Quote:

---

Originally posted by LiLi:
So if there was a law that, for example, forbade everyone from owning a housepet that was not a dog, this would not be considered discrimination against those people who disliked dogs and would prefer to own a cat? Since everyone would be equally free to own dogs, this law would be right and proper?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
If black people are not allowed to use white bathrooms, and whites are not allowed to use black bathrooms, then it is not discrimination?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The problem is that nothing in the law is baring you from moving in moving in with Kelly Monaco right now with my collection of naked Jessica Albas so long as they agree to it. The law is not involved.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The problem is that nothing in the law is baring you from moving in moving in with Kelly Monaco right now with my collection of naked Jessica Albas so long as they agree to it. The law is not involved.

---

Actually it is...unless you oppose her having a say in the matter. I suspect if I showed up at her door with all my stuff and a wedding ring the law would almost certainly be involved.

I'll make you a deal...I'll support gay marriage if you force Kelly Monaco to marry me.

Our children will be smart and beautiful...

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Does any part of this argument seem sensible to you? I am surprised you even proposed it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Actually it is...unless you oppose her having a say in the matter. I suspect if I showed up at her door with all my stuff and a wedding ring the law would almost certainly be involved.

I'll make you a deal...I'll support gay marriage if you force Kelly Monaco to marry me.

Our children will be smart and beautiful...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"so long as they agree to it."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
I didn't propose it, hell, I didn't even argue it. I was asked a practical argument against gay marriage. Several were argued over the years, this is one. Another is the State's interest in supporting traditional families.

While I neither comment on the merits or lack therof, I understand the basic logic of (man + woman = baby). Regardless of the what you think about it, the idea is grounded in a basic fact. Simple truth is when these arguments were made up, folks didn't see any other way to make babies.

I note for the record that a LOT of arguments have come and gone over the years that did not contain any reasonable or logical basis. This one does.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
[BNo, the law is not involved unless she does not agree to you moving in. The point is that as long as both parties agree the law does not prevent it, unlike gay marriage.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
So you are willing to concede that some restrictions that allow some people to marry while denying that ability to others is ok?

Suppose she wont marry me because I'm black. That's racial discrimination. The law says she must agree, but that law is supporting her discrimination therefore the provision mandating her consent is actually more unconstitional then the ban on gay marriage (because it involves actual discrimination against a protected class).

I can't believe you liberals are for gay marriage but against a person's right to choose who they marry. Shame on you!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Your argument allows me to overide consent.

You can't have it both ways. Pun?

---

Quote:

---

The law says she must agree, but that law is supporting her discrimination therefore the provision mandating her consent is actually more unconstitional then the ban on gay marriage (because it involves actual discrimination against a protected class).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
two, African Americans are a protected class.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
No, he's saying that as a protected class, if you were heterosexual and a homosexual wanted to marry you and you said no, they could hit you with discrimination or a hate crime charge.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
The bottom line is that it comes down to beliefs. I believe it is morally wrong. You believe it is morally wrong to _not let them. We believe differently and none of us are probably going to change our minds. We will have to agree to disagree.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
it comes down to beliefs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
The bottom line is that it comes down to beliefs. I believe it is morally wrong. You believe it is morally wrong to _not let them. We believe differently and none of us are probably going to change our minds. We will have to agree to disagree.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
That is fine, you can believe it is morally wrong. That being said the government has no business regulating morallity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Actually that is not Constitutionally correct.

Traditionally, however, most moral issues have been reserved to the States. Like other similar issues like health, safety, and alcohol these things are more and more coming under the influence of the Federal govt.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Please point out that part of the US Constitution!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Please point out that part of the US Constitution!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Glad to, me fee is $175/hour.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I can see a lot of people opting for a defined period eg for 10 years and then you have the option of entering another contract.

---

Quote:

---

This isn't a terrible idea, but 10 years might be a bit long. I've seen a hell of a lot of marriages fall apart in two. Byte has brought up the handfast format a few times; I think that sort of thing might be more workable. Maybe at the end of a year people could opt for, say, five more years or something. And then at the end of that, more time could be opted for. Contract renewal wouldn't cost a lot or be a hassle, and taking it in smaller chunks might be less "scary" for those people who look at marriage as a "ball and chain" scenario they can never get away from. (I think this has been a big part of the aforementioned marriages I've seen falling apart rather quickly after vows were exchanged, even if the relationship up until that point had been pretty good.) Being able to enter into such a contract and share health insurance and have hospital visitation rights would certainly solve a lot of problems. And if people still really wanted "traditional" marriage performed in a church and "til death do us part," they could certainly do that, too, they'd just need to keep the legal forms up to date or opt for a longer contract.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

In other words...you can't!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's something in the Constitution about congress not making any law about the establishment of religion, which would logically extend to the establishment of religion-based morality, since one is defined by the other.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
animal sacrifice is illegal even if you are worshiping the devil. That is a law based on a number of moral and religeous judgements enacted by people of deep faith (as most laws have been until recent years).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
The explanation is long and detailed and would require an extensive review of both legislative history, English Common Law (including a certain Lord Coke), and United States Supreme Court cases.

The short version is that there is a traditional understanding of the 10th Amendment which reserved to the states a select group of broad issues including health, safety, education, morals, and alcohol. I think there's at least one more.

As I said, more recently these areas have seen signifigant Federal enchroachment as well as a groundswell of States Rights push back...almost always related to these traditional areas.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Your "logically extend" has never been the case.

For example, animal sacrifice is illegal even if you are worshiping the devil. That is a law based on a number of moral and religeous judgements enacted by people of deep faith (as most laws have been until recent years).

Just another pro animal sacrifice liberal...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
I believe it is morally wrong.

---