Quote:
Originally Posted by IamAlejo
It doesn't MATTER if I want polygamists to have rights, it's whether they DESERVE rights UNDER THE LAW. That's the whole question to this. There are certainly people that don't want homosexuals to have rights, it's a matter of whether they deserve these rights under the law.
If someone asked me, "Why can't people choose who they want to marry?", I'd probably answer "It's not legal to do so."
You are bringing your personal opinions into a legal discussion.
And since you mentioned it....
"Because if you figure out what Marriage is, and by the by, let me know when you do, you'll agree that theres a sound case for homosexual marriage, and it doesn't hover in the gravity field of polygamy."
I have no idea what this means. It uses horrible English, horrible sentence structure, horrible grammar, and makes little to no sense. I'd love to hear what college you graduated from and what you studied, I don't believe it for a second.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
I didn't find that sentence hard to understand at all, and as far as I can tell the only thing that would need to be done to it to make it more grammatically correct would be to replace the first and third commas with em-dashes.
|
Right, or maybe some parentheticals. So for example...
"Because if you figure out what Marriage is (and by the by, let me know when you do) you'll agree that there's a sound case for homosexual marriage, and it doesn't hover in the gravity field of polygamy."
My comma's were admittedly incorrect. Though I can't imagine that a VT alumn such as yourself couldn't read comma's as a break.
As I read adidasss's comment, I think Alejo and I are arguing two different points. I could be wrong, but I believe he's talking about the court and their decision to uphold Proposition 8. As I stated earlier, I think the court made the correct decision in upholding the voter mandate. I also mentioned that if there was to be any animosity toward the outcome of Proposition 8, it ought to be toward the lack of voter participation in California. That outrage should be not just for California, but for the nation because of the far reaching ramifications it would have.
I think Alejo and I are on the same page with at least the court ruling.
What I've been arguing is the rationale behind the Proposition. Every time I've heard a conservative define it, they've said something like (as I said earlier) "Marriage is defined between a man and a woman."
This was said constantly at the first Republican Presidential Candidate debate. What I'm asking for clarification on is this; it seems as if their using the word marriage to define marriage.
I guess i'm having a hard time getting my point across, but the reason I was asking you (alejo) for a definition is because I don't know what the position of conservatives is.
If someone were to ask me what marriage was in a general sense, I'd say most people would think its
"The unity of two people in the eyes of God". I have no issue with that definition on its own, but I don't believe that should be the legal precedent on the books to restrict *** marriage.
I want to know if that's your definition, conservatives definition, if theres another one. That's what I've been trying to get at.