TWCL Forum Index TWCL
Forums for The Webcomic List
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Anti-Gay Activist to Write Superman Comic
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TWCL Forum Index -> General Ramblings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 756

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Then why should homosexuals expect the same privilege?

Because they already have that privilege. Homosexuals and bisexuals have been getting married to people of the opposite sex for thousands of years. Civil marriage is a public institution, not a religious institution, so separate but equal does not apply.

Using this exact logic, there is no violation of rights in discriminating against homosexual marriage, because it is only a privilege.This would also lead into a question of what makes something a right and what makes it a privilege. Further, this point doesn't justify the reason for the discrimination - so even if it is justified, you have here no reason to discriminate other than your opinion of who is right. Driving on public roads is a privilege, but I can't go around randomly revoking it from people just because.

Actually this is not about the difference between rights and privileges, but rather about equal application of the law. For example, going to public school and drinking from a public water fountain, are not constitutionally protected rights. But again if it is public or government-sponsored venture, then separate but equal is neither constitutional nor legally applicable. Plessy versus Ferguson was overturned for this very reason reason. However, you can have a private school for one race only, and if you have a private organization has two separate water fountains, then the government can't do a damn thing about it, unless a specific law is made, since these types of situations are neither government-sponsored nor public. If a church is really concerned that the government is going to dictate what kind of marriages it is allowed to perform, all they need to do is stop taking taxpayer money -- just like the Boy Scouts did when the their tax-exempt status would've forced them to allow gay Scout Masters. If an private organization doesn't take public money, it has more leeway in regards to who can be excluded. Problem solved.

So, I can legally have sex with my siblings right now?

Nope, because there is no logical, legally or morally compelling reason for the public to support that arrangement, especially since there is a significant public health risk.

It is an entirely different contract.

It is and it isn't. Both parties get adopted, but since they aren't related then it is legal for them to reproduce. Also, because civil marriage is regulated, government can dictate under what conditions the marriage can take place. When you challenge a law in court, you need logical, legally or morally compelling reasons to do so. If you can't meet these conditions, your case will likely be thrown out of court. If someone is able to prove that incest is not a major threat to the public and societal health, and the courts decides that incestuous marriage can be defended logically, legally and morally, then the government will either need to uphold the ruling or either create a new law against it or change the Constitution. To give you an example, because the attorneys for Proposition 8 could not defend their case logically, legally or morally, and gay marriage was not seen as a threat to the public health, then the court had no choice but to overturn it. This is not about my feelings or my opinion, this is about precedent.

I would propose that it is not so much two people sharing a relationship as it is two people becoming one person. This argument is the equivalent to "Domestic Partnerships have the same rights as marriage, so there's no reason to grant a marriage". It is, after all, a redundant contract.

I don't disagree with you. There is absolutely no logical reason that civil marriage or domestic partnerships should be sponsored by the government when an S Corporation allows you to do the same thing. Marriage in a church, is not and should not be treated as the same thing as civil marriage, since it is an article of faith. Civil marriage basically started because women used to be considered property, as opposed to religious marriage where people of faith wanting to reproduce were seen as one in the eyes of God. Constitutional interpretation and the recognition of women's rights pretty much forced civil marriage to become more parallel to religious marriage, even though these two contracts are completely different things.

Why can't we ban homosexual marriages because they also spread disease? Or sex in general, since you can get sick by having sex? And if I can regulate the health of your body, why can't I also regulate the health of your soul? That throws separation of church and state out the window. Isn't your soul more important than your body? Isn't that the most important thing to protect? I believe that this argument fundamentally boils down to "We are violating your rights for your own protection". Many human rights violations were done for people's "own good", against their will.

I hate to say it, but that's what happens when people ask to regulate things. The more people demand that the government regulate things, the more the oppressive the government becomes. So either people, start telling government to get the hell out of marriage, or they accept the fact that if they demand regulations like 1 man/1 woman, that their spiritual institutions and traditions will be subject to the whims of majority, precedent and government. You can't have it both ways.

Ok, but how does it hurt you? Let's say we don't grant any legal rights to my dog, so it can't get welfare, or tax benefits.

Someone else's vibrator can't hurt me either, but there is no compelling reason to extend marriage to it either. The whole point of civil marriage is to get certain government, social and tax benefits that would not be available otherwise. A dog and a vibrator can't demand rights or privileges.

What if my religion says that I can, because dogs are people too?

If that's the religion preaches then that's its followers prerogative to do it and it happens:

Nevertheless, people expecting civil recognition of that marriage are probably going to be disappointed, when bestiality laws aren't changed and their marriage is not recognized. Again civil and religious marriage are two separate issues.

Perhaps, one day, society will also recognize that dogs are not property either. Aren't you imposing your unenlightened traditionalist social view on me and my dog? Mixed race marriages were also once condemned because you couldn't have good clean white people marrying sub-humans. Does that justify racism?

Until a dog can evolve sufficiently to mount a protest for recognition of its own rights as a person, and can prove that it is the same species as us, then it has no human rights. Also, just calling people sub-humans is insufficient to deny them human rights, especially when they can communicate, protest, revolt and prove that such logic is erroneous. If a dog can do that, then that dog deserves to be a person with a reality show and a sponsorship contracts.

Which is, of course, the whole point of having a conversation like this: to philosophically measure out where those boundaries should be, and why.


I can very easily see free speech being used to support racism, but that doesn't mean we should ban free speech. We should ban criminal acts which actually violate people's rights, not artificially limit people's rights for our comfort zone.

While I agree to some extent to what you are saying, the fact of the matter is that when people ask for regulation, that's exactly what they get: limits.

Ultimately, it all boils down to this: "Your rights end where mine begin." But, it's easier said than done.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TWCL Forum Index -> General Ramblings All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Hosted by Fluent
The Webcomics List is operated and owned by Ash Young. Syndicate the comic updates.