Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern
A privledge = a private law? I've never heard such an argument before.
|
As I said, it was an observation, not an argument.
It does mean that.
Quote:
Times change. Years ago Medical science used leaches in treating disease. The legality of same sex marriage may or may not change. Not everything is dynamic.
It was once illegal to participate in anal heterosexual sex too. Times they are a changing.
|
Thank you for making my point for me.
Quote:
|
No MarissaW, it's because it's morally wrong to take advantage of a child. I'm surprised you missed that one. Brother and sisters can't marry either, yet they are over the age of consent. Your argument fails here.
|
"Unable to give consent" MEANS taking advantage of a minor.
Brothers and sisters are not legally allowed to marry because of the chances of birth defects. Do you really believe the reasons a minor is not able to marry are the same as why close relatives are not allowed to marry? It's closer to your comprehension, not my argument that has a case of teh Phail.
Quote:
|
Tell me you are not serious. Tax codes did not exist when the first bigamy laws were penned in the US.
|
I'm very serious. There is an active contingent trying to pass polygamy laws. They will never pass, not because of fine upstanding moral beings such as yourself, but because it would play hell with out tax code. There is such a thing as pragmatism, even in law.
Quote:
|
My original response wasn't intended to prove the validity of any allegation, but to prove that it is within the power of the legislature to legislate with respect to marriage. That being the case, is further evidence that marriage is not a fundamental right but a privledge.
|
In that case, perhaps we should put it to the "will of the people" as represented through the legislature if we should deny the vote to naturalized citizens. As you say, voting may be a fundamental right, but it certainly can be restricted. We wouldn't want the wrong people voting, now would we?
Quote:
|
Yes, I think the courts have found voting to be a fundamental right of citizenship, not a privilege reserved for a special class(es). That is not the case with marriage, there is a distinct difference.
|
I'm so glad you said that. I would have hated to continue wondering if you were really a bigot or merely looking at the situation from a different perspective.
Quote:
|
So, is your point is that the majority of people in a population are stupid and bigots?
|
Many times, yes.
Quote:
|
Pretty wide brush there Marissa.
|
I know. I wish I were proved wrong WRT stupidity and bigotry more often.
Quote:
Heterosexual couples fall within the now upheld decision of the CA Supreme Court, that is, between a man and a woman. ALL people are free to marry provided they follow the rules as they are now enacted.
Your arguments clearly fail to touch the heart of the issue, that is, whether or not marriage is a fundamental right. If you so strongly disagree then perhaps you should stop throwing rocks and throw a little substance into this discussion.
|
Perhaps you'd care to go back to my first post in which I said that I don't believe such a thing as 'fundamental' rights exist, merely those we fight to get and keep and those given to us by government.
As for the rock throwing: sometimes them sanctimony bubbles, they need burstin'.