(May 10, 2014 at 7:56 pm)Heywood Wrote: Negative Steel,

The claim is homosexual marriages are equivalent to heterosexual marriages. There is no natural/intrinsic reason this needs to be the case so it likely isn't(unless there is a God who designed it so). The burden is upon you to come up with reasons why we should pretend it is equivalent.

Don't get me wrong, there are lots of good reasons to act as if the two kinds of union are equivalent. However the fact they are not equivalent is also reason enough not to give them the same status. Let the people decide what they want to do and not some judge who makes rulings based on flawed thinking.

The claim being made was that there was no rational reason for excluding homosexuals from the advantages of marriages. You countered that by claiming that the rational reason was to incentivize the asset to society for hetero marriages.

You are now shifting the goalposts by stating that because they are not equivalent in every way, one should be excluded.

My argument is that (for argument's sake) even if one union (hetero marriage) was significantly more advantageous to society, you now have to show that incentivizing the other union (homosexual marriage) provides a loss in quality or quantity of the former.

And no, people should never be able to vote on someone else's rights.

Bill of Rights Institute Wrote:The Founders had great respect for the will of the majority, but also understood that, as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10, “the great danger in republics is that the majority will not respect the rights of minority.” President Thomas Jefferson proclaimed in his first inaugural address, “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”

(May 10, 2014 at 6:27 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(May 10, 2014 at 5:45 pm)Heywood Wrote: So if some judge decides that you have a right to shoot gingers that makes it okay? In a democracy, all rights are voted on. Your rights under The Constitution and the The Bill of Rights came into
existence via a vote. Maddow is an idiot.

That's funny, because the Delcaration says that certain rights are unalienable. The Constitution does not grant anybody rights. It recognizes the fact that we have those rights, and always should have had those rights. That was the entire point. And, that is the entire point of the marriage equality fight. Same-sex couples should have never been denied the right to marry in the first place. This isn't giving special rights, this is fixing a historical mistake.

Would you think it would be okay if the voters decided that we had the right to shoot gingers? (which is a stupid example because that right violates the rights of others, and marriage equality violates nobody's rights)

This is the first strong point I have seen you make in a very long time Ryantology. But the fact is, it doesn't matter what description the Constitutions gives these rights, they were enacted by a vote. People voted on which rights are "inalienable". Another constitution can come along and say a completely different set of rights are "inalienable". In principle we could desolve the Constitution just like we did the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution, to my recollection, doesn't say anything about marriage. I don't believe marriage is an unalienable right under the Constitution.

---

(May 10, 2014 at 5:53 pm)Losty Wrote: I will refrain from saying who I believe to be an idiot

Usually the idiots are the people that make their arguments with internet memes.

(May 10, 2014 at 8:07 pm)Heywood Wrote: The Constitution, to my recollection, doesn't say anything about marriage. I don't believe marriage is an unalienable right under the Constitution.

The ninth amendment implicitly protects the unalienable rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Bold Mine

(May 10, 2014 at 8:07 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 10, 2014 at 5:53 pm)Losty Wrote: I will refrain from saying who I believe to be an idiot

Usually the idiots are the people that make their arguments with internet memes.

Usually? Do you have any unbiased studies to back this up Heywood?
No? oh I didn't think so.
Also, memes are jokes and such. I simply quoted with a picture.

I am smart enough to know that the US isn't a true democracy. Your pathetic little example about shooting gingers was completely irrelevant as killing is not a fundamental right, but marriage is.
Never heard of CAMPER?

(May 10, 2014 at 8:12 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(May 10, 2014 at 8:07 pm)Heywood Wrote: The Constitution, to my recollection, doesn't say anything about marriage. I don't believe marriage is an unalienable right under the Constitution.

The ninth amendment implicitly protects the unalienable rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Bold Mine

Except for polygamist and folks like Cersi and Jamie. No ninth amendment for them.

(May 10, 2014 at 9:25 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 10, 2014 at 8:12 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: The ninth amendment implicitly protects the unalienable rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Bold Mine

Except for polygamist and folks like Cersi and Jamie. No ninth amendment for them.

Who?

(May 10, 2014 at 9:25 pm)Heywood Wrote: Except for polygamist and folks like Cersi and Jamie. No ninth amendment for them.

Really? You got nothing? Are you done 'defending' marriage now? Do you want to talk about Game of Thrones?

(May 10, 2014 at 8:07 pm)Heywood Wrote: This is the first strong point I have seen you make in a very long time Ryantology. But the fact is, it doesn't matter what description the Constitutions gives these rights, they were enacted by a vote. People voted on which rights are "inalienable". Another constitution can come along and say a completely different set of rights are "inalienable". In principle we could desolve the Constitution just like we did the Articles of Confederation.

Yeah, in principle, that can happen. In practice, we can vote to deny equal rights to others. It happened even when the Constitution was drafted.

Does that justify allowing popular vote to deny equal rights to certain groups of people? You seem to be arguing that it does. I wonder if you would sing the same tune if we one day decided that Christians don't have the right to marry. After all, the freedom to worship is no less subject to popular vote than anything else.

Quote:The Constitution, to my recollection, doesn't say anything about marriage. I don't believe marriage is an unalienable right under the Constitution.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


That's the Supreme Court building, reminding everybody about it.

If marriage is a legal right for some consenting adults, it must be a right for all consenting adults. Any law disregarding this is, by definition, unconstitutional. This is why interracial marriage is legal today, and why one day, polygamy will, as well.

Please note that I bolded 'consenting adults' so you could spare everybody the potential stupidity of asking when kids and dogs will have the right to marry. Do us all a favor and refrain from that.

Oh, you didn't hear? Ryantology, he's moved the goalposts. We're talking about incest now, a la Cersei and Jamie Lannister.

(May 10, 2014 at 9:38 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Oh, you didn't hear? Ryantology, he's moved the goalposts. We're talking about incest now, a la Cersei and Jamie Lannister.

I don't personally care if siblings marry, either. That's the sort of right which would be longest-denied in the places where it is most likely to be exercised, though.