Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Then using your argument -there is no "bigotry" here because a homosexual is allowed to have a "spouse" as I said in my other post. You are lying when you say gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry. They most certainly can "marry" and if they want the LAW to recognize that "marriage" they must have a "spouse"(which again for those who are slow is someone of the opposite sex). So no, there is no "inequality" here -both sexual oreintations have access to "marriage".
Oh and I wish to revisit this comment you made: "The limit is set at two persons in a marriage because of social and political factors... "
Ah so that is OK for society and politics to decide but for some reason defending the definition of "spouse" and/or "marriage" is "intolerant"/"bigotry"/or whatever else you want to claim.
Again, get some legislation passed that changes "spouse" and/or "marriage" if you think the gov't should give legal status to homosexual "marriage".
CkG
This is not an argument about legal semantics. Neither is it an argument about definitions and/or legal meanings of words. Those are completely irrelevant to the argument, yet you persist in using them. The words used in laws can be modified in meaning and the laws changed to fit them. We are discussing the moral issue of gay marriage, and semantics or unrelated discussions about polygamy are about as far from that as you can get. Please, for the love of god, stick to the topic, and try not to diverge from it. Your attempts to feign that you are not are absolutely pathetic.
I have no idea where you got the idea, but gays and lesbians are currently NOT allowed to marry. With the exception of the state of Mass., if a gay couple shows up to obtain a marriage license they will be turned away because they do not fit the bill - they are not a heterosexual couple. Your sophomoric argument that they can "marry" but not be legally recognized in that "marriage" is quite possibly the biggest waste of bandwidth I've ever seen. That's like trying to say that both Bill Gates and a guy in a cardboard house live in "houses" and have equal access to "houses." Give me a break. Without legal recognition, there is no marriage, PERIOD. Gays cannot apply for and recieve marriage licenses, and therefore are NOT able to marry. Heterosexuals can apply for and receive a marriage license. The two couples do not recieve the same protections under the law and therefore, (big surprise) we have inequality and a pretty hot issue.
Incidentally, beautifully done. You have managed to exercise standard political practice and not only deliberately cut out the second segment of the passage ". It does NOT, however, grant the same protections of marriage for both homosexual/heterosexual couples, and that is where the problem arises." and subsequently used it to assume that I a.) have no problem with social pressures and/or political forces determining legislation, and moreover, assume that your 'defense' of 'spouse' and 'marriage' is 'intolerance.' Note that I have barely, if ever at all, brushed on the definitions of spouse and marriage. I am arguing on a moral front and/or equality, you are arguing legal semantics. The result is that this argument is as productive as the Senate during a filibuster. Perhaps that is why this country fails to progress ethically - every corner you turn, every time some changes try to occur you have people caught up over the definitions of "life," "spouse," or "marriage," without actually realizing that there is a larger more pragmatic solution to the problem.