Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

[secular_freedom]

Exactly. Laws are constructed, and case law is most often decided, on the basis of norms: ‘customary and usual practice’ is a phrase oft-repeated in legal decisions. What some people here do not understand is that very often when a case is brought to a higher court, the court is hearing a case in which a previously established right had been reversed or denied by an entity or institution which could and should have granted it. Such was the case, for example, in Loving, which Professor Robert George correctly points out. The decision did not expand a right or redefine a right at all; rather, it upheld a previously formally recognized right by which heterosexual couples were free to formalize their relationships in marriage, regardless of racial differences. This was a reinstatement, not an expansion or a new context for the term “marriage.”

…Just a digression, but I post to restate that the purpose of the courts is to interpret correctly, not to create new law or invent terminology for the reordering of society. That’s what legislatures are for (state and national): to create law. It is not up to Judge Walker or The 9th, or even the SC, to invent a new category of ‘marriage’ – even if the idea were so popular that a majority of Americans wanted that (and they don’t). That is an abuse of the legal system for political purposes.

It’s very simple. Prop 8 violates the equal protection clause, and therefore marriage should be extended to same-sex couples. If you disagree with the argument, then challenge it head on.

 

[Los_Angeles]

Ignoring my responses won’t make them disappear. Again, it is precisely because prop 8 prevents gay couples, but not heterosexual couples, from marrying that makes it discriminatory against homosexuals. The fact that homosexuals are permitted to marry under prop 8 doesn’t mean they are permitted the same freedom to marry under prop 8 as heterosexuals: ***unlike ***heterosexuals, homosexuals do not have the freedom to marry their partners. Hence it follows that prop 8 treats homosexuals differently (because heterosexuals are permitted certain freedoms denied to homosexuals) Please explain how this difference in treatment does not amount to discrimination.

All you’re doing is ignoring my responses.

This is you: “Prop 8 is not discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation because it allows both homosexuals and heterosexuals the freedom to marry persons of the opposite-sex.”

Me: “The fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the freedom to marry persons of the opposite sex doesn’t mean they both have the same freedom to marry. Heterosexuals are permitted the freedom to marry their partners while homosexuals are denied that freedom. It is this fact that makes prop 8 discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation.”

You: “Prop 8 is not discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation because it allows both homosexuals and heterosexuals the freedom to marry persons of the opposite-sex.”

As you can see, you’re not interacting with my rebuttals but simply repeating your original talking points as if they haven’t been addressed.

Okay.

None of this actually addresses the issue: prop 8 discriminates against homosexuals because it denies them, but not heterosexuals, the freedom to marry their partners. Please explain how this difference in treatment does not amount to discrimination.

I am not ignoring you, on the contrary I am trying to pay attention to all of your counter-arguments becuase they are very well written. I also don’t know if you think I am ignoring you becuase we don’t agree?

If a homosexual man and a homosexual woman want to get married they can: there are no laws preventing them getting married regardless of their sexual orientation.

If that same homosexual man wants to marry another homosexual man or that same homosexual woman wants to marry another homosexual woman they cannot: Prop 8 defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

If a heterosexual man wants to marry another heterosexual man, or a heterosexual woman wants to marry another heterosexual woman they cannot: Prop 8 defines marriage as between a man and a woman. (This appears to be a logical contradiction among other things)

Proposition 8 is not taking sexual orientation into account.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[secular_freedom]

I am not ignoring you, on the contrary I am tyring to pay attention to all of your counter-arguments becuase they are very well written. I also don’t know if you think I am igoring you becuase we don’t agree?

Perhaps you’re not intentionally trying to ignore my counter-arguments, but you certainly haven’t addressed them. In my previous post, I wrote: "The fact that homosexuals are permitted to marry under prop 8 doesn’t mean they are permitted the same freedom to marry under prop 8 as heterosexuals: unlike heterosexuals, homosexuals ***do not ***have the freedom to marry their partners. Hence it follows that prop 8 treats homosexuals differently (because heterosexuals are permitted certain freedoms denied to homosexuals) Please explain how this difference in treatment does not amount to discrimination. "

I’m still waiting for an explanation as to why this difference in treatment does not amount to discrimination.

If a homosexual man and a homosexual woman want to get married they can: there are no laws preventing them getting married regardless of their sexual orientation.

This is true. But again, it does not follow from this – that a homosexual man and a homosexual woman can get married – that homosexuals, under prop 8, are permitted to marry their partners. Under prop 8, homosexuals (and this is important: but NOT heterosexuals) are prohibited from marrying their partners.

If that same homosexual man wants to marry another homosexual man or that same homosexual woman wants to marry another homosexual woman they cannot: Prop 8 defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

If a heterosexual man wants to marry another heterosexual man, or a heterosexual woman wants to marry another heterosexual woman they cannot: Prop 8 defines marriage as between a man and a woman. (This appears to be a logical contradiction among other things)

And again, my counter is: The fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the freedom to marry persons of the opposite sex doesn’t mean they both have the ***same ***freedom to marry. Heterosexuals are permitted the freedom to marry their partners while homosexuals are denied that freedom. It is this fact that makes prop 8 discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation.

What is your response to this counter? How do you deal with the fact that under prop 8, only heterosexuals are permitted the freedom to marry their partners?

Proposition 8 is not taking sexual orientation into account.

The fact that prop 8 doesn’t mention sexual orientation doesn’t mean it isn’t discriminatory on that basis. We need to look not only to what prop 8 says, but what it does. Furthermore, we need to look to what prop 8 was intended to do.

What prop 8 does: it prohibits homosexuals from being able to marry their partners. The freedom to marry one’s romantic partner exists for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals.

What prop 8 was intended to do: it was enacted for the very purpose of preventing homosexuals from being able to marry each other. Prior to prop 8, homosexuals in California were permitted to marry their partners because the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Prop 8 was enacted to to overturn the court’s ruling.

Given all the evidence, we are left with one conclusion: prop 8 intentionally discriminates against homosexuals by preventing them, but not heterosexuals, from being able to marry their partners.

 

[Los_Angeles]

Perhaps you’re not intentionally trying to ignore my counter-arguments, but you certainly haven’t addressed them. In my previous post, I wrote: "The fact that homosexuals are permitted to marry under prop 8 doesn’t mean they are permitted the same freedom to marry under prop 8 as heterosexuals: unlike heterosexuals, homosexuals ***do not ***have the freedom to marry their partners. Hence it follows that prop 8 treats homosexuals differently (because heterosexuals are permitted certain freedoms denied to homosexuals) Please explain how this difference in treatment does not amount to discrimination. "

I’m still waiting for an explanation as to why this difference in treatment does not amount to discrimination.

I think my explanation that there is no difference in treatment would be made more clear in general if I were to make the following statements:

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic heterosexual man cannot marry another non-romantic heterosexual man.

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic heterosexual woman cannot marry another non-romantic heterosexual woman.

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic homosexual man cannot marry another non-romantic homosexual man.

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic homosexual woman cannot marry another non-romantic homosexual woman.

Thus, *both *heterosexual and a homosexuals are treated the same.

This is true. But again, it does not follow from this – that a homosexual man and a homosexual woman can get married – that homosexuals, under prop 8, are permitted to marry their partners. Under prop 8, homosexuals (and this is important: but NOT heterosexuals) are prohibited from marrying their partners.

The fact that heterosexuals cannot marry somone of their own sex solves this problem.

And again, my counter is: The fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the freedom to marry persons of the opposite sex doesn’t mean they both have the ***same ***freedom to marry. Heterosexuals are permitted the freedom to marry their partners while homosexuals are denied that freedom. It is this fact that makes prop 8 discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation.

What is your response to this counter? How do you deal with the fact that under prop 8, only heterosexuals are permitted the freedom to marry their partners?

My statements above should have answered this counter. I deal with the fact that under Prop 8, heterosexuals **and **homosexuals not allowed to marry somone of the same sex.

The fact that prop 8 doesn’t mention sexual orientation doesn’t mean it isn’t discriminatory on that basis. We need to look not only to what prop 8 says, but what it does. Furthermore, we need to look to what prop 8 was intended to do.

What prop 8 does: it prohibits homosexuals from being able to marry their partners. The freedom to marry one’s romantic partner exists for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals.

What prop 8 was intended to do: it was enacted for the very purpose of preventing homosexuals from being able to marry each other. Prior to prop 8, homosexuals in California were permitted to marry their partners because the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Prop 8 was enacted to to overturn the court’s ruling.

Given all the evidence, we are left with one conclusion: prop 8 intentionally discriminates against homosexuals by preventing them, but not heterosexuals, from being able to marry their partners.

I would reply to these statements by saying the following:

The fact that Prop 8 doesn’t mention sexual orientation also does not mean that it is discriminating based on sexual orientation.

What Prop 8 does: It prevents the marriage of a man with another man, and a woman with another woman, whether or not they are heterosexual or homosexual.

What Prop 8 was intended to do: It may have in fact overturned a California Supreme Court ruling, but so be it as long at that is permitted by the Constitution of the United States of America.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s very simple. Prop 8 violates the equal protection clause, and therefore marriage should be extended to same-sex couples. If you disagree with the argument, then challenge it head on.

I have challenged it head-on, as has the poster Los Angeles and many others here, and on other threads. You want it to be “simple” because you appropriate a term not understood by customary practice, establishing a novel institution, circumventing the legislature and other regulatory bodies – rather, as I said earlier, using the courts as your private Political Action Committee. With that engineered new term, you now move the goal posts to include entire new teams, making up the rules with each yard line to serve unique and invented categories of “civil rights.”

There is no “equal protection” because the category does not exist, as L.A. has told you.

 

[secular_freedom]

I think my explanation that there is no difference in treatment would be made more clear in general if I were to make the following statements:

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic heterosexual man cannot marry another non-romantic heterosexual man.

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic heterosexual woman cannot marry another non-romantic heterosexual woman.

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic homosexual man cannot marry another non-romantic homosexual man.

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic homosexual woman cannot marry another non-romantic homosexual woman.

Thus, *both *heterosexual and a homosexuals are treated the same.

Your conclusion does not follow. All you’re doing is repeating what’s not in dispute: that under prop 8, both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex. This fact does nothing to change the fact that under prop 8, homosexuals are ***denied ***the freedom to marry their partners, while heterosexuals are not denied this freedom. What you (still) haven’t done is explain why this difference in treatment doesn’t amount to discrimination.

The fact that heterosexuals cannot marry somone of their own sex solves this problem.

It most certainly doesn’t. The fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry persons of the opposite sex does nothing to explain away the fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals cannot marry their partners - only heterosexuals can. From the fact that both A and B can do X, it does not follow that both A and B can do Y.

My statements above should have answered this counter. I deal with the fact that under Prop 8, heterosexuals **and **homosexuals not allowed to marry somone of the same sex.

Your response does not deal with the counter, but merely repeats what has already be countered. You claim that prop 8 does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation because both heterosexuals and homosexuals are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex. My counter: under prop 8, homosexuals are treated differently because they are not permitted to marry their partners (unlike heterosexuals). Merely repeating your initial claim does nothing to counter my counter.

I’ll ask again: How do you deal with the fact that under prop 8, only heterosexuals are permitted the freedom to marry their partners? Why does this difference in treatment not amount to discrimination?

I would reply to these statements by saying the following:

The fact that Prop 8 doesn’t mention sexual orientation also does not mean that it is discriminating based on sexual orientation.

No one claimed otherwise. I never argued: “Prop 8 doesn’t mention sexual orientation. Therefore, prop 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.” On the other hand, you have argued: “Prop 8 doesn’t mention sexual orientation. Therefore, prop 8 doesn’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” This is a invalid inference, as I pointed out.

What Prop 8 does: It prevents the marriage of a man with another man, and a woman with another woman, whether or not they are heterosexual or homosexual.

This doesn’t challenge what I wrote: “What prop 8 does: it prohibits homosexuals from being able to marry their partners. The freedom to marry one’s romantic partner exists for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals.”

What Prop 8 was intended to do: It may have in fact overturned a California Supreme Court ruling, but so be it as long at that is permitted by the Constitution of the United States of America.

This also doesn’t challenge what I wrote: "What prop 8 was intended to do: it was enacted for the very purpose of preventing homosexuals from being able to marry each other. Prior to prop 8, homosexuals in California were permitted to marry their partners because the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Prop 8 was enacted to to overturn the court’s ruling. "

 

[secular_freedom]

I have challenged it head-on

No, you haven’t. If you did, then you easily answer the following question: Which premise(s) of my argument did you dispute and in which post did you dispute them?

 

[Los_Angeles]

Your conclusion does not follow. All you’re doing is repeating what’s not in dispute: that under prop 8, both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex. This fact does nothing to change the fact that under prop 8, homosexuals are ***denied ***the freedom to marry their partners, while heterosexuals are not denied this freedom. What you (still) haven’t done is explain why this difference in treatment doesn’t amount to discrimination.

I am sorry but my conclusion did not repeat what was in dispute. I may have to re-quote myself, but I have given you 4 examples of how both heterosexuals and homosexuals cannot marry somone of the same sex.

Here it is again: [empahsis added]

Originally Posted by **Los Angeles **
I think my explanation that there is no difference in treatment would be made more clear in general if I were to make the following statements:

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic heterosexual man cannot marry another non-romantic heterosexual man.

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic heterosexual woman cannot marry another non-romantic heterosexual woman.

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic homosexual man cannot marry another non-romantic homosexual man.

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic homosexual woman cannot marry another non-romantic homosexual woman.

Thus, *both *heterosexual and a homosexuals are treated the same.

It most certainly doesn’t. The fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry persons of the opposite sex does nothing to explain away the fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals cannot marry their partners - only heterosexuals can. From the fact that both A and B can do X, it does not follow that both A and B can do Y.

Heterosexuals **cannot **marry a partner if it is somone of the same sex.

Your response does not deal with the counter, but merely repeats what has already be countered. You claim that prop 8 does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation because both heterosexuals and homosexuals are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex. My counter: under prop 8, homosexuals are treated differently because they are not permitted to marry their partners (unlike heterosexuals). Merely repeating your initial claim does nothing to counter my counter.

I’ll ask again: How do you deal with the fact that under prop 8, only heterosexuals are permitted the freedom to marry their partners? Why does this difference in treatment not amount to discrimination?

Again, under Prop 8 heterosexuals cannot marry a partner if it is somone of the same sex.

No one claimed otherwise. I never argued: “Prop 8 doesn’t mention sexual orientation. Therefore, prop 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.” On the other hand, you have argued: “Prop 8 doesn’t mention sexual orientation. Therefore, prop 8 doesn’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” This is a invalid inference, as I pointed out.

My statement said basically that just because Prop 8 does not mention sexual orientation does not mean that its discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

This doesn’t challenge what I wrote: “What prop 8 does: it prohibits homosexuals from being able to marry their partners. The freedom to marry one’s romantic partner exists for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals.”

It absoutely does challenge what you wrote. I wrote a conclusion about what Prop 8 does that is different than what your conclusion wrote Prop 8 does.

I wrote: “What Prop 8 does: It prevents the marriage of a man with another man, and a woman with another woman, whether or not they are heterosexual or homosexual.”

This also doesn’t challenge what I wrote: "What prop 8 was intended to do: it was enacted for the very purpose of preventing homosexuals from being able to marry each other. Prior to prop 8, homosexuals in California were permitted to marry their partners because the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Prop 8 was enacted to to overturn the court’s ruling. "

I challenged what you wrote by drawing a different conclusion than you about what Prop 8 was intended to do.

I wrote: “What Prop 8 was intended to do: It may have in fact overturned a California Supreme Court ruling, but so be it as long at that is permitted by the Constitution of the United States of America.”

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[rossum]

I am sorry but my conclusion did not repeat what was in dispute. I may have to re-quote myself, but I have given you 4 examples of how both heterosexuals and homosexuals cannot marry somone of the same sex.

Here it is again: [empahsis added]

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic hetero

Imagine a mirror world in which same-sex marriage is legal and opposite-sex marriage is illegal. Would you say that heterosexuals were discriminated against in that world? After all, everyone is treated equally as everyone can marry someone of the same sex.

Alternatively, let us go back to Virginia in 1966. Consider your argument:-Under Virginia law a non-romantic white man cannot marry another non-romantic black woman.

-Under Virginia law a non-romantic white woman cannot marry another non-romantic black man.

-Under Virginia law a non-romantic black man cannot marry another non-romantic white woman.

-Under Virginia law a non-romantic black woman cannot marry another non-romantic white man.

Thus, both whites and blacks are treated the same.
Do you find your argument presuasive in that instance? The Supreme Court didn’t and in 1967 the Virginia miscegnation law was overturned.

You are relying on an argument that the Supreme Court has already rejected.

It is also worth quoting from the Supreme Court judgement in that case, Loving v Virginia:Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

rossum

 

[Elizabeth502]

No, you haven’t. If you did, then you easily answer the following question: Which premise(s) of my argument did you dispute and in which post did you dispute them?

Then you have a problem with critical reading, since I disputed your “claims” both on this thread, and as I’ve said probably 7 times now, on the collection of postings I’ve done over almost 2 years on this subject, on this forum. You’re new to the forum; I’m not. You’re too lazy to do the work to locate the answers to the questions you are asking. This is just another symptom of the self-centeredness and instant-gratification sought by the ‘Gay Marriage’ crowd, who wants an institution renamed for their private benefit, not the benefit of the larger society. If you care enough, you’ll search the threads on CAF, and you’ll find your answer. You don’t care about a true answer. You’re just into game-playing, argument for argument’s sake, and confrontation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Post 208:

Again, stop misinterpreting Loving v. Virginia. The correct legal interpretation (not populist interpretation, not private interpretation, not casual interpretation, not fuzzy interpretation, and not ‘Buddhist’ interpretation) is the one understood and explicated by Professor Robert George of Princeton University. Loving did not establish non-heterosexual “marriages” as a “civil right.” It re-affirmed the basic civil right of all heterosexual free adults to marry across racial lilnes. Had it done more than that, or intended more than that, that would have been explicitly stated in the decision. Many, many CAF posters do not understand how the courts work in this country, how decisions are made, what the content of those decisions refers to, what the scope of those decisions are, and how to interpret legal language within those decisions. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Your tag line says it all. Actually, those who do not believe in any ultimate truth, by extension do not place high value in an ordered society. Whatever the range of their philosophical views, our Founding Fathers did believe in fixed concepts and in an ordered society, not in anarchy, chaos, fuzzy thinking, or making it up as you go along.

 

[Brendan]

Ignoring my responses won’t make them disappear. Again, it is precisely because prop 8 prevents gay couples, but not heterosexual couples, from marrying that makes it discriminatory against homosexuals. .

I cannot set up a Medical practice because the State of Michigan will deny me a license because I have not been to Medical school.

If I follow your line of reasoning, that violates the equal protection clause because I am being denied the freedom to engage in a business of my choosing simply because I did not attend medical school

Is that your understanding of the Equal Protection Clause?

Or would you recognize that the State has a right to set certain criteria for the issuance of public licenses without discrimination? And those that are denied such licenses on the grounds that they do not meet the declared criteria are NOT victims of discrimination?

 

[ThomasToo]

I cannot set up a Medical practice because the State of Michigan will deny me a license because I have not been to Medical school.

If I follow your line of reasoning, that violates the equal protection clause because I am being denied the freedom to engage in a business of my choosing simply because I did not attend medical school

Is that your understanding of the Equal Protection Clause?

Or would you recognize that the State has a right to set certain criteria for the issuance of public licenses without discrimination? And those that are denied such licenses on the grounds that they do not meet the declared criteria are NOT victims of discrimination?

But requiring a person who intends to practice medicine actually know medicine (as evidence by obtaining an M.D.) has a rational relationship to the legitimate government interest (in this case of protecting public health). This is known as the rational basis test and while many types of discrimination such as the sort you have just described pass for various reasons, there is no rational relationship to any legitimate government interest served by withholding the legal protections of civil marriage from homosexual relationships.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Then you have a problem with critical reading, since I disputed your “claims” both on this thread, …

:sad_yes:
Yes, I sense the original poster and a few others may have difficulty with both reading and logic. The claims made by the op have been adequately disputed, but he and others then quickly dismissed them. I sense that writing well thought out responses here is roughly equivalent to doing this: :banghead:

I cannot set up a Medical practice because the State of Michigan will deny me a license because I have not been to Medical school.

If I follow your line of reasoning, that violates the equal protection clause because I am being denied the freedom to engage in a business of my choosing simply because I did not attend medical school

Dr. Brendan–may I call you Dr. Brendan? I know you haven’t been to medical school and you probably know very little about being a doctor, BUT you probably know a lot more about medicine than some others posting here know about marriage. The op refused to answer my question as to what he thinks marriage is. Others who have agreed with his position have been kind enough to share that they think polygamous and even incestuous marriage could be okay too. So, Dr. Brendan, what should we do to stop our headaches? :banghead:

 

[rossum]

Again, stop misinterpreting Loving v. Virginia.

I am not either interpreting or misinterpreting Loving v Virginia. I pointed out the logical similarities between Los Angeles’ argument about same sex marriage and the argument about inter-racial marriage. I then quoted the Supreme Court without comment. Any interpretation was yours, not mine, since I made no comment at all on what the Supreme Court said.

Your tag line says it all. Actually, those who do not believe in any ultimate truth, by extension do not place high value in an ordered society.

I am at a loss to see the logical connection here. The quote is a summary of the Madhyamika Buddhist idea of sunyata (emptiness). Are Buddhist societies particularly unordered? I have usually considered Japanese society to be one of the world’s more ordered societies.

For an expansion on the meaning of sunyata/emptiness:The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

rossum

 

[Los_Angeles]

Imagine a mirror world in which same-sex marriage is legal and opposite-sex marriage is illegal. Would you say that heterosexuals were discriminated against in that world? After all, everyone is treated equally as everyone can marry someone of the same sex.

Your mirror world idea breaks down for two reasons:

1. We do no live in a mirror world. (an imaginary world)
2. There would be zero population in that mirror world because homosexuals cannot reproduce. (except for adoption or artificial insemination)

Alternatively, let us go back to Virginia in 1966. Consider your argument:-Under Virginia law a non-romantic white man cannot marry another non-romantic black woman.

-Under Virginia law a non-romantic white woman cannot marry another non-romantic black man.

-Under Virginia law a non-romantic black man cannot marry another non-romantic white woman.

-Under Virginia law a non-romantic black woman cannot marry another non-romantic white man.

Thus, both whites and blacks are treated the same.
Do you find your argument presuasive in that instance? The Supreme Court didn’t and in 1967 the Virginia miscegnation law was overturned.

You are relying on an argument that the Supreme Court has already rejected.

Wrong. The Supreme Court was talking about race. Not sexual preference.

It is also worth quoting from the Supreme Court judgement in that case, Loving v Virginia:Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

rossum

This quote actually backs up my postion and I do not see how it supports yours for two reasons.

1. It makes the notion that marriage is “fundamental to our very existience and survival”…
2. It is talking about racial discrimination, not sexual preference.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[rossum]

Your mirror world idea breaks down for two reasons:

1. We do no live in a mirror world. (an imaginary world)
2. There would be zero population in that mirror world because homosexuals cannot reproduce. (except for adoption or artificial insemination)

My mirror world example was an attempt to get you to think more carefully about the argument you are putting forward by setting it is a different context. I obviously failed, so my apologies for my misjudging you.

The Supreme Court was talking about race. Not sexual preference.

Indeed it was. My point is that the logical structure of your argument is exactly the same as the logical structure of an argument that the Supreme Court has already rejected. It is possible that the Supreme Court will accept other arguments against same sex marriage, but I consider it unlikely that they will accept the argument you are proposing here since they have already rejected an argument in exactly the same form in a previous case.

This quote actually backs up my postion and I do not see how it supports yours for two reasons.

1. It makes the notion that marriage is “fundamental to our very existience and survival”…
2. It is talking about racial discrimination, not sexual preference.

Of course it is talking about racial discrimination since that is what Loving v Virginia was about. What valid reasons do you have to deprive homosexuals of something that you agree is “fundamental”?

rossum

 

[Betterave]

No eating requires ones to put food in his or her mouth, masticate, and swallow little bundles of (hopefully!) tasty goodness. What you describe here is what my mommy and daddy called “playing with your food” which as an adult I find terrible.

My point exactly.

 

[Betterave]

They were not self-congratulation, they were criticisms of PaulinVA’s arguments.

No they weren’t. They were gratuitously condescending editorializing following your actual criticisms. See post 176. I think Oresteian gets it. (If I’m not mistaken, he may have been parodying you.)

If my arguments are so weak then why do you not provide any counter arguments, rather then criticise my style of writing?

What is your opinion about people who do not have the “parts required to procreate” being allowed to get married? Should the law be amended to prevent such people getting married?

Please read what I’ve written. Your questions have already been answered.

 

[Los_Angeles]

My mirror world example was an attempt to get you to think more carefully about the argument you are putting forward by setting it is a different context. I obviously failed, so my apologies for my misjudging you.

I don’t understand. Are you making an apology or are you being sarcastic?

Indeed it was. My point is that the logical structure of your argument is exactly the same as the logical structure of an argument that the Supreme Court has already rejected. It is possible that the Supreme Court will accept other arguments against same sex marriage, but I consider it unlikely that they will accept the argument you are proposing here since they have already rejected an argument in exactly the same form in a previous case.

Again, we are talking about race vs. sexual preference.

Of course it is talking about racial discrimination since that is what Loving v Virginia was about. What valid reasons do you have to deprive homosexuals of something that you agree is “fundamental”?

rossum

Homosexuals are not being deprived of anything. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like heterosexuals do.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.