Brooksbayne read my post in rebuttal to his blog and wanted to continue arguing for bigotry! Huzzah! You can read Abertleby’s post on brooksbayne’s blog.
Brooksbayne’s response to Abartleby:
first, let me say, thanks for bringing civil discourse from your side of the fence. it is much appreciated.
to call my text “logic” wouldn’t be a good categorization. i wasn’t trying to put forth a “yes to prop 8” argument pinned on what i wrote in my blog. you obviously found my other comments so you know that’s not my real argument which is summarized below. however, the “no service” sign is now up, for good.
the marriage contract, in this country, has always been between a man and a woman for the purpose of coming together in union to advance their offspring into the next generation. everything in our social and legal structure is aligned with these contractual tenets. this is the point that many on the left miss - the heart of the matter and why any pro gay marriage argument before the supreme court will lose. arguing equal protection will not work unless gay couples get sex changes *and* start procreating. some ppl may not like this view, but that’s how it is.
it doesn’t matter if ppl change their views. the fact that the marriage contract is what it is can’t be changed any more than ppl changing their view on murder and trying to make that constitutional.
i disagree with you about the way things are going. prior to 1996 there were 3 states that had statutes defining marriage as between a man and a woman. now there are 41 states with statutes prohibiting gay marriage and as of this week there are now 30 states with constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage. in 12 years that a lot of states adding statutes and amendments. this is hardly a sloughing off of the view of traditional marriage. it’s quite the opposite, in fact. the irresponsible liberal activist judges in california who tried to make law from the bench by “overriding” a statute put forth by the people previously, have effectively taken this off the table for californians. you can thank california liberal justices george, kennard, werdegar and moreno for that.
keep trying to force the issue right now and the citizens will show you where they’ve always stood on this issue - on the other side.
it doesn’t appear you’re on your way. the guy you just elected is anti-gay marriage too, just like bill clinton was.
My response to Brooksbayne:
Hey, thanks for the invite to come discuss this with you.
Let me just point out a few obvious flaws in your argument.
You said, “the marriage contract, in this country, has always been between a man and a woman for the purpose of coming together in union to advance their offspring into the next generation.”
Where is this written? Where is this explicitly defined as the PURPOSE of marriage? Where is the legal, official document that says “marriage is for the purpose of coming together in union to advance their offspring into the next generation”, or ANYTHING similar to that?
Guess what? You won’t find it because it doesn’t exist. The United States doesn’t recognize under law a PURPOSE to the institution of marriage. Yes, there are legal responsibilities that come with marriage, but none having anything to do with procreation.
You’re making things up.
You said, and I quote, “arguing equal protection will not work unless gay couples get sex changes *and* start procreating.”
Under your logic here, the logic that you can only wed if you START PROCREATING, couples who are impotent would not be allowed to marry because they can’t procreate. The same would go for people who marry who simply do not want to have children. Or even married couples who wish to adopt instead of procreate.
Then you go on to say one of the more ridiculous things I’ve heard lately:
“the fact that the marriage contract is what it is can’t be changed any more than ppl changing their view on murder and trying to make that constitutional.”
Okay, let’s compare the love of two people being recognized by the law to MURDER.
Number one, murder is a MORAL issue, much more than a legal one. But even still, under the law, the reason murder is unconstitutional is because it TAKES AWAY the rights of a person… specifically their right to live, but a lot of others, too.
People in this country are guaranteed, in writing, the pursuit of happiness. This clearly means as long as that pursuit of happiness does not infringe upon anybody else’s basic human rights and right to happiness. Marrying somebody of the same sex does not inhibit the rights of ANYBODY. AT ALL. PERIOD. It is against everything this country was built upon to strip homosexuals of their right to marry under the law simply BECAUSE they are homosexuals.
Homosexuals must pay taxes like everybody else, but they don’t have the RIGHTS of everybody else. That’s taxation without representation. Plain and simple.
And as far as Obama being AGAINST gay marriage, get your facts straight, brother.
In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, Sen. Barack Obama said:
“As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.
For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It’s time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.”
It appears homosexuals are well on their way. Might have to try and get over it.
