Re: McCain Backs Gay Marriage Ban
- From: Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:08:35 -0400
Thumper wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:54:11 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Thumper wrote:
On 30 Aug 2005 06:01:54 -0700, "Poppy - San Francisco Bay Area" <GoldenStatePoppy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I think you are correct. John McCain will gain a great deal of support by opposing gay marriage. As a nation and culture, we are not ready for that, and may never be.
Sure we are. It's working fine in Massachusetts. Try to find someone's heterosexual marriage that has been adversely affected by having gays marry. Thumper
Polls indicate that most people do not want that.
So What? Our country isn't run by polls.
Indeed it is. We have big polls every November, called elections, where we elect REPRESENTATIVES to effect our views.
Polls indicated that
persons of different races shouldn't marry also. That wasn't right either.
That has been demonstrated to be illegal under the law. The issue is not the same. In those laws, there was a qualifier to the broad standard, and that qualifier was what was discriminatory. Here, you argue that the standard is discriminatory. Not the same thing.
And your argument about it working fine in Massachusetts is a red herring.
Like hell it is.
Indeed it is a red herring. Because some other state has no speed limit for its roads and it is working just fine, does that mean my state should also have it?
When the government takes away someone's civil
rights, it is incumbent upon them to prove an overriding societal justification for doing so.
What civil rights have been violated? When a gay person appears at city hall with a member of the opposite sex and petitions for a marriage license, and is denied, then you have a case. Right now you don't. Each individual doesn't get to set the standards of a law based on personal convenience.
The fact that it is running smoothly in
the only place it is allowed in the USA is evidence that there is no such justification.
The fact that other states have refused to recognize it is evidence to the contrary.
And I note, you snipped my reply about the anti evolution platform being run just fine in Kansas. So should we adopt that elsewhere, because it's running 'just fine' there?
A response, if you please.
Feel free to tell us how same sex marriage affects heterosexual marriage.
That is YOUR position. My position, which is all you can address is that if forces ME to change my beliefs in favor of an irrational definition. So if you would like, we can discuss that; not what you THINK you want me to say.
The anti-evolution, creationist biology is working fine in Kansas. Does that make it right?
Alan
Alan
.
- References:
- McCain Backs Gay Marriage Ban
- From: Gary
- Re: McCain Backs Gay Marriage Ban
- From: Alvin Toda
- Re: McCain Backs Gay Marriage Ban
- From: Alvin Toda
- Re: McCain Backs Gay Marriage Ban
- From: Poppy - San Francisco Bay Area
- Re: McCain Backs Gay Marriage Ban
- From: Thumper
- Re: McCain Backs Gay Marriage Ban
- From: Alan Lichtenstein
- Re: McCain Backs Gay Marriage Ban
- From: Thumper
- McCain Backs Gay Marriage Ban
- Prev by Date: Re: Our "closest ally" is a traitor-read story 9/11 commision wouldn't tell the public!
- Next by Date: Re: McCain Backs Gay Marriage Ban
- Previous by thread: Re: McCain Backs Gay Marriage Ban
- Next by thread: Re: McCain Backs Gay Marriage Ban
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
