From: Loree Thomas (loreetg@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jan 16 2002 - 17:17:30 MST
--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com> wrote:
> Well, I'd have to contest some of this. lgbt
> individuals have the same right to marry someone of
> the opposite sex just as straights do. Giving
> lgbt individuals the right to marry someone of the
> same sex, while not conferring the same right to
> hetero individuals, is a violation of the
> equal protection doctrine.
Huh?
If same sex marriages are ever made legal, I doubt
you'd have to prove your homosexual orientation to get
a marriage license anymore than you now have to prove
heterosexual orientation to get an opposite sex
marriage license. IOW, of course heterosexuals would
have the same "right" to marry same sex partners that
homosexuals now "enjoy" to marry opposite sex
partners.
You must be making a point I am completely missing.
> Furthermore, even
> conferring this right on
> heteros still discriminates against sibling and
> parent/child,
> aunt/uncle/neice/nephew/cousin couples, whereupon
> you wind up legalizing
> the sort of garbage that NAMBLA promulgates.
I never did like "slippery slope" arguments too
much... and this one seems worse than most.
Incest and statutory rape are two completely different
things, yet you seem to be equating them.
BTW, isn't heterosexual statutory rape allowed in some
states as long as the parents of the minor involved
give their consent to the marriage?
I just googled "marriage age". According to
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm,
in Vermont the statutory rape of sixteen year old
girls is perfectly legal... as long as the parents of
the girl give their permission and the male and his
victim go through the meaningless rituals proscribed
by religious and/or secular authorities.
It's even worse in Kansas... 12 year old girls are up
for grabs.
Damn those queers at NAMBLA for wanting the same
rights with regards to the age of their sex partners
that heterosexual men enjoy.
> When it comes to marriage, it needs to be recognised
> that it is very much a discriminatory institution,
Why is it a discriminatory institution and even more
importantly why does that need to be recognized?
> and discriminatory for a signficant purpose,
What purpose? If you are talking about the conception
of children (anything else makes no sense at all) then
this (exi list) seems an odd place to put forth this
argument. We routinely discuss technologies that make
a traditional heterosexual marriage superfluous to
conception.
> so use of 'equal protection' arguments by lgbt
> couples/advocates is simply hypocritical.
"hypocritical"? Even assuming some basis for your
primary assumption, I don't see that this particular
conclusion follows.
Loree
P.S. I read in the Mike Mailway column yesterday <
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/mailway/article.asp?id=54180
>
that it is against the law to paint your house in
Vermont. Is that true?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:34 MST