Heterosexual people did not have the right to marry the same gender.
- Status
A
Atreju
Guest
They do now. Because Americans like equal rights.
And besides, that’s hardly the point.Atreju:
Heterosexual people did not have the right to marry the same gender.
We have opposite-sex attraction; we don’t want to marry the same gender.
0
0331
Guest
You said in a previous comment that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage were not the same thing. I often see this comparison made.
Do you remember the North Carolina ‘bathroom bill’ controversy a few years ago? Charlotte passed a city ordinance that allowed people to use the bathroom of whatever sex they ‘identified’ as. The state legislature passed HB2, which effectively nullified that ordinance. And the country went crazy. Calls abounded for boycotting the state, PayPal famously pulled plans to open an office in Charlotte, etc.
I recall a heated speech by a local black leader who was angry with the LGBTQ activists for hijacking the civil rights movement, comparing the ‘right to use whatever bathroom you want’ to the fights against seregation in the South. ‘I don’t recall any of you on the back of the bus with me in 1965’ he said (paraphrased).
My point: it’s not the same thing: It shouldn’t be the compared to interracial marriage.
Do you remember the North Carolina ‘bathroom bill’ controversy a few years ago? Charlotte passed a city ordinance that allowed people to use the bathroom of whatever sex they ‘identified’ as. The state legislature passed HB2, which effectively nullified that ordinance. And the country went crazy. Calls abounded for boycotting the state, PayPal famously pulled plans to open an office in Charlotte, etc.
I recall a heated speech by a local black leader who was angry with the LGBTQ activists for hijacking the civil rights movement, comparing the ‘right to use whatever bathroom you want’ to the fights against seregation in the South. ‘I don’t recall any of you on the back of the bus with me in 1965’ he said (paraphrased).
My point: it’s not the same thing: It shouldn’t be the compared to interracial marriage.
Last edited:
A
Atreju
Guest
Irrelevant anyway because this argument has been had and has been lost in the public square. Even most catholics think gay marriage should be legal. So the question is why do you expect that advertisers should disagree with most Amercians?
That is not an equal right.
It is an exclusive right.
The difference here is there was no right at all denied anyone. Instead we have a new right made up specifically for a minority group.
0
0331
Guest
It begs the question: what is marriage?
If your definition is ‘a contract between two people who love eachother’ fine, you win.
But if love is the sole qualifier, polygamy should be legal, too. And the relationship shouldn’t be relegated solely to two humans: why not allow a man to marry his golden retriever?
If your definition is ‘a contract between two people who love eachother’ fine, you win.
But if love is the sole qualifier, polygamy should be legal, too. And the relationship shouldn’t be relegated solely to two humans: why not allow a man to marry his golden retriever?
So are we to base rights on what is wanted instead of on what were bestowed by God?
How long then before all rights become meaningless in the face of popular demand?
A
Atreju
Guest
How is it an exclusive right?
E
edwest
Guest
Church teaching is not a popularity contest.
0
0331
Guest
‘Even most Catholics support it’
Yes, I think you are correct. And most Catholics support contraceptive use and all sorts of practices that are gravely sinful.
Yes, I think you are correct. And most Catholics support contraceptive use and all sorts of practices that are gravely sinful.
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
That is the current problem and the “sexual revolution” added to this by its ongoing promotion. Corruption disguised as “freedom.”
Specifically referring to the “dog marriage” argument, the difference is consent. A dog can’t consent.
I’ve found that this argument is a sure loser because the gay person or gay marriage supporter on the other side just assumes you don’t understand that the difference is consent and then disregards everything you say from then on.
A
Atreju
Guest
So requiring that gay people must marry someone of the opposite sex is not an “exclusive right”,Atreju:
That is not an equal right.
It is an exclusive right.
The difference here is there was no right at all denied anyone. Instead we have a new right made up specifically for a minority group.
But allowing anyone to marry someone regardless of their sex is somehow an “exclusive right”.
Amazing.
Last edited:
0
0331
Guest
Perhaps one day a girl can marry her Yorkie if the pooch can shake on command.
Any way, is ‘consent’ the qualifier?
If a man wants to marry 12 consenting women, should he be able to?
Any way, is ‘consent’ the qualifier?
If a man wants to marry 12 consenting women, should he be able to?
It is a mark of a wrongful argument when an attempt is made at a popularity argument.
Not only is it a logical fallacy, most cannot support the claims they make.
I would like to see proof of this.
Your credibility is at stake.
Or, to put it another way:vz71:
So requiring that gay people must marry someone of the opposite sex is not an “exclusive right”,Atreju:
That is not an equal right.
It is an exclusive right.
The difference here is there was no right at all denied anyone. Instead we have a new right made up specifically for a minority group.
But allowing anyone to marry someone regardless of their sex is somehow an “exclusive right”.
Amazing.
“I don’t support same-sex marriage. People with same-sex attraction have the same right as people with opposite-sex attraction to marry a member of the opposite sex.”
But the same person might say,
“Allowing people with same-sex attraction to marry members of the same sex gives them an exclusive right (or a special right.)”
But by that person’s logic, it’s not a “special right” because all of us who have opposite-sex attraction now have the right to marry someone of the same sex!
0
0331
Guest
What’s to say that the Court can’t change that the definition of marriage to remove ‘consent’?
Yeah, they’re really going to do that.
You need adult “consent” to sign a contract or write a will.
I can’t see why they wouldn’t uphold a consent requirement for something as important as marriage.
No one is required to get married at all.
- Status