Gay marriage and the law

"Gay" is not a label that defines a group of people like the races do. The rejection by the Court of Loving wasn't a version of the argument.Nator is arguing that sexuality follows a bell curve and is not black and white. Assuming this is true, marriage remaining between a man and a women does not deny any protection of the law to any persons.I wouldn't support a law that bans gay marriage, but if the laws as currently written do not allow for it, then I don't have a problem with not making more laws that do allow gay marriage. And that's because not allowing it doesn't violate the 14th amendment and I haven't seen a compelling reason for allowing it. I don't really see the need to ban it, but to continue to disallow it is different.There are thousands of laws that refer to marriage and these laws were written with presumptions about what those marriages entail. To simply change marriage so that it does not fit within those presumptions would affect those laws and their ramifications. I think it is safe to assume that there would be negetive consequences to redefining marriage in those laws and to continue to disallow gay marriage would be safer for the govenments interests.

I'm not sure I can prove that they are not.Can you show me how they are a "discrete and insular minority" and how they suffer from a reduced access to the political process as a result of prejudice?"Gays" doesn't describe an actual "group of people". Remember that sexuality is a bell curve... Its not black and white. That's because of what marriage is, not because of some law preventing them.The laws doesn't prevent me, a man, from going on maternity leave, I'm just not capable of doing it. Does that mean that men are being prejudiced against?

Anybody can enter the contract of marriage. "Gay people" is not some group that is discriminated from entering the contract. The contract, however, must be between a man and a women. Its not discriminatory.

The difference is that that would be discriminatory against black people, while this: is not discriminatory against anyone because everyone is either a man or a women. I dunno how the contract works for true hermaphrodites, I suppose they're either.People are of different races and the contract shouldn't be limited to the same race, but being gay doesn't make you not a man or not a women, so the contract doesn't exclude people who are gay.

Not in the laws of the United States.

quote:

---

What anthropologists have learned is that from a global, cross-cultural perspective, “marriage” is in the first place extremely difficult, some would say impossible, to define.

---

We're not typing about a global, cross-cultural perspective, we're typing about the laws of the United States. That didn't refute that being gay doesn't make you not a man or not a women, so therefore you wouldn't be excluded from the contract by being gay.

That's the definition that was being used when the laws were written. If you change the definition it will affect thousands of laws. The definition was 'understood' to be between a man and women. They failed to see the need for it to be defined. Basically, everybody knew what they were talking about.Why do you think? DOMA? The was in response to the 'misunderstanding' of the definition that was understood to be, yet remained undefined.People were using the lack of definition to create another group that was a minority that was being discriminated against. It turns out that the definition that was understood doesn't actually discriminate against gays.If we do need to update the laws, I don't think we should just change the way a single word is defined when it will affect thousands of laws. All the laws need to be updated as well.

Relax... He wasn't quoting the law. If that's how he interprets what the law says, can't he simply remain wrong? Must he really quote the law conforming exactly to his interpretation? The laws aren't written like people think.

What makes you so sure?

I think that is because you are misunderstanding what discrimination is. According to dictionary.com:

quote:

---

Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

---

It is not discrimination because homosexuals are not prohibited from getting married. The problem is that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Being a homosexual does not put you in a group, class, or category that is not a man or a woman so they are not excluded from marriage and they are not being discriminated against.If it was “between the same race” is would be discriminatory because some people don’t belong to a particular race and would be excluded by that definition.Your sexuality doesn’t determine your gender, so having a definition based on gender has nothing to do with your sexuality. I’m not entirely sure, but I said before that if they were consider either man or women, or both perhaps, then they would not be discriminated against either. But that is not the topic of this thread. No it doesn’t, that’s total bullshit. Religion doesn’t have anything to do with it, we are talking about the law. Stop being disingenuous.

I see the picture that you are painting, but it is full of bias and conspiracy theory and does not reflect reality. It doesn’t even address my argument and is irrelevant enough that I see no reason to address it specifically. That’s what I said in Message 49

quote:

---

DOMA? The was in response to the 'misunderstanding' of the definition that was understood to be, yet remained undefined.

---

Signed by Bill Clinton . just sayin’It changed because those things were discriminatory. All the more reason to not take changes to the definition of marriage too lightly . Exactly! As marriage, as defined, is afforded to all our citizens and does not discriminate against any group, there’s no reason to change it.

I get it just fine, you're the one who is too dense to get it. The current definition also is not discriminatory against blacks, you're right. However, that has nothing to do with it not being discriminatory against gays as well. Your gender is not defined by your sexual orientation so you're just plain wrong here.A point you've failed to address. All you can do is try to smear my argument by comparison, a good indication that you have nothing to stand on.You're just trying to make it discriminatory because you want it to be so that it can be changed. I guess it is not really because you're dense, but more because you're biased.

Well, now I'm beginning to think you're a moron. That, or your bias is severly clouding your judgement.You think you're actually saying something by replacing gender with race and you keep repeating it while it doesn't have anything to do with my argument.And this part: That doesn't even make any sense. Of course your gender is not defined by your racial orientation, that's one of the reasons that having genders as a part of the definition of marriage does not discriminate against any race, just like it doesn't against any sexual orientations.Are you really that dense? Why can't you get it? The difference is that the law defines marriage as between a man and a women and this is not discriminatory against any group of people like it would be if it refered to race.Because your gender is not determined by your sexuality, having gender restiction does not discriminate against any particular sexuality. It doesn't matter how different they are. The definition of marriage is with respect to gender, not sexual orientation. They are not exactly the same though.

Strawman.My position is that the law, the topic of this thread, that defines marriage as between a man and a women is not discriminatory against gay people because they are still men and women. Your sexual orientation and your gender are seperate. Laws that limit things by gender do necessarily limit them by sexual orientation as well.

I don't see how the first half of your message has anything to do with my position.

---

What do you mean by "redlining"?Even the title of the act, the Defense of Marriage Act suggests that it was responsive. I don't have a problem with gay people having equal access to federal and state benefits. I do have a problem with changing the understood definition of marriage without considering the ramifications that it will have on thousands of laws. If the law defined sex as between a man and a woman, then whatever gay people are doing would not be considered sex by the legal definition.They wouldn't be being discriminated against, because they could still do whatever they were doing, the state just wouldn't recognize it as sex. Since they could still have sex, according to the legal definition, that definition would not discrimiate against gay people. lol, riiiight. You're not going to goad me.

But the legal definition of marriages remains indiscriminatory.