I googled "what is a civil right". Absolutely nothing about state's rights. The word homonym comes to mind.

I was thinking "equivocation" myself...

But i'll cut him some slack because he says English isn't his first language.

You want marriage for homonyms now too? One step at a time

(June 29, 2015 at 1:55 pm)robvalue Wrote: You want marriage for homonyms now too? One step at a time

The moral decay of this nation is not happening fast enough.  The religious are expecting us to push for bestiality next.  I figure by supporting the rights of words before animals we can confuse them and they won't have a proper argument prepared.

No, they had to include bestiality as well. Apparently it was impossible to legally separate the two. Have at it!

(June 29, 2015 at 1:42 pm)robvalue Wrote: Err...

I don't know fuck all about law so debating me about law is pointless. Also, it's law now, so it's moot

Any non-legal reason why there is any point to prohibiting same sex marriage. What harm does it do to anything? What's the problem? Why would society be better off continuing to prohibit it?

I guess I would prefer a moral/societal argument, but whatever you want to do. I have no idea what it has to do with economics, and I'm no expert on that either.

I don't care about history or biology in regard to this matter, unless you can convince me they are relevant.

-----------------------------------------
Regardless of it being law or not does not stop any topic for debate or discussion. Also your questions are asking me about my assumed position on a topic.

Ok, but can we agree to no religion in this debate? No ideas or arguments. NOT ONE SHITTY WORD OF RELIGION.. . . unless you wish to go that way, which would be funny to me given this is an atheist board. But whatever makes you fart.

And are you sure your ok with my bad writing? Of course I will do my best for it to not be so bad

Quote:Never mind the fact that two people in love should be allowed to marry regardless of gender

Honestly I find this argument ridiculous because love is and should never be a requirement in marriage - Two people can choose to marry for many reasons, namely economic, social and pragmatic ones - There's legal benefits people get from marriage. The argument of love is a terrible one for any marriage at all.

I prefer a more sophisticated approach and argue that there is no compelling reason, given the fact homosexuality is natural, has always existed and constitutes merely an insignificant divergence in someone's own personal life (when compared to heterosexuality), there's no reason to not grant marriage licenses to gay people and they should be able to benefit from the same legal privileges marriage brings as anyone else does. Marriage is an important institution because it helps solidify people's relations and because we are social beings we usually pick someone to live together and frequently share intimacy - As such, everyone should be given this legal right. It's that simple.

(June 29, 2015 at 1:54 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: I googled "what is a civil right".  Absolutely nothing about state's rights.  The word homonym comes to mind.

Really you had to google it. hmmmm ok.

Civil Right means laws in the states/local. Remember this was an issue of law not social, economical, or common ideology. In law a civil right is a civil law/state law.

Take the civil rights movement, the right to vote was already granted to the African Americans not only in the constitution but also in the states constitutions of the ex-confederate south. (keep in mind that in order for the southern states to reenter into the union they all had to incorporate the 13th, 14th, & 15th, (the right to vote) amendments into their state's constitutions).

What stopped American Americans,(or make it very difficult to enact their right) from voting was not the federal government but the states, (state laws). The Jim Crow laws, (this is the name given in history for this particular time and type of state laws) /state laws had been set to favor all non-African Americans, (Native Americans are mostly under federal laws, depending).

Example, in order to vote all citizens of, (lets say Mississippi) had to complete a reading test to show that the people can both read and understand what they read. The differences was that the reading test for the whites was very simple, like reading the title The Three Little Pigs. The test for the blacks were intentionally difficulty and set up so non could pass, like a full page form Webster dictionary.

Because states have the right, even today, make laws that pertain to the state interest such as voter laws. (10th Amendment). To over ride a states law that the state dose not wish to undo, either the action of a Federal Law or a ruling from the Supreme Court can change it. (however, states do have some action that they can do to not have to enact a federal law or supreme court ruling) This is Checks and Balances

Thus, same sex marriage needed the either the states to change their laws or the federal government to step in to compel the states to change their laws. It is the state laws, (civil Laws) that denied the marriages not the federal.

I hope my writing is understandable. Sorry not a good writer in English. It was not my first language.

My point is that how a word is used is a little bit more important than the etymology when defining meaning. I was also having a little fun by saying that I googled "what is a civil right".

You were trying to point out that somebody either used the wrong word "civil" as opposed to "fundamental", or that because it is a "civil" right, that SCOTUS getting involved with it is wrong.
I am trying to point out that words have multiple meanings, and the way you have defined a civil right, is not the way most English speakers use the word anymore.