Off topic, but my theory is that the Catholic church actually has the largest number of gay priests. Logical result of being so devout you deny your basic "needs" (in quotes for lack of a better word) would be to take up a path where your religion comes first at all times and you're forbidden sexual relationships.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

Discriminate is a harsh word though. We have marriage limits on age, which I think makes sense... we can quibble about the exact age of consent, but 16 or 18 seems to keep most people satisfied. We have restrictions on marrying your close family, which I assume is to avoid inbreeding. Some states still require blood tests for hepatitis, which is also to avoid birth defects. Basically if both parties are old enough, and aren't gonna breed any retards, you're good to go.

BTW, gays can't make babies.

Yeah, i did find what you just posted above as quite complicated.

I hate all this stuff about logical and illogical stuff, because while i understand it, its cringeworthyness in use by most people in political debates generally tends to annoy me.

You seem to pull it off fine, because you make a good, well explained post out of it. And then go on to argue the point anyway.

I just hate people who made a post with a one line "That's a _________ (Insert various latin term, here)".

Through the precise scientific form (mathematical anyway) its a lot easier to comprehend.

But like you said (and that makes sense with the above post you made), understanding it is one thing but explainning and then teaching it is a lot harder to do!

__________________
The George W Bush Store:

http://georgewbushstore.com/

I feel no need to rebut your twisted version of equality. Your example speaks for itself.

Here's a good way to understand the real problem with the essential argument that everyone has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Ignore your own opinion of the statement or any statement that I'm about to make. Value judgments are irrelevant, and the statement that everyone has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex is quite simply a true statement in our society. Both gay and straight men have an equal right to marry women. I won't dispute that because doing so is pointless, since it's true.

But here's the rub. Take that same argument and replace "a person of the opposite sex" with "a person of the same race." That is, "everyone has a right to marry a person of the same race." Now, semantically, the argument is identical - the justification for it is that you have applied the law equitably.

But, the problem is that your argument could just as validly be used to ban interracial marriage (or inter-religion marriage, or marriage between people with different eye colors, hair colors, or even to ban any marriages that aren't to direct family members or aren't marriages to animals).

So, when you get down to it, this isn't an argument, nor is it even a rational justification for anything. It's just an obtuse restatement of the obvious masquerading as some kind of valid point. If I got appointed dictator, I could pass a law stating that all posters on USPO named traveler were being indefinitely detained in gulags. When you objected, I could say, under the "all persons named traveler on USPO will be shipped away, the evaluation process for whether your name is traveler and whether you post on USPO is the same for everyone. It's perfectly fair."

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Yeah, and all of those seem to be common sense based. To me the gay issue might well fall into that too, but that's not my argument to make.

But basically the state puts all sorts of restrictions on marriage, what is recognized and what isn't, what constitutes it, what the laws are, legal parameters and on and on and on.

This is no different. But one thing is for sure, whether it is discriminatory or not, the state still reserves the right to refuse a marriage license under whatever grounds it deems fit, and or whether it is unconstitutional or not, the license being rejected is final.

You can then apply for it again, but that's about it.

Only God can...

__________________
The George W Bush Store:

http://georgewbushstore.com/

That i (all) understand. But the biggest dispute from most who oppose gay marriage seems to be the refusal to given equal acknowledgement/credence/recognition between race and orientation/sexuality.

I'm not arguing for a ban on gay marriage, just saying that if you find one bar on marriages or set of regulations as discriminatory, surely you must apply the rest as the same.

__________________
The George W Bush Store:

http://georgewbushstore.com/

Let me be clear. My objection to that line of argumentation is not a result of my opinion on the matter. The problem I have with the argumentation is that it barely rises to the level of sophistry.

The reason I say that is that you're absolutely right. Rejecting the status quo argument ("everyone can marry who the law allows them to marry") makes no statement either. Since one person is saying, "the law is right because it's the law", someone who disagrees with them will say "your argument is invalid therefore <whatever I want here>".

Basically, that line of discussion invalidates the discussion by dragging it into the realm of the fanciful and absurd.

The main argument against gay marriage is simply "I don't like it and since the law allows, I will try to stop it." There's no logical rebuttal to that (though it is a bit of a non-starter).

Other arguments against it that could be taken (or left) based on their merits are arguments demonstrating that allowing the institution of gay marriage to exist would cause more harm than it would provide benefit. If such a thing could be demonstrated, it would be a serious and cogent argument on the matter (of course, it would also careen off into the subjective with Thane in here screaming about hell in a handbasket and the moral fabric of society while others talked about the detriment of denying rights and privileges selectively - both impossible to quantify and evaluate).

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Again, that would have to be something those arguing for a ban would have to explain.

I'm not advocating that. Though the notion of discrimination selectively chosen by those in favor of gay marriage seems hypocritical to me, which is why i asked them to clarrify the difference.

Tbh the best argument i have ever heard in opposition to gay marriage is that we should just go by the law of the bible on the issue, but that would likely never hold in court.

__________________
The George W Bush Store:

http://georgewbushstore.com/

Then why bother participating on a political discussion forum?

The fact of the matter is there is no inequality when it comes to rights, gays and straights can do the same things and cannot do the same things. Does that mean gay marriage should not be legalized? I never said that, in fact I support the legalization of gay marriage, it's just that the "gays don't have equal rights" argument is dishonest at best, downright retarded at worst.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what's for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed lamb willing to contest the majority decision!" ~ Benjamin Franklin
"Diplomacy is the art of saying Nice Doggie! while you're looking for a rock. ~ Wynn Catlin
"There are no innocent civilians." - Gerneral Curtis Lemay. A.K.A Bombs away Lemay

Actually, for uber-nerd cred you should respond "that's unascertainable"

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Why do heterosexuals, after examining man's and woman's anotomy, engage in oral and anal sex the way homosexuals do? Is it because they are dumb?

I sure would like to see that lesson plan!

In the case of anal, I'm going to have to say yes.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

Shhhhh........ you're going to make someone cry.