Posted on 07/18/2003 10:12:51 PM PDT by new cruelty
As for men marrying men, heterosexual men can't marry men either. So, the law seems completely fair on this issue.
Wow, it only required getting to the second sentence to jump into the low end of the feminazi intellectual pool. I can only guess that since marriage is based on male property rights and commerce those countries / cultures that do not recongize property rights don't have married people?
Look at # 39 or click on my name for my FR homepage...
I want to cram the "separation of church and state" argument right back down the Leftists throats...
Wow, that's some concession. And proponents of gay marriage are willing to concede that heterosexuals have every right to marry someone of the same sex. Is that of any consequence to you? If not, the point is moot. Just as it's moot (not to mention transparently disingenuous) to say that homosexuals may marry someone of the opposite sex.
Suddenly, one of them takes ill with leukemia.
Suddenly, the judgmental parents of the ill person show up, and prohibit any contact from their child's life partner, and take out a restraining order.
What legal recourse does that person have?
In most statest, a "living will" and some releases on file with your personal physician(s) will completely handle this situation. If the two people in question are indeed that committed to each other, they would probably take the time and effort to make the appropriate arrangements beforehand. If there is serious mistrust between the individual who becomes ill and the "judgmental parents," it's often possible to keep the parents out of the medical decision making process and delegate those decisions entirelly to your "life partner" or your physician or other person(s) of your choosing.
In short, your example is an extremely weak case for marriage between gay persons of the same sex. The laws and procedures on the books already in most states will handle this tragic situation.
If we passed a law prohibiting bar mitzvahs, would that be discriminatory? It would preclude Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists all from celebrating a bar mitzvah. That law seems completely fair according to your reasoning.
You might have better luck with an argument that's not completely circular logic.
Perhaps it's you who aren't so familiar with circular logic if you can't see it.
You're arguing that gays can't get married, ostensibly because the law only allows marriage between a man and a woman.
Well, if the law is changed to allow marriage between two people of the same sex they could.
Well, but the law doesn't say that.
Yes, I know but it could.
But marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Yes, but... nevermind.
Circular logic.
Exactly!
You're not about to address the analogy, are you?I'm sorry. I see no analogy.
Your hypothetical law prohibiting bah mitzvahs is a blatantly unconstitutional law against one particular religious ritual that is performed by members of one particular religion.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The state confers certain rights and privileges on such a union. If you want those rights and privileges, find someone you can form such a union with and you will qualify for those rights and privileges. There is no requirement for people to get married. Many people live their entire lives and don't get married. You don't have a "right" to a marriage. If you wish to have a marriage, the rules and requirements are quite simple. If you don't want to follow those rules and requirements, don't get married. What's so hard about that?
An analogy to this would be if we had a law protecting Muslims and Catholics and other non-Jews that said that everyone is eligible for a bah mitzvah, and they don't have to observe any part of the Jewish faith to have a bah mitzvah and to get all the privileges and benefits that go with a bah mitzvah.
Suddenly, one of them takes ill with leukemia.
Suddenly, the judgmental parents of the ill person show up, and prohibit any contact from their child's life partner, and take out a restraining order.
What legal recourse does that person have?
None whatsoever.
Is that right? Is that fair?
Yep. Fact is, a person's lover is not entitled to anything unless that person specifically includes that lover.
For example, unless Joe provides a will that comes right out and says my lover John or Jill gets this, John or Jill, by law, gets nothing. And that is the way it should be.
And by the way, spare us this "life partner" crap. It is boyfriend, girlfriend or lover. When you marry, it is husband or wife. End of discussion.
Willfully blind. Try pondering this phrase: Disparate impact.
A law against bar mitzvahs has a disparate impact against Jews since ostensibly they're the only ones wishing to participate in a bar mitzvah. Laws against gay marriage have a disparate impact against gays since ostensibly they're the only ones who would wish to enter a gay marriage.
Just FYI, I'm not in favor of gay marriage. But I'm not about to intransigently cling to ridiculous sophistry to make my case against it. I think there are better arguments than speciously (and flippantly in my opinion) offering that gays can simply marry someone of the opposite sex.
That does nothing to lend you credibility. It only makes you look like a domineering curmudgeon.
Bigamy? Adult-child unions? I'm not being facetious.
Ever hear of the Mormon Church? Biggest misogynist sect to ever be created. Reading the Book Of Mormon is like listening to Cheech and Chong while YOU'RE stoned. It would be hilarious if it wasn't taken as "truth" by so many. That is something of which to be frightened. Someday the Hispanics and their breeding program and the Mormans and their breeding program will clash (I think it will be around 2076). I am happy I won't be there for that.
Conservatives fear a deterioration of their traditional values and a precipitous decay of morals that will inevitably plummet down the slippery slope toward pedophilia.
That slippery slope has been traversed. I don't have the numbers handy, but (Catholic Priest jokes aside), most pedophelia is already perpetrated by gays.
Church and state were separated for a reason: to respect all religions and lifestyles, not just the dominant one.
This is, if course, the big weakness in the entire article -- and as a result the entire argument falls. If I claim to be a Satan Worshipper, that is OK. If I claim to be a Satan Worshipper that requires a live sarifice (Animal=misdemeanor, Human=Felony) this arguments says, "that is OK."
Respect does not equal subsidy (which is what they want). They can do whatever they want. I hope the gay community is willing to do without my enforced subsidy of the punblic health menace of AIDS, which is, for the most part, a lifestyle disease bred in their community.
What a bunch of idiots we are if we let 6% (that is the accurate number -- not 10% like their PR says) cost us billions in $$ and God knows how much political capital and energy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.