Gay And Interracial Marriage

[Winchester]

If there are no rules, then he can argue whatever he wants.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1282013185' post='2158653']
If there are no rules, then he can argue whatever he wants.
[/quote]


If there are now rules then he can't argue anything at all.


Which starts to bring Nietzschedoodles into the picture.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Hassan

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1282013185' post='2158653']
If there are no rules, then he can argue whatever he wants.
[/quote]

Finally, someone who gets it!


firstly, why cant you argue things using current law and precedence as a basis? Its kind of all that lawyers do, they would probably get payed a lot less if their arguments could be nullified in court by something as easy as "but that law isnt based on Judeo-christian moral teachings!"

Because when you are talking law, you are generally bound by the present law. Sure it could change a few weeks later, but they do not operate under the assumption that it will.

While i have been trying to argue a secular point of view, in truth I am not secular, nor do i think the legal system should be entirely so. It does have to be based off of morality, the big difficulty here is that i dont think the one you guys are operating under is entirely right.

Understandably, you disagree.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1282013767' post='2158659']
Finally, someone who gets it!


firstly, why cant you argue things using current law and precedence as a basis? Its kind of all that lawyers do, they would probably get payed a lot less if their arguments could be nullified in court by something as easy as "but that law isnt based on Judeo-christian moral teachings!"

Because when you are talking law, you are generally bound by the present law. Sure it could change a few weeks later, but they do not operate under the assumption that it will.

While i have been trying to argue a secular point of view, in truth I am not secular, nor do i think the legal system should be entirely so. It does have to be based off of morality, the big difficulty here is that i dont think the one you guys are operating under is entirely right.

Understandably, you disagree.
[/quote]
From a purely legal, non-religious standpoint, federal courts have no right to overturn the California law limiting legal marriage to a man and a woman, and redefine it to include same-sex couples.

The 10th Amendment makes this clear:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As the Constitution nowhere delegates to the United States the power to define marriages, this power is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The people and state of California already decided this matter, so the federal government has no legal right to butt in and overturn the state law.

[Winchester]

"You want your [s]highway money[/s] various grants, you fargon bastages?"

[MithLuin]

Homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder (not much different from pedophilia, to be honest) until the 1970s. That's pretty recent history we're talking about, to go from illegal, criminal, and mental to recognized and [i]protected[/i] by law less than 40 years later.

I can think of one incestuous couple who would like to get the ban on incest lifted. A full-blooded brother and sister in Germany want to get married (or, well, be able to live together without the man being imprisoned every time she has a baby). They've been living together for years, and have had four children together. They say that the taboo against incest is outdated and that they should have the right to marry like all other consenting adults [they were not raised together and met as adults]. Germany says 'tough potatoes' thus far, but who knows? Maybe the law will be changed. [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/27/germany.kateconnolly]story[/url]

The UK has likewise had to struggle with first cousin marriages among isolated immigrant communities resulting in higher than normal rates of genetic problems in children (specifically, 1/3 of children with genetic birth defects in the UK are of Pakistani origin, despite Pakistanis making up only 3% of the children born in the UK). First cousin marriages have not been banned, but a public information campaign about their risks [i]has[/i] been called for. [url=http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk/Call-to-discourage--.6168647.jp]article[/url]

Incest laws in the US are state-by-state. It is always legal to marry your second cousin. It is never legal to marry your sibling. (The line is drawn somewhere between the two.) Incest is not illegal in all nations. In Japan, for instance, incestuous marriages are prohibited, but incest itself is not criminal. [url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1577233721v0512/]Here[/url] is a journal article suggesting that mother-son incest might not be as bad as previously thought....

Just some food for thought.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1282080777' post='2159190']
From a purely legal, non-religious standpoint, federal courts have no right to overturn the California law limiting legal marriage to a man and a woman, and redefine it to include same-sex couples.

The 10th Amendment makes this clear:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As the Constitution nowhere delegates to the United States the power to define marriages, this power is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The people and state of California already decided this matter, so the federal government has no legal right to butt in and overturn the state law.
[/quote]


Before the Reconstruction Amendments, this would be true.

[dairygirl4u2c]

those who overwhelmingly say that states cannot ban interracial marriage... what is the legal basis for this?
equal protection amendment? isn't marriage not a right to be protected but something the state offers gratuitiously? that's actually a distinction in the law, right v. privilege, at least a few decades ago it worked.

if your argument is generally 'natural law', then what is hte point of the law, if every time you disagree per the natural law, you raise that instead? and doesn't the church teach to follow and abide by the state's law, as long as it doesn't cause you to sin? and if you were a lawyer or judge, you'd be required by the church to enforce laws that were against natural law? that's what many catholic legalists say. (prob parly cause otherwise they couldn't do their profession, very well, or get to points of any real power, cause they'd have long by then be kicked out.

Edited August 19, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dUSt]

Dairygirl, you confuse me.

I don't even know why gay and interracial marriage are even being compared. They are not even close.

A male German Shepard can make babies with a female Labrador Retriever, but two male German Shepards can't have babies. It's fairly easy to understand actually.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1282510091' post='2161592']
Dairygirl, you confuse me.
[/quote]
Congratulations, you are sane.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1282510091' post='2161592']
Dairygirl, you confuse me.

I don't even know why gay and interracial marriage are even being compared. They are not even close.

A male German Shepard can make babies with a female Labrador Retriever, but two male German Shepards can't have babies. It's fairly easy to understand actually.
[/quote]
Biology is discriminatory and homophobic, and ought to be revoked by power of federal courts.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1282510091' post='2161592']
A male German Shepard can make babies with a female Labrador Retriever, but two male German Shepards can't have babies. It's fairly easy to understand actually.
[/quote]
That's the best explanation I've ever seen.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1282588074' post='2162079']
That's the best explanation I've ever seen.
[/quote]


Not really. It rests on the belief that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation which is dUsts own personal religious belief which, when we're talking about civil marriage for people who don't share his faith, shouldn't come into the debate.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1283407093' post='2166819']
Not really. It rests on the belief that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation which is dUsts own personal religious belief which, when we're talking about civil marriage for people who don't share his faith, shouldn't come into the debate.
[/quote]
I share his religious belief. The problem is that the word marriage, which for a couple of millenniums was defined as a man and a woman, bonded for life, to produce children and provide the back bone of societies and civilizations, is being co-opted for things that have nothing to do with true marriage. Nothing new. Lots of words have been co-opted. Gay used to mean bright and festive. F@g used to mean a cigarette butt. AIDS used to be a diet aid chocolate that you ate before meals. Fat used to just mean being overweight.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1283441860' post='2166963']
I share his religious belief. The problem is that the word marriage, which for a couple of millenniums was defined as a man and a woman, bonded for life, to produce children and provide the back bone of societies and civilizations, is being co-opted for things that have nothing to do with true marriage. Nothing new. Lots of words have been co-opted. Gay used to mean bright and festive. F@g used to mean a cigarette butt. AIDS used to be a diet aid chocolate that you ate before meals. Fat used to just mean being overweight.
[/quote]

There are many societies where marriage has not meant "one man one woman".