I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'

That was me. Got locked out for a couple days there.

You really don't address what I said there. You acknowledged that people (such as you) would be less willing to buck the system if it was called marriage. So it would seem that calling it marriage is a good idea.Unless you think that that not calling it marriage would reduce the number of people who took advantage of the system, I don't see how the name change prevents anything.And, as always, segregation bad. But hey.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

*scratches head*So... we are going to purchase thirteen year-old child brides again?'Cuz seriously... I could use free maid service. I typed and deleted a few sarcastic replies to this, but none of them could really do my reaction justice. (Not without breaking forum rules, at least.)You can choose to not equate them all you like. You can also, while you're at it, choose to not equate six of one with a half-dozen of the other. But if someone asks for inclusion, and you deny them that inclusion, you are excluding them.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Sure it does. It gives any citizen of the US the same rights enjoyed by any other citizen of the US.Straight citizens of the United States have the right to marry. Therefore, gay citizens of the United States get it too.

So where were you when the last election went down?Regardless... you're wrong. If the government has a system in place to recognize the marriages of one group of people, and not another, then the government is denying a set of people within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.But all that being said... if there can be no laws preventing them from getting married, then they can get married. So there you go. 1) Sez you. There are thousands of gay marriages out there right now. The government just chooses to not recognize them.2) But assuming you're right, then according to the 14th amendment, the default has to change. Otherwise, the law will be favoring one set of citizens over another. Got'cha. Just because it says they need to be treated equally, it doesn't require that the law actually treat them equally.Edited by Dan Carroll, : For clarification of some points.

If you feel a real need to make sure the law excludes homosexuals, sure. Your interpretation's wrong. See previous post.Under your interpretation, it would be perfectly legal to pass a law saying white people don't have to pay taxes. After all, no law's been passed against black people in such a scenario. Only if you legally define marriage to exclude them. In which case, even in your half-reading of the 14th amendment, a law is being made to exclude. How do you figure?They don't get any of the nifty tax breaks, or medical visits, or other government perks that come with marriage. But as far as two people devoting their lives to one another goes, their marriages are already in place. The "more liberal society" into which you're so worried about being forced is already there. Societal changes are, astonishingly enough, a social matter that require no government intervention. And the change has already occurred.Now it's just a question of whether the government will do its job, and treat those marriages equally. Feel free to explain why, if you ever think of a reason. I'll be eager to hear how "equal protection" does not require equal protection. Since it's a grammatical abortion of a non-answer, I wouldn't know where to start butchering it.

Eleven states passed anti-gay laws related to marriage.

Congratulations, you're catching up. Having a system in place that allows only straight people to get married restricts the rights of non-straight people. No it isn't. Gosh, we can do this all day.Although strangely enough, I can point to existing gay marriages. Marriage didn't exist until after tax breaks? Weird. "I mean, what exactly are you being forced into?"

​

"A more liberal society."It's strange that you would define equal treatment of all citizens as liberal. Actually, all you said was "I think you're misinterpreting the 14th amendment."

See, now I'm gonna blush.

Of course, as has been pointed out to you in the past, separate-but-equal institutions were aptly called out as bullshit more than fifty-two years ago.

See above. We could also grant black people blacks-only water fountains, and keep them away from those that, by definition, are whites-only.Wait... no we can't. That would be horrific. So far, the only negative consequence you've pointed out is one that already exists. (Marriage fraud.) So really, it's just failing to consider the status quo that could continue.But I do like your argument that we should punish gay people by denying them rights, because straight people might do something bad. That's funny.

So because the rights have been denied to them for a very long time, that makes it okay.Interesting.Of course, by this logic, slaves who were born into captivity were not denied rights. After all, they never had them. Not the way you're suggesting. Granting a separate-but-equal version of a right is not an option. Neither is denying the right.Leaves one option. The really obvious one. Grant the right itself. You're (still) ignoring the fact that people are already given this chance. In fact, either one of us could go enter into a fraudulent marriage right now. If gay marriage is allowed, our ability to do this will neither increase nor decrease.

So had they been left slaves, that would be okay? Equal treatment is indeed a right, guaranteed by the constitution. And marriage is a fundamental right, according to the supreme court. I can point to those existing gay marriages again, if you'd like. You are demonstrably wrong. Seriously, though... can they have their own water fountains? I hear they get thirsty sometimes. Name one. What happens:Gay couples are treated equally by the government. The Earth carries on its orbit around the sun. The domestication of the dog continues unabated.Tune in next week, when one of those married gay couples says, "Hey, did you take the garbage out last night? I think I forgot to take the garbage out." Agreed. The right to get married has come up. Let's grant it to them.

Checked. It's a list of laws in which marriage is relevant.Now perhaps you could name one law... that list is probably a good place to start... which would be adversely affected by gay marriage. Great. Name one.

Not really. This line of argument was shot down in Loving v. Virginia. I'm all for equal treatment for polygamists.But why would that have any bearing on whether or not it's right to hammer CS's arguments? If he's wrong, he's wrong. Whether I'm hypocritical about polygamy has no bearing on that. I was wondering when you'd pop in and bring this up. To me, it ties into a whole different area of law... that minors are, by and large, treated as an exception to this amendment, in that they are not allowed the full range of many rights until an arbitrarily assigned age. (Which varies, depending on the right in question.) Voting is a prime example.The validity of that idea is a subject that isn't specific to marriage, but is worth discussing, perhaps in another thread.