Current laws against SSM are not unequal? Sure...
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:09:17 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Current laws against SSM are not unequal? Sure...
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Current laws against SSM are not unequal? Sure...  (Read 2967 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 16, 2014, 09:41:48 AM »

I thought I'd seen some rather convoluted arguments in the SSM debate, but this one from the letters to the editor of the local newspaper Monday has to take the cake.
http://www.thestate.com/2014/09/15/3677195/monday-letters-gay-marriage-a.html
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Let the laughter commence, and rightly so.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,620
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2014, 10:07:04 AM »

I thought that argument was discredited back in the days of Loving v. Virginia.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2014, 10:26:34 AM »

Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2014, 10:36:06 AM »

That's up there with "gay men have the same right as straight men to marry the woman of their choice."

I do not miss the arguments of the 90s and early 2000s.
Logged
emailking
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,972
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2014, 11:32:18 AM »

Yeah that's pretty pathetic.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2014, 01:46:51 PM »

It's literally the exact same "logic" people used against legalizing inter-racial marriage. "You still have equal rights: The right to marry anyone from your race!"
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2014, 03:02:20 PM »

It's literally the exact same "logic" people used against legalizing inter-racial marriage. "You still have equal rights: The right to marry anyone from your race!"

Actually, it's worse than that.  It would be as if one argued back then that restricting interracial marriage is all right is acceptable if all races are affected, but that for instance a law that only banned whites from marrying non-whites while allowing people from different non-white races to marry would be wrong.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,471
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2014, 03:51:33 PM »

Pretty stupid indeed. 
Logged
Consciously Unconscious
Liberty Republican
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,453
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2014, 03:55:44 PM »

Behold the average upstate resident. 
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2014, 08:22:54 PM »

That's up there with "gay men have the same right as straight men to marry the woman of their choice."

I do not miss the arguments of the 90s and early 2000s.

I was going to say that the argument made by Mr. Gosnell of Spartanburg was way better than that one.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2014, 09:54:35 PM »

That's up there with "gay men have the same right as straight men to marry the woman of their choice."

I do not miss the arguments of the 90s and early 2000s.

I was going to say that the argument made by Mr. Gosnell of Spartanburg was way better than that one.

No it's not.  I fail to see how Mr. Gosnell's argument has any logical foundation.  The "gay men have the same right as straight men to marry the woman of their choice" is logical but depends upon a view of marriage based on complementary gender roles and a view of gender as being purely anatomically determined.  Yet even with opposite sex marriage, marriage under the law has long since abandoned the first viewpoint and kept the second more out of inertia than any other reason.
Logged
KCDem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,928


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2014, 09:56:06 PM »

Typic right-wing spin.
Logged
Nutmeg
thepolitic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,914
United States Minor Outlying Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2014, 10:03:35 PM »

I propose a law allowing everyone to slap Richard Gosnell. That would not be discrimination because all people would be allowed to do it.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2014, 11:49:10 AM »

If the law means anything, the editorial letter has legal gravitas, even if people don't like the implications.

While it is the same argument made in Loving v. Virginia, the situation is obviously not the same. In Loving v. Virginia, the state was essentially arguing that a person's sun tan fundamentally changes the nature of a marriage relationship. It was racist and stupid.

Gay marriage presents a different situation, in which the editorial letter has merit. If people don't like it, perhaps they should stop being dumb sh*ts, who beg for regulation rather than freedom. The problems faced by homosexuals in the United States are not specific to homosexuals, nor do they have anything to do with sexual orientation. An unmarried heterosexual couple faces the same discrimination.

People need to get their heads straight, if they want to hurdle the social injustice inherent to government policies that discriminate against married and unmarried people. This issue isn't about gay or straight.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2014, 12:25:09 PM »

Ok, true, I guess there are worse arguments out there than the letter writer's.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2014, 12:38:59 PM »

If the law means anything, the editorial letter has legal gravitas, even if people don't like the implications.

While it is the same argument made in Loving v. Virginia, the situation is obviously not the same. In Loving v. Virginia, the state was essentially arguing that a person's sun tan fundamentally changes the nature of a marriage relationship. It was racist and stupid.

Gay marriage presents a different situation, in which the editorial letter has merit. If people don't like it, perhaps they should stop being dumb sh*ts, who beg for regulation rather than freedom. The problems faced by homosexuals in the United States are not specific to homosexuals, nor do they have anything to do with sexual orientation. An unmarried heterosexual couple faces the same discrimination.

People need to get their heads straight, if they want to hurdle the social injustice inherent to government policies that discriminate against married and unmarried people. This issue isn't about gay or straight.

Lol, this again? The status of being unmarried isn't in and of itself the type of immutable characteristic that would ever qualify as a suspect or quasi-suspect class for the purposes of equal protection analysis. You're doing equal protection wrong.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2014, 12:42:25 PM »

Gay marriage presents a different situation, in which the editorial letter has merit. If people don't like it, perhaps they should stop being dumb sh*ts, who beg for regulation rather than freedom. The problems faced by homosexuals in the United States are not specific to homosexuals, nor do they have anything to do with sexual orientation. An unmarried heterosexual couple faces the same discrimination.

LOL what?
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2014, 12:58:47 PM »

Gay marriage presents a different situation, in which the editorial letter has merit. If people don't like it, perhaps they should stop being dumb sh*ts, who beg for regulation rather than freedom. The problems faced by homosexuals in the United States are not specific to homosexuals, nor do they have anything to do with sexual orientation. An unmarried heterosexual couple faces the same discrimination.

LOL what?

He thinks that the real victims of marriage laws in the U.S. are unmarried couples because they aren't eligible to receive the same state benefits that married couples receive. This is an argument against gay marriage because reasons.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2014, 01:10:47 PM »

Lol, this again? The status of being unmarried isn't in and of itself the type of immutable characteristic that would ever qualify as a suspect or quasi-suspect class for the purposes of equal protection analysis. You're doing equal protection wrong.

You think marriage is an immutable characteristic? That's rich.

If choosing to marry someone of the same sex is an immutable characteristic, choosing not to marry someone of the opposite sex is equally immutable.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2014, 01:12:46 PM »

You think marriage is an immutable characteristic?

The status of being unmarried isn't in and of itself the type of immutable characteristic that would ever qualify as a suspect or quasi-suspect class for the purposes of equal protection analysis.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 17, 2014, 01:29:32 PM »

He thinks that the real victims of marriage laws in the U.S. are unmarried couples because they aren't eligible to receive the same state benefits that married couples receive. This is an argument against gay marriage because reasons.

Your lack of socioeconomic education is not a burden for others to bear.

The current tax system is inherently discriminatory towards married individuals, which necessitates reverse discrimination. Naturally, the world is not as simple as married or unmarried so the system has adopted all sorts of new perverse discriminatory doctrines under the false pretense of ability to pay. Reverse discrimination has exponentially outstripped the discrimination inherent to our system of graduated rates and health insurance exclusions, which would be painfully obvious to anyone who had looked at the income tax rates based upon marital status and income quintile.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 17, 2014, 01:46:30 PM »

You think marriage is an immutable characteristic?

The status of being unmarried isn't in and of itself the type of immutable characteristic that would ever qualify as a suspect or quasi-suspect class for the purposes of equal protection analysis.

If marriage is not an immutable characteristic, the state is free to discriminate, as they do in other forms of contractual obligation between parties. Whether he knows it or not, he's searching for an immutable characteristic upon which the government has infringed. In Loving v. Virginia, the state had clearly infringed upon man-woman relationships by exploiting race.

The ongoing gay marriage battle is based upon the idea that it has nothing to do with man-woman relations. It's obviously true. We have a bunch of different options. Expand the sickness by building gay marriage contract law and legal precedent. Expand the sickness by subjecting homosexuals to heterosexual relationship and contract law. Undermine the system of discrimination we have created, by repealing the foolhardy socioeconomic policy that brought about its existence.

We should? a) Spread the disease b) Treat the symptoms c) Eradicate the disease. Apparently, this is a trick question for most Americans, which is why our species continues to suffer needlessly.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 17, 2014, 02:16:35 PM »

Explain what "the sickness" is.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2014, 02:24:32 PM »

Lol, this again? The status of being unmarried isn't in and of itself the type of immutable characteristic that would ever qualify as a suspect or quasi-suspect class for the purposes of equal protection analysis. You're doing equal protection wrong.

You think marriage is an immutable characteristic? That's rich.

If choosing to marry someone of the same sex is an immutable characteristic, choosing not to marry someone of the opposite sex is equally immutable.

Um, no, I obviously don't think marriage is an immutable characteristic. My point was that marital status is not an immutable characteristic, but sexual orientation is.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 17, 2014, 02:48:02 PM »


Careless social engineering.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 13 queries.