Oh yay, another political thread! (Prop 8, gay marriage stuff)

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

I'm not equating the ethics and biology of the two of them at all, I'm equating their status under the law. He stated that it is fine to not have polygamy because it is equal under the law in the sense that no one else is allowed to do it. If that's the case, the same argument can be made for homosexuals in that no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex under the law. Ta da, equal.

And I'd be very careful with how you define a "biological condition"...what exactly is the sex drive?

Uh to continue with this train of terrible logic your point is still moot. Some people are allowed same-sex marriage under the law (see a few states, Canada, and so on.) No one in the United States is allowed to married to multiple partners at once but you can go to Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut and Iowa if you want same-sex marriage. So no you aren't all equal as United States citizens right now.

I don't really see what's wrong with me referring to homosexuality as a biological condition. I've never met a homosexuality who said they were born straight and decided to switch later, so I would consider it something you're born with (which is the basic definition for biological condition. I know sexuality has more to do with psychology than genetics but I don't really care unless you want to argue semantics.) I don't consider polygamy/monogamy to be as innate as that. They're more something of social construct and societal expectations.

Originally Posted by JayJamJah

I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage at all. It should be up to the church or individuals who gets married to who.

Why do I care if someone Marry's a man, woman, 10 men and 12 woman or a herd of cattle. There is no law that says I can't call them a crazy fucking asshole.

Zoophilia should remain illegal in all circumstances. Animals can't give consent.

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

Uh to continue with this train of terrible logic your point is still moot. Some people are allowed same-sex marriage under the law (see a few states, Canada, and so on.) No one in the United States is allowed to married to multiple partners at once but you can go to Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut and Iowa if you want same-sex marriage. So no you aren't all equal as United States citizens right now.

WTF does Canada have to do with anything? And you are missing the point completely. If the Supreme Court ruled that the states who have same-sex marriage are no longer allowed to, then would all things be considered equal? As said, no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. By the definition stated, that is equal, correct?

I don't really see what's wrong with me referring to homosexuality as a biological condition. I've never met a homosexuality who said they were born straight and decided to switch later, so I would consider it something you're born with (which is the basic definition for biological condition. I know sexuality has more to do with psychology than genetics but I don't really care unless you want to argue semantics.)

Right, I'm saying it's quite easy to have an argument that polygamy is biological.

[TheBig3]

The equality arguments weren't cutting it, but saying "Polygamy would be redrafting the rules, so *** can get married" works better?

The only reason Polygamy is involved is because it also isn't legal. But theres no other relationship between homosexuality and polygamy.

If you ever ask a opponent of *** marriage what the definition of marriage is they gerenally say "its defined as being between a man and a woman."

If that all that it is, then homosexual couples couldn't be definition. But that isn't even a complete sentence and there are terrible amounts of legal rammifictions that come with marriage.

The reason they short the definition is because they don't know. If the question was asked this way, "should anyone be denied the right, by the federal government to give their money to who they want when they die? Should the government be allowed to deny who makes their medicial decisions should they no longer be able to?"

if they equality argument isn't cutting it, then you're in favor of the Fed picking a choosing who can do what. And its inherently against everything the country, and certainly conservatives are vying for.

I can't pretend to know what the homosexual community is feeling about the word "marriage" being attached, I just don't know. But there are some school desks down in Kansas that say it can't be any other way. Theres a train car in the deep south that says unless its marriage, it isn't anything.

We are talking about equality here, under the law. If the laws of this country are as fickle as some would like them to be, why don't we just go back to Hammurabis law. Why don't we start breaking everything back down.

We're trying to better hold up ideals of the Constitution. That there aren't special privlages for some. That there are no second class citizens. I'm not going to tell you which side you should be falling on, its your decision. But in the end we're going in on direction or another. But i'd rather be with New England on this one than Saudi Arabia.

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

WTF does Canada have to do with anything? And you are missing the point completely. If the Supreme Court ruled that the states who have same-sex marriage are no longer allowed to, then would all things be considered equal? As said, no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. By the definition stated, that is equal, correct?

No that isn't equality because it's terrible logic. You're saying that if the Supreme Court banned same-sex marriage completely (which would be unconstitutional so I have no idea why they would) then we'd all be equal because no one could get same-sex marriage. One of your premises in statement is that heterosexuality is somehow more right than homosexuality and there's no way you can prove that through any sort of logical or rationalization.

[adidasss]

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

The equality arguments weren't cutting it, but saying "Polygamy would be redrafting the rules, so *** can get married" works better?

Yes, from a legal standpoint, that makes a world of difference. One is easily doable without turning the whole institution on its head, the other isn't. That makes for a reasonable state interest for continuing to ban polygamist marriages.

The only reason Polygamy is involved is because it also isn't legal. But theres no other relationship between homosexuality and polygamy.

The connection is that these two groups of people are being denied the right to have their relationships officially recognized. If we're going by the argument that everyone has a right to marry whomever one wishes, there's no philosophical argument to make against polygamist relationships. But again, there are legal and other practical issues which I've stated above which make the issue more complicated.

The rest of your post made no sense. Do you have dyslexia perchance?

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

No that isn't equality because it's terrible logic. You're saying that if the Supreme Court banned same-sex marriage completely (which would be unconstitutional so I have no idea why they would) then we'd all be equal because no one could get same-sex marriage. One of your premises in statement is that heterosexuality is somehow more right than homosexuality and there's no way you can prove that through any sort of logical or rationalization.

No that's not a premise at all. You are completely missing the point of this and it's not that difficult to grasp. I'm judging this from a completely legal standpoint, which is how the courts should judge it.

Definition: Equality before the law or equality under the law or legal egalitarianism is the principle under which each individual is subject to the same laws, with no individual or group having special legal privileges.

With that out the way and *** marriage being illegal, it is still equal under the law. Each individual is subject to the same laws. No one is allowed to be married to a person of the same sex, no one is allowed to marry someone underage, no one is allowed to marry multiple persons. That is EQUAL by the definition put forward.

You seem to be arguing that a certain group of people are not equal because who they WISH to be married to is not allowed by the set laws, then that argument can be made. But both polygamists and homosexuals fall under that definition. As stated, a polygamist would still not be allowed to marry who they WISH to be married to. If you are going to allow people to marry who they wish, all should be allowed that right so we are equal under the law.

[TheBig3]

Originally Posted by adidasss

The rest of your post made no sense. Do you have dyslexia perchance?

I'm translating it from Spanish, and I don't know how to bring it into "cunt" yet.

Also, I think you're a moron and you have zero idea how the legal process works.

[TheBig3]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

You seem to be arguing that a certain group of people are not equal because who they WISH to be married to is not allowed by the set laws, then that argument can be made. But both polygamists and homosexuals fall under that definition. As stated, a polygamist would still not be allowed to marry who they WISH to be married to. If you are going to allow people to marry who they wish, all should be allowed that right so we are equal under the law.

If Ethan is making that assertion, then he's the only one (on these boards) making this assertion.

I'd ask again, what does Marriage mean? Because its blanket under your view of the law, but not all views. Again, we'd have to agree on what marriage is.

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

If Ethan is making that assertion, then he's the only one (on these boards) making this assertion.

I'd ask again, what does Marriage mean? Because its blanket under your view of the law, but not all views. Again, we'd have to agree on what marriage is.

Under California state law, marriage is considered a bond between a man and a woman. I'm not sure what else matters.

[TheBig3]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Under California state law, marriage is considered a bond between a man and a woman. I'm not sure what else matters.

The rest of the definition. So Marriage is the same as a large roll of duct tape?

The "bond" issue is what I need defined.