Don't we already have equal marriage rights?

You don't see inequality there. But the Supreme Court certainly does.

That's the beauty of the constitution: you don't get to decide that something is equal just because you say so. :P

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

What you don't want is specifically this redefinition.

pianist

That's exactly what it is.  We can make an exception about re-defining marriage when it comes to race, but when it comes to sexual orientation, oh no.  We can't re-define it for that because... well, because we don't like homosexuality that much.  

There's no rational reason to prevent two consenting adults from marrying.  What it all boils down to is homophobia of both the religious and secular variety.  It boils down to the elementary school attitude of not liking people who are different from you and following along with the majority in ostracizing people who are different from you.

The argument that sexuality plays no role in a romantic relationship and as such in choosing a life partner is absurd.  

Where is the harm to society here? You say you're arguing on behalf of the state. If that is the case, then you need to show some sort of damage that allowing gay marriage will cause. What is the impact? nocoolnamejim

As it stands, marriage is between a man and a woman. This doesn't exclude anyone, because there's nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a woman. To give the same benefits to homosexuals who wish to marry would require saying that one's sexual desires are a factor in their right to marry. This creates more inequality, since now everyone with sexual desires that shut them out can legitimately claim discrimination. It also means more costs to the state, since marriage is expensive (tax breaks, etc). So now it's not just less equal than it was before, but it's more costly. mysterylobster

As it stood 40 years ago, marriage was between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman. This didn't exclude anyone, because there was nothing stopping a white man from marrying a white woman or a black man from marrying a black woman. To give the same benefits to interracial couples who wish to marry would require saying that one's sexual desires are a factor in their right to marry. This creates more inequality, since now everyone with sexual desires that shut them out can legitimately claim discrimination. It also means more costs to the state, since marriage is expensive (tax breaks, etc). So now it's not just less equal than it was before, but it's more costly.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

What you don't want is specifically this redefinition.

pianist

That's exactly what it is. We can make an exception about re-defining marriage when it comes to race, but when it comes to sexual orientation, oh no. We can't re-define it for that because... well, because we don't like homosexuality very much.

There's no rational reason to prevent two consenting adults from marrying. What it all boils down to is homophobia of both the religious and secular variety. It boils down to the elementary school attitude of not liking people who are different from you and following along with the majority in ostracizing people who are different from you.

The argument that sexuality plays no role in a romantic relationship and as such in choosing a life partner is absurd.

Correct in every sense of the word.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]The state of the facilities do matter.GabuEx

No, they don't. At least, not as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. The Supreme Court ruled that the very idea of having separate facilities to be unconstitutional, not merely this specific implementation. I don't know how to say this any clearer.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Where is the harm to society here? You say you're arguing on behalf of the state. If that is the case, then you need to show some sort of damage that allowing gay marriage will cause. What is the impact? mysterylobster

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Where is the harm to society here? You say you're arguing on behalf of the state. If that is the case, then you need to show some sort of damage that allowing gay marriage will cause. What is the impact? mysterylobster

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]The state of the facilities do matter.LikeHaterade

No, they don't. At least, not as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. The Supreme Court ruled that the very idea of having separate facilities to be unconstitutional, not merely this specific implementation. I don't know how to say this any clearer.

Actually, that's exactly why homosexual marriages are being contested here in the United States: the majority is intolerant.

They believe that based off the history of whites hating blacks. The majority of the US isn't against gay marriage because they hate gays.LikeHaterade

No, they believe that based on the constitution stating that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional. The logic to reach that conclusion about "white" and "colored" drinking fountains is identical to the logic to reach that conclusion about "marriage" for straight folk and "civil unions" for gay folk. Again, the ruling had nothing to do with the state of the facilities.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]The state of the facilities do matter.LikeHaterade

No, they don't. At least, not as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. The Supreme Court ruled that the very idea of having separate facilities to be unconstitutional, not merely this specific implementation. I don't know how to say this any clearer.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]As it stands, marriage is between a man and a woman. This doesn't exclude anyone, because there's nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a woman. To give the same benefits to homosexuals who wish to marry would require saying that one's sexual desires are a factor in their right to marry. This creates more inequality, since now everyone with sexual desires that shut them out can legitimately claim discrimination. It also means more costs to the state, since marriage is expensive (tax breaks, etc). So now it's not just less equal than it was before, but it's more costly. GabuEx

As it stood 40 years ago, marriage was between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman. This didn't exclude anyone, because there was nothing stopping a white man from marrying a white woman or a black man from marrying a black woman. To give the same benefits to interracial couples who wish to marry would require saying that one's sexual desires are a factor in their right to marry. This creates more inequality, since now everyone with sexual desires that shut them out can legitimately claim discrimination. It also means more costs to the state, since marriage is expensive (tax breaks, etc). So now it's not just less equal than it was before, but it's more costly.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]As it stands, marriage is between a man and a woman. This doesn't exclude anyone, because there's nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a woman. To give the same benefits to homosexuals who wish to marry would require saying that one's sexual desires are a factor in their right to marry. This creates more inequality, since now everyone with sexual desires that shut them out can legitimately claim discrimination. It also means more costs to the state, since marriage is expensive (tax breaks, etc). So now it's not just less equal than it was before, but it's more costly. mysterylobster

As it stood 40 years ago, marriage was between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman. This didn't exclude anyone, because there was nothing stopping a white man from marrying a white woman or a black man from marrying a black woman. To give the same benefits to interracial couples who wish to marry would require saying that one's sexual desires are a factor in their right to marry. This creates more inequality, since now everyone with sexual desires that shut them out can legitimately claim discrimination. It also means more costs to the state, since marriage is expensive (tax breaks, etc). So now it's not just less equal than it was before, but it's more costly.

"Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals."

I don't see where it says that they have to be of the same sex.

Basically, it comes down to this: Do you like rights?

Then don't be a fascist. Let the people marry. It won't hurt you.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No, they don't. At least, not as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. The Supreme Court ruled that the very idea of having separate facilities to be unconstitutional, not merely this specific implementation. I don't know how to say this any clearer.

-Jiggles-

Actually, that's exactly why homosexual marriages are being contested here in the United States: the majority is intolerant.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Where is the harm to society here? You say you're arguing on behalf of the state. If that is the case, then you need to show some sort of damage that allowing gay marriage will cause. What is the impact? TheFlush

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]As it stands, marriage is between a man and a woman. This doesn't exclude anyone, because there's nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a woman. To give the same benefits to homosexuals who wish to marry would require saying that one's sexual desires are a factor in their right to marry. This creates more inequality, since now everyone with sexual desires that shut them out can legitimately claim discrimination. It also means more costs to the state, since marriage is expensive (tax breaks, etc). So now it's not just less equal than it was before, but it's more costly. mysterylobster

As it stood 40 years ago, marriage was between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman. This didn't exclude anyone, because there was nothing stopping a white man from marrying a white woman or a black man from marrying a black woman. To give the same benefits to interracial couples who wish to marry would require saying that one's sexual desires are a factor in their right to marry. This creates more inequality, since now everyone with sexual desires that shut them out can legitimately claim discrimination. It also means more costs to the state, since marriage is expensive (tax breaks, etc). So now it's not just less equal than it was before, but it's more costly.

[QUOTE="TheFlush"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"] As it stands, marriage is between a man and a woman. This doesn't exclude anyone, because there's nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a woman. To give the same benefits to homosexuals who wish to marry would require saying that one's sexual desires are a factor in their right to marry. This creates more inequality, since now everyone with sexual desires that shut them out can legitimately claim discrimination. It also means more costs to the state, since marriage is expensive (tax breaks, etc). So now it's not just less equal than it was before, but it's more costly. mysterylobster

"Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals."

I don't see where it says that they have to be of the same sex.

Basically, it comes down to this: Do you like rights?

Then don't be a fascist. Let the people marry. It won't hurt you.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Where is the harm to society here? You say you're arguing on behalf of the state. If that is the case, then you need to show some sort of damage that allowing gay marriage will cause. What is the impact? mysterylobster

That's not a question of sexual preference, unless you think interracial couples are different in some way. mysterylobster

Of course it's a question of sexual preference: if a black man wants to marry a white woman, then presumably he is sexually attracted to her. We quite simply cannot redefine marriage simply because a black man happens to be sexually attracted to a white woman; it's a sacred institution that must not be redefined. Blacks and whites are all perfectly capable of marrying as long as they marry someone of their own race.

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] They believe that based off the history of whites hating blacks. The majority of the US isn't against gay marriage because they hate gays.LikeHaterade

Actually, that's exactly why homosexual marriages are being contested here in the United States: the majority is intolerant.

Which, at it's core, is intolerant to homosexual couples.

How is "marriage is only between a man and a woman" NOT intolerant to homosexuals?

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No, they don't. At least, not as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. The Supreme Court ruled that the very idea of having separate facilities to be unconstitutional, not merely this specific implementation. I don't know how to say this any clearer.

Mr_sprinkles

[QUOTE="TheFlush"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"] As it stands, marriage is between a man and a woman. This doesn't exclude anyone, because there's nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a woman. To give the same benefits to homosexuals who wish to marry would require saying that one's sexual desires are a factor in their right to marry. This creates more inequality, since now everyone with sexual desires that shut them out can legitimately claim discrimination. It also means more costs to the state, since marriage is expensive (tax breaks, etc). So now it's not just less equal than it was before, but it's more costly. mysterylobster

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] They believe that based off the history of whites hating blacks. The majority of the US isn't against gay marriage because they hate gays.LikeHaterade

Actually, that's exactly why homosexual marriages are being contested here in the United States: the majority is intolerant.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

 

As it stood 40 years ago, marriage was between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman. This didn't exclude anyone, because there was nothing stopping a white man from marrying a white woman or a black man from marrying a black woman. To give the same benefits to interracial couples who wish to marry would require saying that one's sexual desires are a factor in their right to marry. This creates more inequality, since now everyone with sexual desires that shut them out can legitimately claim discrimination. It also means more costs to the state, since marriage is expensive (tax breaks, etc). So now it's not just less equal than it was before, but it's more costly.

Funky_Llama

No it's not. Changing that law was a matter of racial equality, not a recognition of a different sexuality. mysterylobster

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"] That's not a question of sexual preference, unless you think interracial couples are different in some way. mysterylobster

"Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals."

I don't see where it says that they have to be of the same sex.

Basically, it comes down to this: Do you like rights?

Then don't be a fascist. Let the people marry. It won't hurt you.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]They believe that based off the history of whites hating blacks. The majority of the US isn't against gay marriage because they hate gays.GabuEx

No, they believe that based on the constitution stating that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional. The logic to reach that conclusion about "white" and "colored" drinking fountains is identical to the logic to reach that conclusion about "marriage" for straight folk and "civil unions" for gay folk. Again, the ruling had nothing to do with the state of the facilities.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]No, it's nothing to do with history, it's to do with equality. If somebody is given separate facilities for no other reason than because the other people want to treat them as "different" that is discrimination, regardless of the state of those facilities. And that is the only reason for giving gay people civil unions and not marriage. To treat them as "different"Mr_sprinkles

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]

 

Actually, that's exactly why homosexual marriages are being contested here in the United States: the majority is intolerant.

Mr_sprinkles

EDIT: Or others may not believe in any other term of marriage. 

"No they believe that based on the constitution stating that 'separate but equal' is unconstitutional." That is what I was referring to. That ruling was based off history where whites hated blacks and it is different in this case.LikeHaterade

...

The ruling is that separate facilities for different segments of the population is inherently inequal and thus inherently unconstitutional. What part of "the ruling had nothing to do with the state of the facilities" do you not understand? There is nothing in the ruling that has anything to do with whites hating blacks; it is based on the notion that separate facilities for different segments of the population is inherently inequal and thus inherently unconstitutional.

Do I need to say it a third time? :P

I'd like you all read the following..

http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/0405if-comm4.htm

After you read that you will learn that the definition of marriage is not a static definition that has an ultimate form. For this reason you can't say anybody is redefining marriage.

There are many forms of marriage. I don't see what the argument is about? We're denying a community of people from having their own form of marriage. We aren't altering the definition of marriage what so ever.

I' don't mean to disapoint you mysterylobster but all your arguments fail as they are based on the assumption the concept of marriage is globaly defined the same way, and this has never been the case.

[QUOTE="TheFlush"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"] Because marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman, and there's nothing stopping these homosexuals from marrying someone of the opposite sex. They have the same rights I do. mysterylobster

Adultery.

Also, what makes it fine to change the definition of marriage to cater to interracial couples but not homosexual couples? Both definiately have a sexual attraction towards eachother; 'tis passionate love.

Because I don't think we should be redefining marriage in terms of sexual preference. Otherwise, what argument do we have against, say, polygamists marrying? mysterylobster

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]"No they believe that based on the constitution stating that 'separate but equal' is unconstitutional." That is what I was referring to. That ruling was based off history where whites hated blacks and it is different in this case.GabuEx

...

The ruling is that separate facilities for different segments of the population is inherently inequal and thus inherently unconstitutional. What part of "the ruling had nothing to do with the state of the facilities" do you not understand? There is nothing in the ruling that has anything to do with whites hating blacks; it is based on the notion that separate facilities for different segments of the population is inherently inequal and thus inherently unconstitutional.

Do I need to say it a third time? :P

All I know is that in most states, two people who love each other can't get married just because of their gender. That just doesn't seem right to me.-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]"No they believe that based on the constitution stating that 'separate but equal' is unconstitutional." That is what I was referring to. That ruling was based off history where whites hated blacks and it is different in this case.GabuEx

...

The ruling is that separate facilities for different segments of the population is inherently inequal and thus inherently unconstitutional. What part of "the ruling had nothing to do with the state of the facilities" do you not understand? There is nothing in the ruling that has anything to do with whites hating blacks; it is based on the notion that separate facilities for different segments of the population is inherently inequal and thus inherently unconstitutional.

Do I need to say it a third time? :P

I'd like you all read the following..

http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/0405if-comm4.htm

After you read that you will learn that the definition of marriage is not a static definition that has an ultimate form. For this reason you can't say anybody is redefining marriage.

There are many forms of marriage. I don't see what the argument is about? We're denying a community of people from having their own form of marriage. We aren't altering the definition of marriage what so ever.

I' don't mean to disapoint you mysterylobster but all your arguments fail as they are based on the assumption the concept of marriage is globaly defined the same way, and this has never been the case.

EMOEVOLUTION

Who cares about globalization. It's about the US. This is the legal term of marriage in the US. 

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]"No they believe that based on the constitution stating that 'separate but equal' is unconstitutional." That is what I was referring to. That ruling was based off history where whites hated blacks and it is different in this case.LikeHaterade

...

The ruling is that separate facilities for different segments of the population is inherently inequal and thus inherently unconstitutional. What part of "the ruling had nothing to do with the state of the facilities" do you not understand? There is nothing in the ruling that has anything to do with whites hating blacks; it is based on the notion that separate facilities for different segments of the population is inherently inequal and thus inherently unconstitutional.

Do I need to say it a third time? :P

It has everything to do with whites hating blacks for which that was the foundation that it was founded upon, and is completely different now. Although it may apply to some, this doesn't pertain to the separation of the minority because the majority hates them. And please keep in mind this isn't a physical separation. No you don't have to say it a third time, though do you see the point I'm trying to make?LikeHaterade

No, I don't see the point you're trying to make, but I am becoming more and more convinced that you're wilfully not understanding the basis of the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.

Here is the summary of the Supreme Court's findings, directly from the ruling itself:

"Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment - even though the physical facilities and other 'tangible' factors of white and Negro schools may be equal."

Please find for me the portion of that in which it says "and we are making this ruling because white people hate black people".

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]Because they're not being treated the exact same as a married couple. Else they would be a married couple, not a civil union'd couple.Mr_sprinkles

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]Because I don't think we should be redefining marriage in terms of sexual preference. Otherwise, what argument do we have against, say, polygamists marrying? GabuEx

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

 

...

The ruling is that separate facilities for different segments of the population is inherently inequal and thus inherently unconstitutional. What part of "the ruling had nothing to do with the state of the facilities" do you not understand? There is nothing in the ruling that has anything to do with whites hating blacks; it is based on the notion that separate facilities for different segments of the population is inherently inequal and thus inherently unconstitutional.

Do I need to say it a third time? :P

nocoolnamejim