And the Max goes trolling on
Baron Max said:
But, Tiassa, gays ARE being treated equal under the law! Hetero males can't marry other males ....gay males can't marry other males. That's perfectly equal under the law ...there's no "separate but equal" involved at all.
One would not be wrong to wonder why it is you simply repeat yourself over and over, and never actually address the counterpoint.
• An inherently sexist standard is not "perfectly non-discriminatory". You've made the point yourself—at present, one is not allowed to marry the person they love because he or she is the wrong sex. This is sex discrimination. Inherently. (
#2082606/32)
• Telling someone they cannot marry the person they love because that person is the wrong sex is problematic in terms of equal protection under the law. (
#2046208/294)
• The "precise" equality you describe is still discriminatory. You might as well justify anti-miscegenation laws by saying that since black [men]° can't marry white women and white men can't marry black women, it is precisely equal.
Disqualifying a partner from marriage based solely on his or her sex is discriminatory. (
#2050170/308)
• In 2004, twelve states voted to define marriage as something that occurs between a man and woman, effectively limiting the right of certain partners to marry on the basis of their sex. Some of these laws are now facing constitutional challenges, and are not expected to fare well. Indeed, a ban on gay marriage was struck down last year in Iowa, of all places. How this sort of thing happens pertains to the various state constitutions and, in the longer view, the idea of equal protection. That latter is an issue I've already made note of, although you have yet to offer any substantial consideration of the point ....
.... The Connecticut decision was inevitable. The first section of the state's constitution is prohibits exclusive privileges to any group, and the last is an equal protection clause. As noted, the decision in Connecticut was based on that equal protection clause .... (
#2052784/372)
So, let us go through the issue more thoroughly, despite your determination to not read such arguments:
• The right to marry goes beyond the mere fact of the opposite sex. Consider for a moment, my daughter. When she grows up, she may decide to get married. She, according to you, has the right to marry a male. And this is true. However, her right goes beyond that. Let us imagine for a moment that she falls in love with some man that I disapprove of for some reason. Can you cite any legal grounds short of the marriage itself being illegal (e.g., bigamy, incest, juvenile partner°) by which I can forcibly prevent the marriage from going forward? Certainly, I may attempt to persuade her, but I have no legal leverage by which to force her to not marry. Thus, not only does she have the right to marry a male, she also has the right to marry the person she loves, a person of her choosing. Recent discriminatory laws defining marriage do not address love and choice, merely the sex of the partners. And this is a vital point: we cannot force our children to marry, and we cannot force them to not marry. Barring some pre-existing conflict with the law, there is no legal device to force a person to not marry the person they love, the person of their choosing. If the right to marry was based solely on the sex of the partner, heterosexuals would not be entirely free to marry the person of their choosing. Presently, this is a right heterosexuals have that homosexuals are denied. Furthermore, in order for a homosexual to marry, he or she must consummate the marriage by having sex they do not desire. Of course, since you have previously rejected sexual consent as inane, one can easily see why this might not matter to you. But sexual consent does matter to the law. If one wishes the marriage to be fully valid, it must be consummated. Therefore, the right of the homosexual to marry a person of the opposite sex places an obligation of sexual duress on the homosexual. The fulfillment of a right cannot hinge on an obligation of duress. Your constant repetition of equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals overlooks these points entirely.
Now, if it is something you are capable of responding to, then by all means go ahead and do so. If not, find a new argument.
It seems that, for gays, their desires for strange, perverted sex is what defines them as men or women. Ain't that odd?
You are in error, sir, unless you would like to explain how sexual intercourse defines a person as a man or a woman. Under the vast majority of circumstances, the difference between males and females is primarily defined by a genetic expression.
What other group of people is defined strictly by how they like to have sex?
Heterosexuals.
I like to fuck knotholes in fence posts ......and by god, I think I should be allowed to marry those fence posts!
Demonstrate the ability of a fence post to give reasonable consent to marry, and you'll have something that very nearly resembles a point.
Your standard of equality is invested in discrimination between the sexes.
____________________
Notes:
° black [men] — This reflects a correction of a typographical error occurring in this post that has not been corrected in the original.
° bigamy, incest, juvenile partner — Before you make the predictable rejoinder, consider that I have addressed each of these conditions in the past (age considerations in #2047364/301, polygamy in #2081924/16, and incest most recently in #2082112/21), and you have offered no significant response. Do not digress, do not evade: simply address the issue.
