Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 04:15:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2792 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
Subjugating citizens to a second-class status,
|
Say again? Cites, please.
Which RIGHTS? Cites, please.
|
I’ll cite the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. You even know the
amendment... it’s the one that discusses the right of citizens to associate
(or not) as they choose.
|
You are deliberately misinterpreting the Bill of Rights. Of course that
Amendment had nothing to do with the concept of marriage.
| |
Then I’ll cite contract law in general. People can enter into (or not enter
into) contracts as they like. (it’s based on that plank in the Bill of
Rights, above)
|
The definition of marriage is the union of one man and one women. NO gay
person is excluded from entering into this contract.
| |
Then I’ll cite the Equal Protection Clause. Government does not have, in
principle, the right to discriminate against a class of citizens on the basis
of their choice of association or contract or belief or creed.
|
Again, any man and any women is free to marry.
| |
Then I’ll cite Separation of Church and State. Government does not have, in
principle, the right to enshrine one particular type of ceremony over others.
|
But governments are of the people, for the people, and by the people. They
should have the right to determine how government shall act.
| |
Finally, I’ll cite the proposed Defense of Marriage Amendment itself. This
proposed amendment, prima facie, proves that discrimination against those who
espouse other relationships than your particular favorite, is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. For, after all, if it WERE, no amendment would be required
(as proof I remind you of the 16th... prior to its adoption, income tax WAS
unconstitutional)
|
No. You are wrong. Marriage has a specific definition. Go look it up. The
proposed Defense of Marriage Amendment simply seeks to preserve the definition
of marriage, so that it can’t be debased. I’m sorry, it is what it is (until
someone changes it, and most people don’t want to do that)
| |
You’re left with nothing but utilitarian arguments, because on a rights
basis, you’re shredded.
And as far as utilitarian arguments, even if we grant they are a way to
argue, you’re pretty much washed up too.
|
Okay, here’s a utilitarian argument: If the definition of marriage is changed,
then what does it become, and how is any definition (which, uh, by definition,
limits the scope of the concept) justifiable?
If you change the definition of marriage to anything else, pandora’s box is
opened and the institution ceases to exist, period. What good does that serve?
This is a culture war, and I plan to do anything but!
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| I have to admit, being a Massachusetts-ite, this subject line piqued my interest. Pardon while I crash the party... (...) Doesn't it though? I think Larry quoted the rights quite accurately. But you can get more specific than that if you're (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Gay Marriage
|
| (...) I'll cite the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. You even know the amendment... it's the one that discusses the right of citizens to associate (or not) as they choose. Then I'll cite contract law in general. People can enter into (or not (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
