North Carolina Anti-gay marriage ammendment 1 written to protect "caucasians" only

[MobBoss]

Originally Posted by holy king

the question wasnt wether it's stupid or intelligent, the question was whether it's discrimination or not discrimination.

you simply didnt answer the question.

Not all discrimination is illegal, nor illegitimate.

But for all that, I could make a perfectly legitimate argument for why its not discrimination; but you wouldnt agree with it anyway, so whats the point?

[holy king]

Originally Posted by CELTICEMPIRE

It's not discrimination.

it's ok, you stay in the debate fight for another round without being knocked out.

but please do yourself a favour and think about the quesiton for yourself. whether you, as a straight male would feel discriminated against in such a society.

you dont have to admit to anything on here.

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Originally Posted by holy king

it's ok, you stay in the debate fight for another round without being knocked out.

but please do yourself a favour and think about the quesiton for yourself. whether you, as a straight male would feel discriminated against in such a society.

you dont have to admit to anything on here.

No, I would just think that the laws were retarded.

[Arakhor]

Originally Posted by CELTICEMPIRE

Of course it's not discrimination, it's sheer idiocy! If I lived in one of those societies I would leave and move to a more sane place. I would then sit back and watch the country fail.

Originally Posted by CELTICEMPIRE

... I would just think that the laws were retarded.

Then you might start to have even the merest grasp of why others oppose such measures and why you can't simply defend the opposite position by claiming Biblical privilege or 'natural law'.

[GhostWriter16]

Its not disengenuous. The vast, vast, VAST majority of people, Christians even, would never want to see someone denied hospital visitation for someone they love. Its cruel.

Heck, why is hospital visitation even tied to marriage anyway?* If you want your girlfriend, boyfriend, sister, brother, parents, whatever, what does hopsital visitation rights even really have to do with marriage anyway?


*If its going to be, yes, I think whatever civil union is given should be covered by it, I just don't see why it is tied to marriage.

Now, if you want to over-hype the WBC idiots of the world, and vastly over-estimate the number of people who think such a thing, be my guest.

Actually, worldwide there are probably lots of people like that, such as Islamic countries, the majority of Africa, those types of places. In the WESTERN world there's very few people like that

Originally Posted by IdiotsOpposite

Some people support civil unions. I disagree with them but I don't mind them THAT much. It's the people who are against even a civil union for gay people that are truly offensive.

That's more or less my position, if I really have one beyond "Federalism!"

@Arakhor- That depends what rights we're talking about. The reason tax breaks, for instance, were allowed was so that they could more easily take care of kids. Hospital visitations I agree with the consensus that denying that is retarded, adoption is a deeper question than anything having to do with marriage, and I'm not sure of the other details.

[madviking]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Excuse me, but last time I checked, I've seen the term "right to marry" thrown about in this conversation. Until we establish that marriage is a basic human right, then we'll need to clarify that statement.

Your "woooooosh" is ironically well-placed as an introduction to your message.

I'm trying to provide an argument without resorting to a dubious 'right to marriage' claim.

Let's try this again, in more organized fashion.

#1: Modern, secular government should not resort to religion to settle arguments. (Torcaso v. Watkins)
#2: Excluding incest and the like, the government has no business interfering with social relationships. (Loving v. Virginia)
#3: Homosexual and heterosexual relationships should be both viewed by the government as neither positive or negative.
#4: Without a compelling reason to introduce a hierarchy of social relationships, this neutrality of relationships should remain in place; equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
#5: Marriage offers desirable benefits sought by both homosexuals and heterosexuals*.
#6: Separate but equal is inherently unequal (Brown v. Board of Education)
Conclusion: Same-sex marriage should be put on the same grounds as heterosexual marriage, that off legality.

* Note: this is not a right to marriage argument. This is an argument which makes the case that any desirable, secular social construct should be available to all due to its desirable benefits by all who seek them.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by madviking

I'm trying to provide an argument without resorting to a dubious 'right to marriage' claim.

Let's try this again, in more organized fashion.

#1: Modern, secular government should not resort to religion to settle arguments. (Torcaso v. Watkins)
#2: Excluding incest and the like, the government has no business interfering with social relationships. (Loving v. Virginia)
#3: Homosexual and heterosexual relationships should be both viewed by the government as neither positive or negative.
#4: Without a compelling reason to introduce a hierarchy of social relationships, this neutrality of relationships should remain in place; equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
#5: Marriage offers desirable benefits sought by both homosexuals and heterosexuals*.
#6: Separate but equal is inherently unequal (Brown v. Board of Education)
Conclusion: Same-sex marriage should be put on the same grounds as heterosexual marriage, that off legality.

* Note: this is not a right to marriage argument. This is an argument which makes the case that any desirable, secular social construct should be available to all due to its desirable benefits by all who seek them.

This is a beautiful collection of information here. Thanks!

As such, it seems that, while a "right to marry" isn't quite a guaranteed unalienable right, the legality of it is still protected by other overlapping ideas. I myself was putting the "right to marriage" under an extension of the right to liberty in the US legal tradition. It seems to be the case, as the examples you list mainly pertain to a person's liberty.

Thanks again!

[MobBoss]

Originally Posted by madviking

I'm trying to provide an argument without resorting to a dubious 'right to marriage' claim.

Let's try this again, in more organized fashion.

#1: Modern, secular government should not resort to religion to settle arguments. (Torcaso v. Watkins)

Its not.

#2: Excluding incest and the like, the government has no business interfering with social relationships. (Loving v. Virginia)

Why exclude incest if your going to allow gay marriage (or other forms of marriage)? Under equal protection shouldnt incestuous relationships be protected as well if that door is flung wide open?

#3: Homosexual and heterosexual relationships should be both viewed by the government as neither positive or negative.

I dont think the government should have a view of either positive or negative. Thats not the point of government.

#4: Without a compelling reason to introduce a hierarchy of social relationships, this neutrality of relationships should remain in place; equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

If it aint broke, dont fix it.

#5: Marriage offers desirable benefits sought by both homosexuals and heterosexuals*.

Debateable by many. However, state legislation has closed the gap on this considerably, and at the very least such benefits issues can indeed be addressed without changing the definition of marriage at all.

#6: Separate but equal is inherently unequal (Brown v. Board of Education)
Conclusion: Same-sex marriage should be put on the same grounds as heterosexual marriage, that off legality.

Brown was in regards to racial issues, not sexual preference.

[Formaldehyde]

Nobody is "changing the definition of marriage". They are merely extending it so that it includes those who have been deliberately discriminated against.

[vypernight]

Incest is consentual so I see no problem with it. Heck, half the states that ban same-sex marriage condone it!

[Arakhor]

That really wasn't a very good post, Mobboss, especially your comment about not fixing a potential breach of the 14th Amendment.

The problem with incest of course is that any children from such a union are highly likely to suffer long-term genetic damage, which shouldn't be wished on anyone.

[madviking]

Originally Posted by MobBoss

Why exclude incest if your going to allow gay marriage (or other forms of marriage)? Under equal protection shouldnt incestuous relationships be protected as well if that door is flung wide open?

I was taking a more moderate position. There are legitimate health concerns with incest (sterility, mental retardation, etc.) which are not present with SSM. I could very easily take a position closer to vyper's and the argument will still work.

If it aint broke, dont fix it.

Wow. Are you really just going to remain THIS acquiescent to people's rights being infringed upon? I am absolutely appalled. You lost any credibility you had left.

Debateable by many. However, state legislation has closed the gap on this considerably, and at the very least such benefits issues can indeed be addressed without changing the definition of marriage at all.

As long as there are tax benefits, you cannot, in good faith, (which you seem to lack by your previously quoted comment) deny certain people the ability to gain these benefits if your only argument is to "protect" marriage.

Brown was in regards to racial issues, not sexual preference.

So? It is an outdated belief to think that sexual groups (homosexual, heterosexual, etc.) are at all any different, in terms of a demographic group, than a racial group. Thus, any protections that are extended to racial groups necessarily extend to sexual groups.

Regardless, you're going my ignore list.

[Ayn Rand]

Originally Posted by madviking

I was taking a more moderate position. There are legitimate health concerns with incest (sterility, mental retardation, etc.) which are not present with SSM.

What about same-sex incest? No retarded offspring there, so surely no objection?

[madviking]

Originally Posted by Ayn Rand

What about same-sex incest? No retarded offspring there, so surely no objection?

Whatever suits you, man.

[MobBoss]

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Nobody is "changing the definition of marriage". They are merely extending it so that it includes those who have been deliberately discriminated against.

It already included them. But seriously, how can 'expanding' not be considered 'changing'. Thats changing it by the very definition of the word!

[MobBoss]

Originally Posted by madviking

I was taking a more moderate position. There are legitimate health concerns with incest (sterility, mental retardation, etc.) which are not present with SSM. I could very easily take a position closer to vyper's and the argument will still work.

What health concerns. Who says an incentuous marriage has to have children?

And for that matter, there are also health concerns with SSM. Why excuse them, while damning such concerns for incest?

Your argument is quite inconsistent.

Wow. Are you really just going to remain THIS acquiescent to people's rights being infringed upon? I am absolutely appalled. You lost any credibility you had left.

What makes you think I care about what you think of me regarding 'credibility'?

As long as there are tax benefits, you cannot, in good faith, (which you seem to lack by your previously quoted comment) deny certain people the ability to gain these benefits if your only argument is to "protect" marriage.

As I've said, we can equal that playing field without redefining marriage. Hell, some decades ago, there used to be a tax 'penalty' for being married, so its not like the tax code cant be changed.

Regardless, you're going my ignore list.

Rofl.

[Arakhor]

Well, you don't ban marriage altogether because all sexual relations carry a health risk, do you?

[Ajidica]

And for that matter, there are also health concerns with SSM. Why excuse them, while damning such concerns for incest?

Incest that can result in someone getting pregnant can lead to problems with the kid. Heath concerns with SSM are entirely between two consenting individuals. The health problems for the incest baby are obviously not consented to.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Ajidica

Incest that can result in someone getting pregnant can lead to problems with the kid. Heath concerns with SSM are entirely between two consenting individuals. The health problems for the incest baby are obviously not consented to.

Why not abort the baby then?

[Arakhor]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Why not abort the baby then?

That's not a whole new can of worms, is it?