Thread: Gay Marriage
View Single Post
Old 02-04-2009, 10:48 PM   #35
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
I never said the US was allowed to construct permanent social classes. I said that it was once impossible to marry outside your race, religion and social class. Heck, it still is, for a lot of people. This in your unchanging Traditional Marriage.
Actually it still did happen, it was taboo, but it did happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Are you really this ignorant of the history of civil rights and woman's rights in your own homeland, I wonder.
They also had trouble realizing that skin color didn't determine whether or not someone was a person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Yes, today universal suffrage is in the US Constitution. Today it is recognized that you have a right to have a divorce without getting shunned by your community and peers. Today white American women can marry African-American men without having their houses burned down.
That had to do with people not realizing that skin-color didn't mean anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Oh, and I can't let your history revisionist attempt slip... the US was not founded on Judea-Christian values and whoever has managed to convince you otherwise is either pushing history revisionism, or a victim of same.
No, it was founded on Judea-Christian values, the founding fathers weren't atheists. The first amendment is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
EDIT: Wait, wait, wait... are you OK with a 26 year old man marrying a girl who's just reached puberty? I mean, since it's between a male and a female and all ?
I'm against something like that, and if you open up the definition of marriage, you open it to legal challenges where something like that would be legal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Like it or not inter-racial marriage was believed to affect a lot of people, ticked a lot of people off, and was accused of being the top of a slippery slope that'd allow other horrible things such as homosexual marriage, bigamy and child marriages.
Again they were operating off of racism, as I pointed out one's skin pigmentation means nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Oh, and you do realize that your entire argument is one big Appeal To Tradition, I hope?
So?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
How, exactly, does this follow? Bigamy is not a violation of your 1st Amendment 14th Amendment rights, but would be if gays were allowed to marry? I'm also curious as to what on earth marriage has to do with the 1st amendment in the first place.
It's the consequence that it opens the door for 1st and 14th amendment challenges to the ban on bigamy and marrying children, because you're discriminating against a religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I'm also curious as to why bigamists can't use the slippery slope argument with other 'redefinitions of marriage' and say that since we're redefined marriage to include inter-racial marriage, then we're perfectly justified in redefining it further to allow bigamy. Oh, wait, let me guess... inter-racial marriage doesn't count because it's still between a man and a woman.
That's actually quite simple, the inter-racial marriage is a situation involving only the 14th Amendment, skin color has nothing to do with what gender someone is, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not they are people. You are comparing apples and lima beans, they are two different things.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,