["BrooksB"]

Now we've got two big debates going... this should be fun, Travis.

Originally Posted by Travis

Those arguing against homosexual rights are not saying that homosexuals should have no rights, but rather that they should not have the right to engage in certain behaviors relating to homosexuality, be it marriage or homosexual acts themselves, depending upon the person to whom you are speaking.

Good job slamming the semantics. The issue has been avoided, however.

When African Americans were fighting for their civil rights, they were not completely denied all rights. They just didn't get all the same ones whites had. The constitution says that all citizens are protected equally by all laws without discrimination. Prohibiting one group of people from certain rights is in direct violation of this. So, prohibiting gays marriage while allowing straight folks marriage is blatant discrimination and therefore is unconstitutional. So, you still have yet to refute the stance: homosexuals are citizens and should then have the same civil rights as everyone else.

You shouldn't have the right to commit adultery. How are you moving from this to the idea that those who commit such acts should have no rights at all? This is all just one huge straw-man argument.

There is no straw man. You wish to restrict the civil rights of some citizens but not others. I have refuted this by outlining the fundamental idea behind the support of such a restriction.

Presupposes the utilitarian concept of the harm principle as the ultimate standard of rights. You should prove this to be the correct standard if you wish to keep employing it.

I don't know anything about the "utilitarian concept of the harm principle". However, what I do know is that giving people civil rights isn't going to hurt anyone. Only restricting them is going to hurt people, namely the people whose rights are being restricted. As far as I'm concerned, you're going to have to show how giving rights is going to hurt someone.

Do you support the right of murderers to murder? If not, you are being "prejudice, irresponsible and hurtful to others."

I support the civil rights of everyone without discrimination. "The right to kill" is not a civil right, if that's what you're asking, because no one can kill legally, gay or not, murderer or not. I see where you're going with this, though. You think it should be totally illegal for people to be homosexual. Well, dream on-- that'll never happen. It is similar to the ideas prevalent in the south way back, when it was practically illegal to be black in the south (you would have been incarcerated, literally). However, people realized how horrible that was and that's no longer going on. Also, they eventually gained the same civil rights that blacks have. It only makes sense to count homosexuals as citizens if they cannot be counted as criminals. Because all citizens are protected equally and without discrimination (thank you, 14th ammendment) we cannot lawfully restrict the rights of anyone without restricting them to everyone. If homos can't marry, then, constitutionally speaking, heteros can't either.

I assume that you believe we should prohibit people from murdering. Therefore you do in fact wish to restrict the rights of others, because you don't think people have the right to do certain things (e.g., murder others). It is likewise with adultery and homosexuality--we don't believe people have the right to do those things.

Once again, the whole analogy to murder is completely superfluous because no one can legally murder, so it is not discriminatory to incarcerate murderers. However, as mentioned before, if some people are allowed to marry and others not, that's discrimination and is directly in violation of the constitution.

[JakeW]

Do you really believe that all groups of people have equal rights and privledges?

How about the fact that white men under 40 aren't protected by discrimination laws? (Over 40 gets age discrimination). Does that fact that we are already far from consistent bother you any?

As it stands homosexuals are simply one of many groups that are not allowed to marry. (men and animals, childern etc)

Further, I think your assumption that marriage is a right needs to be proven. All citizens should have equal rights sure, but marriage isn't a right, it's a gift from God and (if you're Roman Catholic) a sacrement.

Jake

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by JakeW

Do you really believe that all groups of people have equal rights and privledges?

Absolutely. I was raised in a family that promoted the idea that people are people and that superficial differences don't mean anything. Nobody's perfect, and nobody does everything right, so I have no reason to discriminate homosexuals just because they are different from me and I think that homosexuality is absurd. I don't see how you can justify prohibiting some people rights based on superficial qualities.

How about the fact that white men under 40 aren't protected by discrimination laws? (Over 40 gets age discrimination). Does that fact that we are already far from consistent bother you any?

What age discrimination are you talking about? Are there laws that prohibit people over the age 40 of certain rights?

As it stands homosexuals are simply one of many groups that are not allowed to marry. (men and animals, childern etc)

This is entirely different. An animal cannot give consent to marry a man. A child is not able to lawfully sign a contract.

Further, I think your assumption that marriage is a right needs to be proven. All citizens should have equal rights sure, but marriage isn't a right, it's a gift from God and (if you're Roman Catholic) a sacrement.

You may see it as a gift from god, but our government's recognition of marriage is what is at stake, here. Therefore, because it is a matter of a government's approval, then it is a matter of civil rights.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Good job slamming the semantics. The issue has been avoided, however.

The issue has not been avoided. You constructed a straw-man argument and were addressing it rather than the Christian position.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

When African Americans were fighting for their civil rights, they were not completely denied all rights. They just didn't get all the same ones whites had. The constitution says that all citizens are protected equally by all laws without discrimination. Prohibiting one group of people from certain rights is in direct violation of this. So, prohibiting gays marriage while allowing straight folks marriage is blatant discrimination and therefore is unconstitutional. So, you still have yet to refute the stance: homosexuals are citizens and should then have the same civil rights as everyone else.

Homosexuals have the right to marry people of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals do.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

There is no straw man. You wish to restrict the civil rights of some citizens but not others. I have refuted this by outlining the fundamental idea behind the support of such a restriction.

You must prove that homosexuality is a civil right and that homosexuality is a moral right.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

I don't know anything about the "utilitarian concept of the harm principle". However, what I do know is that giving people civil rights isn't going to hurt anyone. Only restricting them is going to hurt people, namely the people whose rights are being restricted. As far as I'm concerned, you're going to have to show how giving rights is going to hurt someone.

The harm principle is the idea that governments ought not prohibit any actions that do not harm others. I am contesting this idea. I do not agree that we should only outlaw actions that harm other individuals. Moreover, I do not agree that homosexuality is a right. You will have to prove these two claims.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

I support the civil rights of everyone without discrimination. "The right to kill" is not a civil right, if that's what you're asking, because no one can kill legally, gay or not, murderer or not. I see where you're going with this, though. You think it should be totally illegal for people to be homosexual. Well, dream on-- that'll never happen.

Whether it will happen is irrelevant as to whether it should, as I am claiming.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

It is similar to the ideas prevalent in the south way back, when it was practically illegal to be black in the south (you would have been incarcerated, literally). However, people realized how horrible that was and that's no longer going on. Also, they eventually gained the same civil rights that blacks have. It only makes sense to count homosexuals as citizens if they cannot be counted as criminals. Because all citizens are protected equally and without discrimination (thank you, 14th ammendment) we cannot lawfully restrict the rights of anyone without restricting them to everyone. If homos can't marry, then, constitutionally speaking, heteros can't either.

And on what basis is the right to marry members of the same sex a right? They both have the right to marry, provided the person they are marrying is of the opposite sex. Therefore they each have equal protection under the law.

Furthermore, even if the Constitution did allow for homosexual marriage, that would not prove that homosexual marriage is right. I would still argue that it should be illegal. I do not believe the Constitution to be the ultimate standard of morality.

["BrooksB"]

I only have time for one reply today, so I'll take the first one for now.

Originally Posted by Travis

The issue has not been avoided. You constructed a straw-man argument and were addressing it rather than the Christian position.

Well, the issue at hand (whether or not homosexuals should have the right to marry) was avoided in your post.

Homosexuals have the right to marry people of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals do.

Why in the world would a homosexual marry someone of the opposite sex? You're asking them to do replace one sin (homosexuality) with another (dishonesty). Good move. No less sin going on here. You've effectively solved nothing with this suggestion.

You must prove that homosexuality is a civil right and that homosexuality is a moral right.

It is not illegal, what's more to prove? I think YOU should prove that it's NOT a right.

The harm principle is the idea that governments ought not prohibit any actions that do not harm others. I am contesting this idea. I do not agree that we should only outlaw actions that harm other individuals. Moreover, I do not agree that homosexuality is a right. You will have to prove these two claims.

This is not a "harm others" only idea. It doesn't harm ANYONE, not you, not the parties actually involved, not the government, no one. It's not the same as "people should be able to do as much drugs as they want as long as they stay in their homes and don't commit other crimes" because those people are harming themselves in very real ways. Homosexuals are not even harming themselves in a realistic manner. Maybe according to your religion they are harming themselves, but law isn't hardly based on yours or anyone else's religion.

Whether it will happen is irrelevant as to whether it should, as I am claiming.

Why not? If it's not illegal to be homosexual, then they have the same rights as everyone else.

And on what basis is the right to marry members of the same sex a right? They both have the right to marry, provided the person they are marrying is of the opposite sex. Therefore they each have equal protection under the law.

They do not have equal protection of the law when they cannot marry who they choose to. I, as a heterosexual, can marry whoever I want, as long as they're consenting. Without homosexual marriage rights, they cannot marry whoever they want like I can.

Furthermore, even if the Constitution did allow for homosexual marriage, that would not prove that homosexual marriage is right. I would still argue that it should be illegal. I do not believe the Constitution to be the ultimate standard of morality.

That's understandable, but the Constitution just happens to be the ultimate standard of US law. As I've said before, this is not so much a morality issue. I know very well that you think it's immoral. There's no use in us arguing that.

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

It [homosexuality] is not illegal, what's more to prove? I think YOU should prove that it's NOT a right.

The only way that this makes sense is to assume that you believe anything not illegal is a right. Just to briefly show the absurdity of that stance a list of things not illegal that are not rights.

Playing electric guitar - not illegal AND not a right (http://www.freep.com/news/nw/pris12_20030212.htm)

Health Care - not illegal to have AND not a right
(http://www.peoplewho.net/debate/koop.htm)

Inheritance - not illegal AND not a right
(http://www.drdaveanddee.com/inheritance.html)

Smoking in public places - Not illegal (everywhere) AND not a right
(http://www.lumberjackonline.com/vnew.../406c78c2344d9)

And that's just a fun list from the first page of a Google "Not a Right" search.

In the end a Right is defined as

Originally Posted by http://www.capitalism.org/faq/rights.htm

"Rights are moral principles sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context.

To live rationally by one's reason in society, man needs only one thing from his fellow men: freedom of action.

He requires rights to those actions necessary to support his own life, the most fundamental right being the right to life, from which all other rights, including the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness derive.
"

I think you'll notice that being married is not nessicary to support one's own life, and that therefore is not a right.

Jake

[The Flying Fish]

The right to marry, however, does fall under the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Originally Posted by Travis

Correct (e.g., coveting), but the fact is that Scripture calls for homosexuality to be illegal. Thus it ought to be.

What is the verse reference for this command?

Originally Posted by Travis

Which is valid because? God's law trumps the law of man; all governments are to serve Christ (Psalm 2) and enact laws and punishments according to God's standards (Romans 13).

A theocracy or any fully Christian government should be expected to enact laws according to God's standards, but the US government is a secular institution. That's how this country was founded, and to expect the government to endorse any religious ideals would be to go against the foundation of the nation.

Now, you may not have a problem with that, as you seem to very clearly be calling for the US to become a theorcracy. Is it your wish for the US to become a Christian-only nation, where non-Christians are forced to conform to Christian ideals? Wouldn't it be an altogether better wish for people to genuinely come to agree with the commands outlined in the Bible than for it to be forced upon them in a dictator-like fashion?

And in reference to your point that coveting should not be illegal, why not? If homosexuality should be illegal simply because that is God's standard, shouldn't all sins (from lust to greed to coveting) be illegal?

Originally Posted by Travis

Ultimately there is no reason why anything should be wrong without Christianity as the reason.

I agree with this to an extent. Without the backing of Christianity (and thus the sovereignity of God setting in place the laws) or some other idea of a superior being that defines right and wrong, morals become relative (something that is considered to be morally right in Communist China could be considered to be morally wrong in the US, for example). However, all human beings have a knowledge of right and wrong, and morals can be set into place accordingly. A completely non-religious society wouldn't necasserily be without morals.

Originally Posted by Travis

Because the two are mututally exclusive.

My point was that if the government suddenly decides to recognize one religion as being authoritive, there's nothing to stop them from doing so with any other religion.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by The Flying Fish

The right to marry, however, does fall under the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Sure. But why does the right to marry another of the same sex necessarily fall under that category? There are many things people would do in order to be happy that we do not allow. For instance, we do not allow psychopaths to murder just because it would make them happy.

Originally Posted by The Flying Fish

What is the verse reference for this command?

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Originally Posted by The Flying Fish

A theocracy or any fully Christian government should be expected to enact laws according to God's standards, but the US government is a secular institution. That's how this country was founded, and to expect the government to endorse any religious ideals would be to go against the foundation of the nation.

You are ultimately begging the question, though. Of course the US government is a secular one—I am arguing that it shouldn’t be, because God demands that all governments serve Him (Psalm 2) and that they enact laws and punishments adhering to His standards (Romans 13). The fact that the US wants to be a secular nation is irrelevant if God demands all governments serve Him. The mere fact that we declare ourselves to be secular does not release us from the obligation to obey The Lord.

Originally Posted by The Flying Fish

Now, you may not have a problem with that, as you seem to very clearly be calling for the US to become a theorcracy.

I wouldn’t use the term “theocracy,” myself. I would use the term “theonomic republic”—a republic that enacts laws according to God’s standards.

Originally Posted by The Flying Fish

Is it your wish for the US to become a Christian-only nation, where non-Christians are forced to conform to Christian ideals?

I think the command of God is clear that all governments must serve Him.

Psalm 2:10-12
Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Moreover, it is clear that God demands that all governments enact laws punishing “evildoers” (as God defines them) and do so in a way that brings about His wrath—that is, wrath as He defines just wrath.

Romans 13:1-5
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

If governments are to carry out “God’s wrath” they must punish people as God sees fit. How do governments know which people God would have them punish and how God would have them punish? His Word, The Bible.

Originally Posted by The Flying Fish

Wouldn't it be an altogether better wish for people to genuinely come to agree with the commands outlined in the Bible than for it to be forced upon them in a dictator-like fashion?

That is exactly what I do wish! I do not advocate the overthrow of a government—I support legislation of these godly laws. The only way this will be done is if Christians are ultimately in the majority and bring these laws about via legislation. There will always be some wicked men who do not wish to follow God’s laws or the laws of the land, however, and their acceptance ought not be required for the laws to be enforced—they should be held accountable to the law, and punished if they transgress it.

Originally Posted by The Flying Fish

And in reference to your point that coveting should not be illegal, why not? If homosexuality should be illegal simply because that is God's standard, shouldn't all sins (from lust to greed to coveting) be illegal?

Homosexuality should be illegal, not merely because God has forbidden homosexuality, but because God has demanded that it be a civil crime (Leviticus 20:13). There are no civil laws against coveting in the Mosaic Law and therefore there is no mandate from God that it be illegal—thus it should not be illegal.

Originally Posted by The Flying Fish

I agree with this to an extent. Without the backing of Christianity (and thus the sovereignity of God setting in place the laws) or some other idea of a superior being that defines right and wrong, morals become relative (something that is considered to be morally right in Communist China could be considered to be morally wrong in the US, for example). However, all human beings have a knowledge of right and wrong, and morals can be set into place accordingly.

The knowledge of right and wrong inherent within a human being (which does exist, as Romans 1 tells us) is not sufficient for a code of morality since (A) we are fallen and depraved—this image God placed with in us has been corrupted and perverted, and (B) people disagree with each other as to what is right and what is wrong. The morals of a Charles Manson will not be the same as yours, I’d bet. So the question would be, whose moral convictions are normative? I say since we are fallen and depraved we must take God’s declaration of what is right and wrong from Scripture in order to have a legitimate moral code.

Originally Posted by The Flying Fish

My point was that if the government suddenly decides to recognize one religion as being authoritive, there's nothing to stop them from doing so with any other religion.

How about the law of God? God says to follow Him, not other religions. They could switch, I suppose, but that would be wrong, just as what they are doing now (which is legislating secular morality) is wrong.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Well, the issue at hand (whether or not homosexuals should have the right to marry) was avoided in your post.

Perhaps you should reread it. I believe four of the five responses of mine to your quotes were explicitly concerning this question. Basically my entire post addressed it. I said:

“Homosexuals have the right to marry people of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals do.”

“You must prove that homosexuality is a civil right and that homosexuality is a moral right.”

“Moreover, I do not agree that homosexuality is a right. You will have to prove these two claims.”

“And on what basis is the right to marry members of the same sex a right? They both have the right to marry, provided the person they are marrying is of the opposite sex. Therefore they each have equal protection under the law.

Furthermore, even if the Constitution did allow for homosexual marriage, that would not prove that homosexual marriage is right. I would still argue that it should be illegal. I do not believe the Constitution to be the ultimate standard of morality.”

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Why in the world would a homosexual marry someone of the opposite sex?

Why should I know? That’s their business. My only point is that the law applies equally—either heterosexuals or homosexuals can marry, provided the person they marry is of the other sex.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

You're asking them to do replace one sin (homosexuality) with another (dishonesty). Good move. No less sin going on here. You've effectively solved nothing with this suggestion.

Firstly, I would dispute the claim that a homosexual marrying someone of the opposite sex (which I believe would necessitate beforehand that they leave their sin) is falsehood. However, even if it was, they could just choose to not exercise their right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

It is not illegal, what's more to prove? I think YOU should prove that it's NOT a right.

The fact that something is legal according to a certain criminal justice system does not prove that it is a moral right. You are committing the naturalistic fallacy—assuming that what is the case necessarily ought to be.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

This is not a "harm others" only idea. It doesn't harm ANYONE, not you, not the parties actually involved, not the government, no one.

That’s exactly the harm others idea, Brooks. Just as you said—it doesn’t harm anyone. So what? On what basis is harm to others the criterion by which we ought to make laws?

Originally Posted by BrooksB

It's not the same as "people should be able to do as much drugs as they want as long as they stay in their homes and don't commit other crimes" because those people are harming themselves in very real ways. Homosexuals are not even harming themselves in a realistic manner. Maybe according to your religion they are harming themselves, but law isn't hardly based on yours or anyone else's religion.

Again, I am not arguing that it should be illegal because they are harming anyone, or even because they are harming themselves. I am arguing that it ought to be illegal because God has declared that it ought to be so. I am denying your idea that something ought to cause harm to others in order for it to be illegal.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Why not? If it's not illegal to be homosexual, then they have the same rights as everyone else.

The fact that an act is forbidden entails that a person who would like to commit that act does not have the same rights as everyone else? So do murderers not have the same rights as everyone else? If you would say yes to that question, then fine—I’ll admit that homosexuals don’t have the same rights. But you should realize that if you would use this avenue to argue for homosexual rights under the equal protection clause, it would also work for murderers.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

They do not have equal protection of the law when they cannot marry who they choose to.

They can within limits—limits that are the same for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Both are permitted to marry whomever they choose, provided many things, such as the following: the one they wish to marry must be a human, must be of a certain age, must not be a immediate family member, and must be of the opposite sex.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

I, as a heterosexual, can marry whoever I want, as long as they're consenting.

Not true, as noted above. You, as a heterosexual, cannot marry a man. Neither can you marry your sister, or a dog. The same limits of marriage apply to you as apply to homosexuals.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Without homosexual marriage rights, they cannot marry whoever they want like I can.

Sure they can—you both have the exact same limits on whom you can marry—that individual must be human, not an immediate family member, of a certain age, and of the opposite sex.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

That's understandable, but the Constitution just happens to be the ultimate standard of US law. As I've said before, this is not so much a morality issue. I know very well that you think it's immoral. There's no use in us arguing that.

So we’re arguing strictly legally now? It’s interesting that you would change the topic of argument in the middle of the debate. If you look at previous posts you can see that we have been discussing the issue as a moral one, with some discussion of the legal element as well.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by Travis

Why should I know?

Because they're homosexuals and they only like people of their own sex. Duh. It's not hard to figure out why a homosexual wouldn't want to marry someone of the opposite sex.

That’s their business. My only point is that the law applies equally—either heterosexuals or homosexuals can marry, provided the person they marry is of the other sex.

Back during segregation, the laws were supposedly "equal" for blacks and whites. Blacks could eat at restaurants, provided it was not a "whites only" restaurant. Similarly, gays can marry, provided they marry someone YOU approve of. I, personally, will not be asking your moral approval when I'm proposing to my future wife, so why should a gay man ask your moral approval when proposing to his future husband?

Firstly, I would dispute the claim that a homosexual marrying someone of the opposite sex (which I believe would necessitate beforehand that they leave their sin) is falsehood.

Surely you jest. You think that someone should "leave sin" before they are counted as a regular citizen? Then you and I both should be denied the same kind of rights, since I'm sure you sin, and I'm sure that I sin. We can't just go around punishing all sinners because everyone would always be punished all the time. Who would do the punishing? The law? They're sinners too...

However, even if it was, they could just choose to not exercise their right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

This way they would be completely restricted from being able to marry, which means that they do not have the same rights as I do.

The fact that something is legal according to a certain criminal justice system does not prove that it is a moral right. You are committing the naturalistic fallacy—assuming that what is the case necessarily ought to be.

It doesn't matter what you think is morally right. US law is not based on what you think is morally right.

That’s exactly the harm others idea, Brooks. Just as you said—it doesn’t harm anyone. So what? On what basis is harm to others the criterion by which we ought to make laws?

I thought government was instituted for the main purpose of protecting people from the harm of others. Our government, at least, was definitely established on that principle. (Locke and Hobbes were the main influences of our government, and this is what they think)

Again, I am not arguing that it should be illegal because they are harming anyone, or even because they are harming themselves. I am arguing that it ought to be illegal because God has declared that it ought to be so. I am denying your idea that something ought to cause harm to others in order for it to be illegal.

The US Constitution is not meant to mirror Christian morality, nor was it ever intended to do so. If so, this would be a single-party nation (similar to a totalitarian government). However, since this is a republic with democratic elections, the voice of the people is what ultimately matters in law-making.

The fact that an act is forbidden entails that a person who would like to commit that act does not have the same rights as everyone else? So do murderers not have the same rights as everyone else? If you would say yes to that question, then fine—I’ll admit that homosexuals don’t have the same rights. But you should realize that if you would use this avenue to argue for homosexual rights under the equal protection clause, it would also work for murderers.

But homosexuality isn't anything like murder, legally. You can't go to prison for being homosexual. Going to prison for murder is what restricts their rights, not merely "being a murderer". Once a murderer is out of jail then their rights are the same as everyone else, under most circumstances. Sometimes, they're supervised by a parole officer or something. However, homosexuals are entirely free citizens like you and I, yet they don't have the same rights. The main idea here: the equal protection clause doesn't protect criminals when they're in jail (obviously), but it does protect all citizens (including homosexuals).

They can within limits—limits that are the same for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Both are permitted to marry whomever they choose, provided many things, such as the following: the one they wish to marry must be a human, must be of a certain age, must not be a immediate family member, and must be of the opposite sex.

They can do whatever they want, as long as it fits your personal morality system. **** 'em if they don't agree with you. They couldn't possibly be right because they don't interepret the Bible the same as you.

Not true, as noted above. You, as a heterosexual, cannot marry a man. Neither can you marry your sister, or a dog. The same limits of marriage apply to you as apply to homosexuals.

Actually, it is true. I CAN marry whoever I want. I don't want to marry a man, my sister, or a dog. As mentioned earlier, a dog can't even consent to marry.

[quote]Sure they can—you both have the exact same limits on whom you can marry—that individual must be human, not an immediate family member, of a certain age, and of the opposite sex.

No, they cannot marry whoever they want. It is totally ignorant to think that a homosexual can marry whoever they want when it is illegal for them to marry whoever they want.

So we’re arguing strictly legally now? It’s interesting that you would change the topic of argument in the middle of the debate. If you look at previous posts you can see that we have been discussing the issue as a moral one, with some discussion of the legal element as well.

If you've been paying attention, I've been talking this whole time about the legality of it all. I've insisted plenty of times that this is a civil rights issue, not a moral one. If you look at the previous posts, YOU brought morality into it, and I've tried to show you why your morality doesn't matter when it comes to legal issues. This is NOT the first time I've tried to bring the discussion away from morals. It would be pointless for us to discuss the morality of this issue because gay rights and the Constitution don't really have anything to do with what WE think to be morally right and wrong.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Because they're homosexuals and they only like people of their own sex. Duh. It's not hard to figure out why a homosexual wouldn't want to marry someone of the opposite sex.

That wasn’t your question, though. You asked why a homosexual would want to marry someone of the opposite sex, and I said I didn’t know. Your answer doesn’t make a lot of sense, given the question.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Back during segregation, the laws were supposedly "equal" for blacks and whites. Blacks could eat at restaurants, provided it was not a "whites only" restaurant. Similarly, gays can marry, provided they marry someone YOU approve of. I, personally, will not be asking your moral approval when I'm proposing to my future wife, so why should a gay man ask your moral approval when proposing to his future husband?

You have not addressed my argument. You continually ignore it and assert there is a double standard, or that I am merely imposing my opinion. As I argued earlier, there are laws for all people in our land regarding marriage. These laws are: people may only marry humans, non-relatives, people of a certain age, and people of the opposite sex. These laws apply across the board regardless of sexual orientation. Heterosexuals cannot marry members of the same sex; neither can homosexuals. This is not a double standard, for it applies to all people. Your analogy to racism is fundamentally inadequate since Jim Crow laws only applied to blacks—it was not equal protection because the laws didn’t apply to all. However, the laws regarding marriage apply to everyone. The fact that heterosexuals wouldn’t want to marry those of the same sex and homosexuals would is irrelevant as to whether there is equal protection, because the laws apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Surely you jest. You think that someone should "leave sin" before they are counted as a regular citizen? Then you and I both should be denied the same kind of rights, since I'm sure you sin, and I'm sure that I sin. We can't just go around punishing all sinners because everyone would always be punished all the time. Who would do the punishing? The law? They're sinners too...

You aren’t even attempting to actually respond to my argument on equal protection. Rather, you are merely one comment I make in that argument out of context and running off in another direction with it, thus creating a straw-man.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

This way they would be completely restricted from being able to marry, which means that they do not have the same rights as I do.

How in the world would the fact that they choose not to exercise a right (the right to marry, provided the person is of the opposite sex) make them restricted from having that right? They have the right and are choosing not to exercise it.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

It doesn't matter what you think is morally right. US law is not based on what you think is morally right.

My legal argument is not at all based on my views of morality. Please either respond to it or concede the debate.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

I thought government was instituted for the main purpose of protecting people from the harm of others.

That’s exactly what I am contesting, so you are assuming your conclusion. Romans 13 states otherwise.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Our government, at least, was definitely established on that principle. (Locke and Hobbes were the main influences of our government, and this is what they think)

Firstly, you do not understand Hobbsian political philosophy. Thomas Hobbes made it quite clear in Leviathan that he believed all rights were given up when one submits to a government in order to reap its benefits, thus enabling the government to enact whatever laws against its citizens it wished.

Furthermore, the fact that two men were influences in the philosophy of our government in no way proves that whatever they believed is now somehow the standard of our government.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

The US Constitution is not meant to mirror Christian morality, nor was it ever intended to do so.

You do realize that homosexuality was illegal across the board in all of the colonies when our nation was established, do you not? If you are going to go back to the intentions of the Framers, your argument will not receive aid.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

If so, this would be a single-party nation (similar to a totalitarian government).

Huh? Why?

Originally Posted by BrooksB

However, since this is a republic with democratic elections, the voice of the people is what ultimately matters in law-making.

Relevance? This doesn’t help your argument that homosexuality is necessarily a legal or moral right.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

But homosexuality isn't anything like murder, legally.

No it’s not, and it should be. But I fail to see how this relates to our argument regarding equal protection. I have explained how they do have equal protection under the law. Laws forbid marriage between same sex couples regardless of their sexual orientation. The fact that only certain people wish to violate this law hardly proves that they are not being protected equally.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

The main idea here: the equal protection clause doesn't protect criminals when they're in jail (obviously), but it does protect all citizens (including homosexuals).

I’ve already disproved your argument from equal protection. You haven’t even attempted to respond to my argument against you.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

They can do whatever they want, as long as it fits your personal morality system. **** 'em if they don't agree with you. They couldn't possibly be right because they don't interepret the Bible the same as you.

Where in the world is this coming from and how is it related to the quote to which you responded with this? I merely stated the laws of the land regarding marriage. Those are the laws that are in effect right now.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Actually, it is true. I CAN marry whoever I want. I don't want to marry a man, my sister, or a dog.

You don’t understand the concept of rights and laws at all, apparently. There are laws on the books that apply to everyone. Only certain people (homosexuals) want to break a particular law (the law against marrying someone of the same sex). How does this mean they don’t have equal protection under the law? It is the same as saying murderers aren’t protected equally under the law because of the fact that murder is forbidden, I don’t wish to murder, thus I can do what I want, and they do want to murder, and cannot.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

No, they cannot marry whoever they want. It is totally ignorant to think that a homosexual can marry whoever they want when it is illegal for them to marry whoever they want.

The laws apply equally to all people. No one can marry a dog, regardless of whether they want to marry a dog or not. No one can marry their sister, regardless of whether they want to marry their sister or not. No one can marry someone of the same sex, regardless of whether they want to marry someone of the same sex. You cannot seriously think that equal protection under the law is dependant upon what particular individuals wish to do. Again, this would entail that murderers do not have equal protection under the law, since they cannot do what they want and people who don’t want to murder can.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

If you've been paying attention, I've been talking this whole time about the legality of it all. I've insisted plenty of times that this is a civil rights issue, not a moral one.

Yet you have not even attempted to prove that homosexuality is a civil right.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

If you look at the previous posts, YOU brought morality into it, and I've tried to show you why your morality doesn't matter when it comes to legal issues.

I’ve made a legal argument; you’ve ignored it.

Ok, I understand the argument you are making now. It took me a while because I really doubted you could be arguing for something so completely absurd. Your argument is that you can marry "whomever you want" because you don't want to marry a man; homosexual men want to marry men, thus they cannot marry "whomever they want" like you can, therefore there is not equal protection under the law. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of "equal protection," and your argument would ultimately prove all laws to be violations of "equal protection."

Equal protection under the law requires that a law apply equally to all people. The laws regarding marriage do just that. Arguing that they do not since some people want to do something and others don’t, thus some people can do “whatever they want” and others can’t, you will ultimately be arguing against any laws whatsoever. Everyone is forbidden from stealing, whether they want to steal or not. The law does not specify between people who wish to steal and people who do not, and say that stealing is forbidden for people who wish to steal and not forbidden for people who do not wish to do so. Everyone is forbidden from stealing. Now, I could use the exact same argument you are making here and apply it to this law. I could say that since I don’t want to steal and stealing is forbidden, I am allowed to do whatever I want, but people who want to steal are not—therefore people who want to steal do not have equal protection under the law, and that law should be repealed. I could do the same for any other crime. The argument you are making from what we want to do is utterly ridiculous and could be employed to argue for the legality of all things under “equal protection.” This simply isn’t the way “equal protection” works.