It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
However, if a state recognizes "marriage" then it must recognize it the same for everybody. A state cannot specify that "marriage" is the union between two people of different race, or height, or religion; those decisions are up to the participants. Likewise, a state has no business saying that the union is to be of people of different gender. The 14th Amendment prohibits that.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Actually, there are precedents for gender-specific discrimination. The US Military only recently (in my lifetime, anyway ) accepted female applicants. And even today, the number of female candidates on the front lines of battle are severely limited. It is a biological fact that women are not as physically strong or aggressive as men on average, and this leads to the determination that men are typically better front-line soldiers than women.
As far as interracial marriages go, there is no functional difference between a black female and a white female. So to say that there should be no restriction concerning interracial marriage is to deny something based only on racial ideals and no biological condition. But when sexual relations are concerned, the natural state of humanity is heterosexual, as is the natural state of sexuality for all species.
Again, I state that restricting marriage to a person of the opposite sex is not a denial of marital rights. It is a restriction based on biology and tradition, and is not a parallel to racial discrimination.
There is no person that I can marry which a gay man cannot marry, legally.
And again, I state that my position on this subject has indeed changed, in no small part from the actions of those arguing the pro-gay marriage position here on these forums and in the demonstrations, news reports, and other events country wide. When it is more about equality and less about superiority and getting even, someone please let me know.
Actually, the US military has had female members since at least WWII, albeit not in combat. I agree that men are genetically stronger than women, I'm not so sure I'd go along with "more aggressive". Women can be quite aggressive...
Also, while you are correct regarding physical strength, raw physical strength is not as important in modern warfare as it was even in WWII.
1) Prior to 1967, the state of Virginia outlawed interracial marriages, based on the belief that there were in fact basic differences between races. The Supreme Court case of Loving v Virginia overturned that kind of law.
2) You imply that marriage necessarily includes a sexual component. And most do. But it is not a requirement, nor a necessary attribute of marriage.
And again, I have to disagree. Restriction of marriage to only opposite gender is precisely equivalent to restriction based on race. The only reasonable restrictions to marriage are those based on the ability to make an informed choice (i.e. children).
Ah, but you can marry the person of your choice (assuming that person agrees). This kind of law seeks to deny a gay man his choice.
Originally posted by Epinephrine
Originally posted by reconpilot
reply to post by Epinephrine
WHAT PART OF EQUALITY DONT YOU UNDERSTAND ,BUBBA ?
The part that says "all people are equal but some people are more equal than others" and translated into action as affirmative action, women and minority hiring preferences, and special protections under the law.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by budski
Read the post just above this one, and then look at my picture to the left. I think you can see the source of my frustration and my change of views on the subject.
TheRedneck
Originally posted by TheRedneck
But when sexual relations are concerned, the natural state of humanity is heterosexual, as is the natural state of sexuality for all species. If this were not so, the species in question would have died out long ago, as we all know it requires input from one of each gender to create offspring.
[...]
It is a restriction based on biology and tradition...
Your point being exactly ? Or are you a little worried that having stated it plainly I will dare to question it . What is democracy without debate and diversity of opinion ?
Originally posted by reconpilot
Okay so now the white boy majority ,having gloated about winning prop 8 ,are crying victim because of affirmitive action ?
The more you legislate freedom with complex contradictory laws , the more you dilute it . The constitution was written in plain simple easy to understand language to avoid its abuse by politicians ,the church and power brokers .
But as always , religion is used as a wedge to drive common sense out of the equation . Because religion is DESIGNED to do that .
Religion , by definition is prejudiced .
But then all the christian fundamentalists believe they are 'the one true church ' Pah , its just about bums on seats and the collection plate . tax free income for ego inflated priests .
Its funny how I have to put up with christian faith in my face
No , its the attitude of people like you that made me apologise for being white everytime I met Native americans .
I DARE YOU TO ADDRESS MY STATEMENTS REGARDING YOUR WHITE RAPE OF THE NATIVES .
By those standards, the State would also have to prevent infertile heterosexual people to get married. Just a thought.