The use of the 14th Amendment by gays for gay marriage can't be used

[Ravi]

Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry for what ever reason they please.

Thats not the argument Ravi, gays don't believe bigamists, polygamists, and people incestuous relationships should be married but feel they should somehow have special consideration. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to them. Since a lesbian and a gay man can marry each other gays are not denied the right to marriage. Just like two siblings cannot marry, two people of the same gender cannot marry.

Bigamists and polygamists aren't two people.

Interesting that you know what gays think.

 

[Ravi]

Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry for what ever reason they please.

And if you can get 51% of the population to agree with you on that, that's the way it should be.

No. It doesn't matter what the population thinks when it comes to civil rights. Civil rights are not up for popular vote.

 

[pinqy]

It is about equal protection under the law, which means that in one same gender couple is denied a marriage license all same gender couples must be denied a marriage license, that would be equal. States laws say that two people of the gender cannot marry, they don't specifically state that homosexuals can't marry, so technically a gay man can marry a lesbian, this refutes the lie that homosexuals are denied the right to marry, they can marry, they just cannot marry a person of the same gender.

Yeah, that argument didn't work when it was used to defend the ban on inter-racial marriage...it hasn't become a better argument 50 years later.

State laws forbid fathers from marrying daughters, mothers from marrying son, siblings from marrying siblings, bigamy and polygamy, how are gays any better than those people?

There are specific reasons for banning incest and polygamy. There is a societal interest in not recognizing potentially abusive relationships and minimizing in-breeding (though states differ on their laws regarding 1st cousins). And since polygamy, as most commonly practiced, is an inherently unequal relationship, there is an interest in prohibiting it. No such reason exists for denying homosexuals marriage rights.

 

[Flaylo]

If you took a poll and asked every poster in this forum what "rights" that all Americans have its safe to sy you would get different answers.

 

[Flaylo]

Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry for what ever reason they please.

And if you can get 51% of the population to agree with you on that, that's the way it should be.

No. It doesn't matter what the population thinks when it comes to civil rights. Civil rights are not up for popular vote.

Find the law or Constitution that states gay marriage is a civil right or even a right at all and I'll the one that says blind people have a right to fly airplanes.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry for what ever reason they please.

And if you can get 51% of the population to agree with you on that, that's the way it should be.

There should be no need for this, it is a basic human right, something that is lost on many right wingers.

IT IS NOT A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT! I am going to stir the pot here IT IS A SIN!

 

[AmericanFirst]

Idiot!

 

[pinqy]

And if you can get 51% of the population to agree with you on that, that's the way it should be.

There should be no need for this, it is a basic human right, something that is lost on many right wingers.

IT IS NOT A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT! I am going to stir the pot here IT IS A SIN!

And where under US law is "SIN" defined. Many many marriages are sinful according to the Gospels. Most divorced people who remarry are committing adultery according to Jesus.

 

[Ravi]

And if you can get 51% of the population to agree with you on that, that's the way it should be.

No. It doesn't matter what the population thinks when it comes to civil rights. Civil rights are not up for popular vote.

Find the law or Constitution that states gay marriage is a civil right or even a right at all and I'll the one that says blind people have a right to fly airplanes.

Marriage is not a right granted in the constitution. But it is granted regardless. You cannot grant a right to one set of people and withhold it from another set of people.

 

[Flaylo]

No. It doesn't matter what the population thinks when it comes to civil rights. Civil rights are not up for popular vote.

Find the law or Constitution that states gay marriage is a civil right or even a right at all and I'll the one that says blind people have a right to fly airplanes.

Marriage is not a right granted in the constitution. But it is granted regardless. You cannot grant a right to one set of people and withhold it from another set of people.

By your reasoning the law cannot stop a blind person from wanting to fly a plane simply because he's blind, that would be granting a "right" to one set of people and witholding it from another set of people, gotcha Ravi.

 

[rightwinger]

I would love for you to go into any court in the land, even a conservative one and argue that gays rights are not violated because they are free to marry people of the opposite sex

 

[Flaylo]

The law states that adults under 21 but 18 and older cannot drink, funny how no would argue that this is violating the 14th Amendment.

 

[Seawytch]

Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry for what ever reason they please.

Thats not the argument Ravi, gays don't believe bigamists, polygamists, and people incestuous relationships should be married but feel they should somehow have special consideration. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to them. Since a lesbian and a gay man can marry each other gays are not denied the right to marriage. Just like two siblings cannot marry, two people of the same gender cannot marry.

How can you speak for gay people? This gay does believe that bigamists and polygamists should be legally married if they want to.

The government does not put limits on how many children people can have, why should it put limits on the number of spouses you can have?

Incest...well, that's a horse of a different color. An actual "societal harm" can be cited in allowing siblings to marry.

In order to keep legal, civil marriage from gays and lesbians, you are going to have to come up with a compelling state reason to deny them. You can't so you might as well get used to the idea now. It'll save you some stress when it happens in the next few years.

 

[Flaylo]

I would love for you to go into any court in the land, even a conservative one and argue that gays rights are not violated because they are free to marry people of the opposite sex

Marriage is not a right just like driving is not a right. My argument is that the 14th Amendment cannot be used by gays to make an argument, this has nothing to do with whether I believe they should marry or not.

 

[Ravi]

The law states that adults under 21 but 18 and older cannot drink, funny how no would argue that this is violating the 14th Amendment.

I would.

 

[Flaylo]

Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry for what ever reason they please.

Thats not the argument Ravi, gays don't believe bigamists, polygamists, and people incestuous relationships should be married but feel they should somehow have special consideration. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to them. Since a lesbian and a gay man can marry each other gays are not denied the right to marriage. Just like two siblings cannot marry, two people of the same gender cannot marry.

How can you speak for gay people? This gay does believe that bigamists and polygamists should be legally married if they want to.

The government does not put limits on how many children people can have, why should it put limits on the number of spouses you can have?

Incest...well, that's a horse of a different color. An actual "societal harm" can be cited in allowing siblings to marry.

In order to keep legal, civil marriage from gays and lesbians, you are going to have to come up with a compelling state reason to deny them. You can't so you might as well get used to the idea now. It'll save you some stress when it happens in the next few years.

Are you hard of reading? I said the 14th Amendment cannot be used by gays to make an argument for gay marriage because it doesn't apply.

 

[Flaylo]

The law states that adults under 21 but 18 and older cannot drink, funny how no would argue that this is violating the 14th Amendment.

I would.

And you would argue that a blind man has a "right" to drive under the 14th Amendment? Drinking and marriage are not rights.

 

[Seawytch]

And if you can get 51% of the population to agree with you on that, that's the way it should be.

There should be no need for this, it is a basic human right, something that is lost on many right wingers.

This is one of those things both Right and Left don't get.

As George Carlin once opined, there are no "rights". Any fool who thinks he has rights should look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942" on Wiki.

We don't have "rights". We have privilages the majority of our fellow citizens accept that we have, even begrudgingly. Get us scared enough or angry enough, and rights vanish pretty quickly for the people we are scared of.

When you get 51% to agree that gays should have the privilage to call their relationship a "marriage", then and only then should it happen. If you sneak it in through the courts, people will never accept it entirely. Look at Roe v. Wade as an example. People are still mad about that, even though legislatively, things were going in that direction, anyway.

Personally, I think that gays should be allowed to get married. But win that fight at the ballot box, not the court house.

Interracial marriage wasn't "won" at the ballot box, but in the courts...many, many, many years before it actually HAD majority support.

See where it wasn't until after 1990 that interracial marriage enjoyed majority support? Guess when anti miscegenation laws were struck down? I won't keep you guessing...it was 1967.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Find the law or Constitution that states gay marriage is a civil right or even a right at all and I'll the one that says blind people have a right to fly airplanes.

Are you of the opinion that unless something is specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution that it cannot be a right held by the people?

Find the law or Constitution that states gay marriage is a civil right or even a right at all and I'll the one that says blind people have a right to fly airplanes.

Marriage is not a right granted in the constitution. But it is granted regardless. You cannot grant a right to one set of people and withhold it from another set of people.

By your reasoning the law cannot stop a blind person from wanting to fly a plane simply because he's blind, that would be granting a "right" to one set of people and witholding it from another set of people, gotcha Ravi.

Your second paragraph is faulty reasoning and examples of both False Dichotomy and Reductio ad absurdum fallacies. What you leave out is the recognized concept that the removal of rights (in this case Due Process and Equal Treatment) are subject to the logical examination of a "compelling government interest".

For example the structure of your argument could be substituted to say that because of 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, a terrorist must be allowed to carry firearms into a shopping mall. The false dichotomy and reductio arguments show that as a true statement because they ignore the concept of compelling government interest. Same applied to the "blind pilot license" absurdity. There is a compelling government interst which overrides equal treatment in this case since a blind pilot presents a clear and present danger if operating an aircraft both to passengers and individuals on the ground and to the destruction of other peoples property.

On the other hand no one has yet provided a clear and concise compelling government interest as to why two similarly situated groups (those being same -sex law abiding, tax paying, consenting, non-related, infertile US Citizen, adults and different -sex law abiding, tax paying, consenting, non-related, infertile US Citizen, adults) because of their gender. Now many claim emotional reasons ("I don't like it", "its 'icky', ect...) and reasons based on the assumption that ones personal religious views should be forced on others (because the Bible condemns homosexuality it should be illegal under Civil/Criminal Law), but no non-emotoinal/non-religious arguments hold water.



>>>>

 

[Flaylo]

There should be no need for this, it is a basic human right, something that is lost on many right wingers.

This is one of those things both Right and Left don't get.

As George Carlin once opined, there are no "rights". Any fool who thinks he has rights should look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942" on Wiki.

We don't have "rights". We have privilages the majority of our fellow citizens accept that we have, even begrudgingly. Get us scared enough or angry enough, and rights vanish pretty quickly for the people we are scared of.

When you get 51% to agree that gays should have the privilage to call their relationship a "marriage", then and only then should it happen. If you sneak it in through the courts, people will never accept it entirely. Look at Roe v. Wade as an example. People are still mad about that, even though legislatively, things were going in that direction, anyway.

Personally, I think that gays should be allowed to get married. But win that fight at the ballot box, not the court house.

Interracial marriage wasn't "won" at the ballot box, but in the courts...many, many, many years before it actually HAD majority support.

See where it wasn't until after 1990 that interracial marriage enjoyed majority support? Guess when anti miscegenation laws were struck down? I won't keep you guessing...it was 1967.

What does any of this have to do with the 14th Amendment?