Help With Anti-Gay Argument

[suigeneris]

How would you demolish this specious argument? This guy (the one answering the first paragraph) says the same thing in various ways over and over. Flip answers are not helpful. I'd like some solid reasoning, preferably grounded in the law and especially in the Constitution.

---

"If we gays took over the United States of America tomorrow, using the exact same constitution as it is now worded, would it be "equal" under the law of such a gay-dominated republic to tell heterosexuals that they cannot marry, while reserving, for ourselves, the right to do so?"

But we are not telling "gays" that they can't get married. When you tell a certain group they can't do something, that is violating the equal protection clause.

When an act is prohibited, and NO ONE CAN DO IT, then that is keeping with being equal under the law.

You can't marry a man. I can't either. Just because you want to does not mean you are unequal udner the law. The law applies to us both equally.

[leeman67]

1. you can't argue with someone who uses circular logic

..don't even try.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Ask him to provide any other constitutional amendment that limits

the rights of the people, not the state (fed.)

[dsc]

3. what part of ' no one' does he not get?

Since women can marry men and men can't it is gender discrimination using his logic.

[maddiejoan]

4. Ask him if sexuality is a choice --

When he says "of course it is", ask when he decided to not have sex with men.

[ruggerson]

5. Here's your answer:

Back in the days when the Romans were persecuting the Christians, they told the Christians: "Of course you are free to worship, you just have to worship Caesar."

The rightwing Christians are doing the EXACT same thing to gay people today.

Your friend's argument is specious because the sexual orientation of gay folks means they don't fall in love with, nor wish to couple with, members of the opposite sex, hence, they obviously are being treated differently than straight people, who are LEGALLY ALLOWED to marry the person with whom they fall in love.

[bushisanidiot]

6. That's total spin. Hets can marry those they love as long as they meet

certain requirements (age restrictions, etc.). Gays can't marry those they love even though they meet the same requirements.

it's like saying people can marry anyone they want as long as they don't marry within the same race, which is ok with most people, but a certain part of the population just isn't attracted to or interested in marrying outside their race. it takes a whole group of people and applies a resctriction to them that isn't enforced on the entire population because to most of the population, it's not an actual "restriction" since they aren't attracted to their own race anyway.

it's not rocket science..

[buckup]

12. hey, bushisanidiot...

What's up with the Binoculars? What's wrong with them?

Tell me, I didn't get enough sleep last night, and I see nothing wrong with them.

[Richard Steele]

13. ..the LENS CAPS are on the Binoculars, while B*sh pretends to use them.

[bushisanidiot]

18. Captain Nosepicker is too stooopid to take the lens caps off...

what a friggin' embarrassment..

[buckup]

19. Ah. Couldn't tell from the picture.

I've been staring at this screen too long. My eyes are going.

[gollygee]

7. We have the right to marry the person we love

or we *should* have that right. It isn't the right simply to marry, it's the right to marry the person we love.

[AlmightyTallest]

8. Basically he's saying

that gay people can get married but only to people of the opposite gender. You could try the "pursuit of happiness" route, but that's risky. Essentially what's being said is gay people are not allowed to marry the people they love and that if they choose to have a lasting relationship with someone of the same gender they will be denied the same rights and privileges that straight couples get. You could bring up inter-racial marriage and how it used to be that black people could marry each other but not a white person.

[mtnester]

9. You would have more success if you

stuck a penknife in your eye.

I agree with the earlier response...as soon as I hear circular logic, I realize life is short and move on. Jesus Christ could appear at that moment to tell him he was wrong, and you would still have more success with the penknife.

[suigeneris]

10. Obviously this comes from another discussion forum

What are the rules and what is the netiquette here on posting a link to another discussion forum thread? I've been here for years but have missed that.

[EFerrari]

11. Some laws are simply wrong and not in the spirit of the

Constitution.

It used to be illegal to teach slaves to read. Hell, when the printing press was invented, it was illegal to possess a Bible in the vernacular (English).

The rubber hits the road when a law is found to be unconstitutional. And that's exactly where this is going.

:toast:

[buckup]

14. So, in essence...

We really are changing the definiton of marriage...

Not that I have a problem with that. It's been changing for years... at first, its purpose was "okay, now you two have to shtupp and make babies"... then it became socially acceptable if you just got married for love, and didn't have kids.... and now... gay people want to do it, too.

It really is a slipperey slope. And I have no problem with it so far.

[EFerrari]

16. Someone I admire a lot told me 20 years ago,

"Marriage is what two people agree to." She was a diminutive, black, first wave feminist who enjoyed a pipe.

It's not all that slippery if you take religion out of it, imo. That's where procreation gets inserted, to be clumsy.

I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. In my perfect world, we all have civil unions. ;)

[aePrime]

15. I agree with other people -- he's not going to listen

but if you have to try, here's a possible angle: the law does not apply equally. It's sexual (not sexual orientation) discrimination. Why can a woman marry a man, but a man can't marry a man?

Ask him he'd be okay if the law said that women could be company CEOs, but men couldn't.

[Fescue4u]

17. Simple...Its not an argument.

Its a lifestyle.

Its reality.