Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

Gays have the same rights as straight people

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by SpaceCricket79, Jul 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 23 of 23
  1. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So your saying that from the point of view of the government, their functions are the same?
    So then the left/right catcher's mitt analogy is fitting; Yes or no, if you force a lefty to use a right-handed mitt, can you then claim that the game is equal to all players?
    And likewise, if you force homosexuals to marry opposite sex, then can you still claim that they have the same rights as heterosexuals who can marry the sex of their choice?

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Aug 8, 2012
    #551
  2. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What you just wrote there proves that discrimination against same sex marriage as currently implemented is not narrowly tailored.
     
    Meta777, Aug 8, 2012
    #552
  3. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No you haven't. All you've done is alter an alternative analogy without actually addressing or invalidating the one I posted.

    How is the catcher not analogous to the individual?
    How is the right-handed mitt not analogous to different sex marriage?
    How is the left-handed mitt not analogous to same sex marriage?
    How are the rules of a hypothetical game of baseball not analogous to laws of the land?

    Is it equality if left-handed players are forced to use right-handed mitts?
    If you don't think that's equality, then why not, seeing as left-handed players can use the right-handed mitts, just like everybody else?

    If you can't answer these questions, it can only mean that you do not have a counter that invalidates the analogy or its implications.

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Aug 8, 2012
    #553
  4. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    except for federal courts. and it's only been limitted to a man and a woman since the 1970's.
     
    rahl, Aug 8, 2012
    #554
  5. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seriously, opportunity versus outcome hardly has any relevance to this discussion. (BTW, I made a typo in that last post you quoted).
    Besides. I don't necessarily want to change anything about the rules. I want the current rules to be followed,
    and the current rules say it is illegal to enact laws which arbitrarily discriminate against certain groups.

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Aug 8, 2012
    #555
  6. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't like what you're saying, because it doesn't make any (*)(*)(*)(*)ed sense.
    But that doesn't mean you're not confused. You implied that allowing same-sex marriage is a guarantee of equal outcome.
    That's like saying that allowing catchers to choose between left-handed and right-handed mitts is a guarantee of equal outcome.
    Neither of those statements is logical, so are you certain you weren't meaning to post that in some welfare topic?

    Tell me exactly what VWC means as "equal" then since you seem to be such an authority on the subject.

    Actually, I based it on the 14th, the compelling governmental interest test, and the narrowly tailored test.
    And not that I necessarily agree, but supreme courts in the past have deemed marriage itself as a basic human right.

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Aug 8, 2012
    #556
  7. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,788
    Likes Received:
    4,545
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, such discrimination is simply judged by a stricter standard. Equal protection law doesnt require that the law treat people who are in fact different, as if they were the same. And as far as marriage and gender, perfectly acceptable to treat men and women differently because they are in fact different. Thats why-

    § 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
    presumed to be the father of a child if:
    (1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
    child is born during the marriage;

    men and women are treated differntly in the law and the constitution doesnt require that they be treated as if they were were the same. Its the biology of procreation that discriminates.
     
    dixon76710, Aug 8, 2012
    #557
  8. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [​IMG]
     
    Meta777, Aug 8, 2012
    #558
  9. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't believe anyone is claiming that the constitution requires laws to always treat different people the same.
    But for discrimination to be legal, it must pass both the compelling governmental interest test and its implementation must be narrowly tailored.
     
    Meta777, Aug 8, 2012
    #559
  10. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    presumption of paternity is a very tired and long refuted argument dixon. it's a paternity law, not a marriage law. it's not binding. if daddy isn't daddy, he has no responsibility.
     
    rahl, Aug 8, 2012
    #560
  11. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This thread has exceeded the 500 post limit and is being closed. If members want to continue this discussion then a Part II thread can be created. Just check to make sure that we don't create duplicate threads.

    Shiva_TD
    Site Moderator
     
    Shiva_TD, Aug 9, 2012
    #561
Page 23 of 23
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page