanting to do, is a straw man and red herring, both at the same time... it's a Straw Herring! It's designed and intended to play into the meme that this is an "equality" issue, when it's simply NOT! Don't give a damn how many pink equal signs on red backgrounds are out there on Facebook, it's still not about "equality."

Gay people have the same equal right to MARRY someone, as everyone else has. But to MARRY is to join in union with the opposite sex. A same-sex union is NOT MARRIAGE! You want to redefine "marriage" to include this, and that is why it's just not an issue of "equality."
Click to expand...

Black people had the same equal right to MARRY someone, as everyone else has. But to MARRY is to join in union with the same race. An interracial union is NOT MARRIAGE! You want to redefine "marriage" to include this, and that is why it's just not an issue of "equality."
 
WinterBorn said:
Black people had the same equal right to MARRY someone, as everyone else has. But to MARRY is to join in union with the same race. An interracial union is NOT MARRIAGE! You want to redefine "marriage" to include this, and that is why it's just not an issue of "equality."
Click to expand...

Again, not it's not. To marry, is to join together with a person of the opposite sex. It's almost impossible to marry someone with your exact same racial makeup. Virtually ALL marriages are "interracial" because it's almost impossible for them not to be. I'm part Native American, part Asian, part Creole, so all I'd need to do is find a nice Asian-Creole Indian girl to marry!

Now what you are doing is, you are substituting "interracial" for "gay" and trying to preset the same argument, but the argument is not the same, because there is no such thing as "gay marriage" unless it's a gay male and female who get married. I'm all for that, gay people shouldn't be prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite sex, just because they are gay. If any place has such a law, I am staunchly opposed to that.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
So you are an expert on the definition of marriage but unclear on what you clearly indicated here.

Your reasoning has nothing to do with what was used in Loving or the law. You don't bother considering the opinions of others not even those who have shaped the laws. You just make it all up as you go. That's why your opinions are without any value and will never win.
Click to expand...

I didn't present the legal case for why bans on interracial marriages were struck down. That's what you seem to be having trouble comprehending. I made a distinction as to why the arguments are not the same. Bans on interracial marriage unfairly discriminated based on race, bans on "gay marriage" do not, they simply ban something that isn't marriage from being called a marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top