If a man has the right to marry a man...

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If you are homosexual, and find physical attraction to the opposite sex to be repugnant, you may have the legal "right" to get married, but that right is a right in theory only. Thus, the "choice" to get married is a false choice. The "class" being denied the right is the class of homosexuals who desire to marry a person of the same gender.

It is not "in theory" only. Any man and woman, provided they follow the law, can go and get married. End of discussion.

If someone chooses not to, whatever the reason, that is their choice. It's not the gov'ts responsibility to ensure happy marriages or make sure people make the correct choice about it.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And the premise, once again, is not that someone prove they should be entitled to marry someone of their choice, but for the government to demonstrate why someone shouldn't be entitled to marry someone of their choice (or multiple people of their choice). You are trying to shift the burden inappropriately.

Wrong again. The "burden of proof" is on those who wish to change the status quo.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It is not "in theory" only. Any man and woman, provided they follow the law, can go and get married. End of discussion.

If someone chooses not to, whatever the reason, that is their choice. It's not the gov'ts responsibility to ensure happy marriages or make sure people make the correct choice about it.

So you recognize that homosexuals likely won't marry someone of the opposite gender, and that the church has asked them not to, and still maintain that they have a real choice? That is just silly. Put it this way: if the government were to ban all sex except for homosexual sex, would you really have a choice to have sex? Of course not. And you know it.

Wrong again. The "burden of proof" is on those who wish to change the status quo.

Marriage is a right. As a right, the denial of that right must be due to a legitimate government interest. The burden of proof is on those who would deny the right. Even if the burden were on homosexuals, you would still have problems. There is no evidence that homosexual marriage destroys society or the family, particularly since heterosexual marriage is permitted and it results in divorce over 50% of the time. Homosexuals getting married are statistically more likely to be faithful partners, which is also good for society, particularly with AIDS being so prevalent among the homosexual community. On the flip side, you don't have any legitimate reasons (other than "tradition" spanning back a few decades), which is why you are trying to shift the burden inappropriately.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And the premise, once again, is not that someone prove they should be entitled to marry someone of their choice, but for the government to demonstrate why someone shouldn't be entitled to marry someone of their choice (or multiple people of their choice). You are trying to shift the burden inappropriately.

Is that really how it works? It is up to me, for example, to show why I ought to be able to deduct child support from my taxes or up to you to show why the government shouldn't give me this benefit? From a policy standpoint isn't te burden always on the person asking for the creation of a new benefit?

On the legal side of course that isn't the issue. It is whether there is a fundamental right to such under a state constitution and the answer is very clearly yes under many of them.

But just because corporations don't pay taxes in Nevada, for example, doesn't mean they should be tax exempt in Virginia. Let the states decide.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Marriage is a right. As a right, the denial of that right must be due to a legitimate government interest. The burden of proof is on those who would deny the right. Even if the burden were on homosexuals, you would still have problems. There is no evidence that homosexual marriage destroys society or the family, particularly since heterosexual marriage is permitted and it results in divorce over 50% of the time. Homosexuals getting married are statistically more likely to be faithful partners, which is also good for society, particularly with AIDS being so prevalent among the homosexual community. On the flip side, you don't have any legitimate reasons (other than "tradition" spanning back a few decades), which is why you are trying to shift the burden inappropriately.

Marriage until recently has indisputably been considered the legal union of a man and a woman. Marriage has never been considered a union independent of the demographics of the two people involved.

No de facto "right" exists simply because someone can conjure up some new permutation which has heretofore not been codified as such (i.e. it exists because I say it does).

[Flystripper]

Why does the government recognize and promote marriages?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So you recognize that homosexuals likely won't marry someone of the opposite gender, and that the church has asked them not to, and still maintain that they have a real choice? That is just silly. Put it this way: if the government were to ban all sex except for homosexual sex, would you really have a choice to have sex? Of course not. And you know it.

There is no box on the marriage application form that asks people if they are gay, and advises them (or worse, prohibits them) from getting married.

Your argument that the "right" isn't "real" because you've decided the social pressure is too much is unpersuasive.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Marriage is a right. As a right, the denial of that right must be due to a legitimate government interest. The burden of proof is on those who would deny the right. Even if the burden were on homosexuals, you would still have problems. There is no evidence that homosexual marriage destroys society or the family, particularly since heterosexual marriage is permitted and it results in divorce over 50% of the time. Homosexuals getting married are statistically more likely to be faithful partners, which is also good for society, particularly with AIDS being so prevalent among the homosexual community. On the flip side, you don't have any legitimate reasons (other than "tradition" spanning back a few decades), which is why you are trying to shift the burden inappropriately.

I call bull on your made-up stats, and I question the methodology of any study you might have to back them up.

I don't know what you mean when you say marriage is a right. Like driving, voting, or any other privilege of citizenship, it comes with reasonable limitations placed on it by the state. It's open and available to all people subject to those limitations.

And the long-standing definition of marriage does indeed count for something, even though you think it only goes back "a few decades."

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

That it works.

Half the time, according to the statistics.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The point is, no "class" (Cali's term) of human being is denied the privilege of marriage.

To the person of their choosing? Or is that not part of the freedom to marry?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

To the person of their choosing? Or is that not part of the freedom to marry?

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...&postcount=106

Try to keep up.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...&postcount=106

Try to keep up.

Before I clicked on your link, I assumed you'd link to something that answers the question. I was wrong.