Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Homosexuality is a sexual preference. Once you open the gate, all sexual preferences should receive the same protection under the law. Right, wrong or indifferent.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Sorry, homosexuality is not a gender Tom.<< I never said it was. I'm looking at this from an equal protection perspective, and laws forbidding gay marriage focus entirely on the gender of the people involved.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Once you open the gate, all sexual preferences should receive the same protection under the law. Right, wrong or indifferent.<< But if marriage is the legal union of two adults, then things like polygamy and incest and pedophilia will still be illegal.
Originally Posted By patrickegan The same thing the majority in this county is. Still you would be imposing on them who they could and couldn’t marry even if they are consenting adults.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 >>But if marriage is the legal union of two adults, then things like polygamy and incest and pedophilia will still be illegal.<< Until someone practicing one of these sexual preferences wants to get married. If two individual with a homosexual sexual preference can get married, why can't Jim Bob and his sister Mary Jane? Why cant Harry and his dog Spot? Why can't Joe and his wifes Jen and Jerri? If that legal right to marry is given to homosexuals based on the premise that we cannot discriminate against sexual preference then you have NO legal choice but to give the right to any others based on sexual preference.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>If two individual with a homosexual sexual preference can get married, why can't Jim Bob and his sister Mary Jane? Why cant Harry and his dog Spot? Why can't Joe and his wifes Jen and Jerri? << Nothing would change in existing marriage laws except to apply them equally to all citizens regardless of gender. Read the marriage statutes and make them gender neutral so they apply equally, and you'll understand. >>If that legal right to marry is given to homosexuals based on the premise that we cannot discriminate against sexual preference << No no no - it's not a matter of discriminating based on sexual preference. It's a matter of discriminating based arbitrarily on what kind of genitals they have.
Originally Posted By cmpaley There are seven deadly sins, not 10: Pride Anger Lust Envy Gluttony Avarice Sloth
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Sorry Tom, that does not wash. The issue here is thier sexual preference. It has diddly/squat to do with gender. I have the feeling that we have two different paradigms of the same issue.
Originally Posted By patrickegan “Nothing would change in existing marriage laws except to apply them equally to all citizens regardless of gender.†It already does!
Originally Posted By barboy Wow, Disneyman 55 --your #104 has got to be the most "slippery sloped" argument I have ever read. once again folks the state(any public body or government) can and does limit or define permissible acts on every level. Just because a state may legalize same gender marriage, clearly and most definitely, does not mean that that same state has to legally make available the marriage to animals or multiple spouses.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>The issue here is thier sexual preference. It has diddly/squat to do with gender. << it has everything to do with gender. The law is supposed to apply equally to all citizens. Marriage laws that are written to exclude certain people based solely on their gender go against the 14th Amendment. There is nothing in the marriage laws that say that homosexuals can't marry people of the opposite sex - it isn't the sexual preference that is the issue, after all. It is simply the fact that one party has one type of genitals and the other party has a different type. It doesn't even matter if they love each other or if they are ever intending on having sex. Sexual preference is legally irrelevant in marriages.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>does not mean that that same state has to legally make available the marriage to animals or multiple spouses.<< Especially since those would not meet any gender-neutral definition of marriage.
Originally Posted By Tiggirl <<Sorry Tom, that does not wash. The issue here is thier sexual preference. It has diddly/squat to do with gender.>> I'm scratching my head with this one. I keep reading posts made that say basically there is no discrimination going on with denying homosexuals the right to marry people of the same gender. They have the right to marry people of the opposite sex just like anyone else does therefore there is no discrimination. Well if that's going to be used as an argument then Disneyman55's post makes no sense (I'm not saying you've used it as an argument. I can't really recall.) If the argument is "gay people can marry people of the opposite sex and therefore there is no discrimination" then how can it be said it has nothing to do with gender. It seems to me, based on that argument alone it has everything to do with gender.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder It also doesn't allow them to marry the person of their choice, either.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I think it boils down to some of us seeing people as people, and others seeing them as who they have sex with.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That may have been so, but the Lovings were charged with the section relating to the marriage of people of different races.> Regardless, the law in question prohibited cohabitation, and was not concerned with granting benefits. <Why would it be legal to grant something to one class of citizens but not another?> That's not what is happening here. The benefits of marriage are granted to certain heterosexual couples because it is to the advantage of society to encourage those types of unions. It is similar to how certain tax breaks are giving to qualifying taxpayers to encourage beneficial behavior.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Regardless, the law in question prohibited cohabitation, and was not concerned with granting benefits.<< The law in question said, "If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years." (Virginia code section 20-59, as cited in the Supreme Court decision) Where's the part about cohabitation?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>The benefits of marriage are granted to certain heterosexual couples because it is to the advantage of society to encourage those types of unions.<< What kind of an advantage does it give that gay marriage would not? What is the compelling interest to prohibit same-sex marriages?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Regardless, the law in question prohibited cohabitation, and was not concerned with granting benefits.<< Hang on - are you actually arguing that the Virginia law forbidding interracial marriage didn't have anything to do with the legal protections accorded to married couples? That it was only about who could live with who?
