But same sex marriage would destroy the institution
- Thread starter Socrtease
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
A black man still can't marry a black man. A white man still can't marry a white man. A black woman has never been able to marry a black or white woman, a white man has never been able to marry a white or black man. A gay man is not prohibited from marring a white or black woman, a gay woman is not prohibited from marrying a white or black man. No one is permitted to marry someone of the same sex, because that isn't marriage. This applies to everyone, regardless of their sexuality, straight people can't marry the same sex either. Nor can bisexuals, nor can homosexuals, nor can pedophiles, nor can necrophiliacs.
No, you haven't demonstrated where there is a discrimination. The law is applied equally to all people, regardless of their sexual behavior or preference. You can give all the examples you want, until you can show where the laws permit something for one group of people that they don't permit for another, you haven't shown discrimination.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Translation: you can't logically fault what I wrote, so you substitute your supposition and conjecture for the FACTS.
Bottom line: you accuse me of something that I did not state, and then insert a moot point as if it's a revelation. Maybe in your mind it is, but in the cold light of day it's not, and the chronology of the posts prove it.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
What did I state that was incorrect? Last time I checked, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GAY "RACE". Therefore, to equate the "gay rights" movement with the civil rights movement for black people is incorrect...because save for a minute part of the black population, the majority of black folk in America can be identified as such on sight.
The same cannot be said about gay folk UNLESS they dress and/or act a certain way. Period.
The "relevence" to the issue of this thread comes about because it's a "civil rights" issue. As I said before, I've got no problem with civil rights for all.....just knock off the erroneous exaggerations.
AND if we said that marriage is the union between two people of the same race, religion, caste, etc., it would apply to everyone equally. It is still discrimination. There is absolutely no difference and you have not articulated one.
Just as a requirement to marry within one's race, religion, caste, etc., would apply to all equally.
You are a chickenshit Dixie. You just keep repeating your assertion without dealing with the issue, that your requirement is no different than the criteria you called discriminatory.
What is incorrect is the implication that discrimination based on things that cannot be seen is somehow not discrimination or less discriminatory.
The same cannot be said about Catholics, rich, poor, etc.. So What?
There is no exaggeration. Discrimination is not dependent on visual cues.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
AND if we said that marriage is the union between two people of the same race, religion, caste, etc., it would apply to everyone equally. It is still discrimination. There is absolutely no difference and you have not articulated one.
But that would be a direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and therefore, discriminatory based on race. There is a huge difference, and I think I articulated it quite well, you just have trouble comprehending it.
No, it would discriminate based on race, religion and caste, and would not apply equally to all. If a black man wanted to marry a white woman and wasn't allowed to, it would violate his civil rights, because a white man would not be disallowed to marry a white woman. If straight people were being allowed to marry the same sex and homosexuals being denied that same privilege, you would have a legitimate complaint of discrimination.
I repeat it because you still haven't proven the charge of discrimination.
It's discriminatory with or without the CRA of 1964. This asinine response implies that discrimination only exists if the state says it does.
You have not articulated it at all. If there is a huge difference you should be able to give us some idea what that difference is. The various criteria you call discriminatory would apply to all equally, just as the criteria that all may only marry someone of the opposite sex.
This is exactly the same. A man is allowed to a marry a woman, but a woman is not. If it violates a black man's rights to be prohibited from marrying a white woman while a white man can marry a white woman (but not a black woman), then prohibiting a woman from marrying a woman while allowing a man to marry a woman, violates the woman's rights. The criteria would apply equally in all cases.
From the Loving ruling...
The State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so. Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages.
...
Your argument is not different than the one advanced by Virginia in Loving. It was rejected in that case and should be rejected here.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
MARRIAGE is not the union of same sex. It defies the meaning of the word and the purpose of the institution. You continue to falsely assert that marriage is something else, that it has been redefined, and it hasn't been. For all of America's existence and before, marriage is a largely religious tenant between a man and woman for the purpose of procreation.
You entire argument is based on absurdity. It's like me saying we can call cherries apples because they are both red! You are discriminating against the cherries because you won't acknowledge they are apples and should have the same consideration as apples! No matter how long you argue that absurdity, it is still and absurdity that ignores the fact of what an apple is, what makes an apple an apple and a cherry a cherry! You don't care, you just blindly keep harping on the injustice to the poor cherry! It's just STUPID!
There is NO DISCRIMINATION! Gay people have the exact same right to obtain a marriage license as every other person in America, they can't marry same-sex, but neither can straight people! There is nothing being offered or made available to heterosexuals, that isn't available to homosexuals under the exact same criteria, and to continue arguing there is, goes way beyond ridiculous.
You entire argument is based on absurdity. It's like me saying we can call cherries apples because they are both red! You are discriminating against the cherries because you won't acknowledge they are apples and should have the same consideration as apples! No matter how long you argue that absurdity, it is still and absurdity that ignores the fact of what an apple is, what makes an apple an apple and a cherry a cherry! You don't care, you just blindly keep harping on the injustice to the poor cherry! It's just STUPID!
There is NO DISCRIMINATION! Gay people have the exact same right to obtain a marriage license as every other person in America, they can't marry same-sex, but neither can straight people! There is nothing being offered or made available to heterosexuals, that isn't available to homosexuals under the exact same criteria, and to continue arguing there is, goes way beyond ridiculous.
Wrong. Religion does not own the marriage custom. It preexisted Christianity, Judaism or any recorded history.
It varies from culture to culture and attempts to limit it have changed. Marriage to minors was once common in Western Civilization. Arranged marriages were once the norm. Marriage was prohibited between members of different races, castes and religions as well as allowances for more than one spouse.
Marriage is not an unchanging practice that has gone unchanged since the dawn of man or religion.
The rest of your post is just you repeating evasive nonsense and failing to articulate why it is okay to place limits based on gender but not okay to place limits on race, religion or caste.
It's pointless to debate any further because you once again, display your lack of intellectual honesty or courage.
And again, this is EXACTLY the same argument advanced by the state of Virginia in the Loving case.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
And at one time the MAJORITY said that marriage was only to be recognized between two people of the same RACE.
Thankfully we became more intelligent and those in the MAJORITY were dragged kicking and screaming into the present, at that time.
This will be repeated, regarding same sex marriages, within your lifetime.
I just hope you won't suffer mentally from it.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
The next think Dixie is going to present will probably be along the lines that Gay's can just "jump the broom", instead of getting married.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
cancel2 2022
Canceled
North Carolina had an anti-miscegenation law until 1967. In that year, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them.
Last edited:
Wha? Now that isn't something I expected to hear from Taichiliberal.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I have to agree. Many of the arguments opposing interacial marriages are used to argue against gay marriage/civil unions. I am uncomfortable with that for obvious reasons.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Go to around 1:22 into the film.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIKz1phnuCc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIKz1phnuCc[/ame]
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
What is incorrect is the implication that discrimination based on things that cannot be seen is somehow not discrimination or less discriminatory.
That YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION....NOT WHAT I STATED. Again, I am not "implying" anything, I am stating a FACT that disproves one of the talking points of gay rights advocacy. Mind you, my statement DOES NOT condone bias against gay folk....but just because you correct some of the talking points doesn't automatically mean you are endorsing bias or all contrary viewpoints.
The same cannot be said about Catholics, rich, poor, etc.. So What?
So we're NOT talking about Catholics or rich or poor....we (or I, at least) are talking about the incorrect premise that the gay rights movement is totally on par with the black civil rights movement. It's not on one key aspect.....as I've pointed out and to date you cannot disprove or refute.
There is no exaggeration. Discrimination is not dependent on visual cues.
To implement discriminatory acts, you have to visual cues....and nothing is more visual than a black/brown/tan man with African features. A gay person can be identified by physical mannerisms/dress contrary to the gender....other than that, you don't know someone is gay unless they tell you.l
__________________
Support Liberty
Institute for Justice - Litigating for Liberty
Institute for Humane Studies - Assisting Students of Liberty
"From a libertarian point of view, you would say, 'Yeah? So what?' You have to believe in total equality. People should be able to be what they want to be and do what they want -- as long as they're not harming people." Clint Eastwood on same sex marriage