The reason that Prop 8 was struck down, and somebody suing to get rights to marry underage comes down to Rational Basis. (And to a lesser extend strict scrutiny).

There has to be (and it doesn't even have to be explicitly stated) a rational basis for government actions that discriminate.

The rational basis the supporters of Prop 8 like to trot out is the state has a rational basis for wanting to promote families that generate children (because children existing is in the states interest).

However, the problem with that is that we're not discriminating on the basis of being able to have children, we're discriminating on the basis of heterosexual or homosexuality. If it was on the basis of childbearing, any marriage that was unable to have children would not be allowed (due to sterility, age, or whatever).

Bob can clarify and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm a mere law student, he's an actual lawyer. :)

and once homosexual couples can have children (by placing the genes together into a donor egg in a lab - which, by the way, is already proven as possible in animal trials) then even the reproduction argument, were it truly the basis they were arguing, would also be shot to hell.

To move from an arcane legal/bureaucratic discussion, to a moral one I'd like to remind everyone, what we're discussing is actually peoples' happiness. It's not just, technically this, or legally that, and frankly, no offense to the conservatives on this site, I have heard no convincing reason why straights should have more right to seek happiness than gays. In fact the only reason I've heard at all is "because I personally believe that it's wrong". And you know what? I don't share your beliefs so that reason just doesn't fly. I don't really expect anyone to have their minds changed by this but it's just been bothering me that we're all suddenly looking for loopholes and technicalities when equality is on the line. (I realize marriage is not necessary for happiness, or even relationships, but there is still tremendous social pressure for people to find happiness in relationships and marriage is still the single most important way of legitimating romantic relationships in our society.)

Long story short:

Would you want the government telling private citizens who they can or cannot associate with?

It both disturbs and amuses me that conservatives, that are usually on the side of less government intervention in people's lives, would want the government commanding private citizens in a realm of their private lives.

To quote a great FB group: "Don't like gay marriage? Then don't get one, and shut the fuck up!"

"To quote a great FB group: "Don't like gay marriage? Then don't get one, and shut the fuck up!" " That is completely true. However, that line of thought SHOULD lead to anarchism: Don't like murder? Then don't kill someone, and shut the fuck up! Don't like theft? Then don't steal, and shut the fuck up!
I find it interesting that most people want some things banned but not others. I know this probably sounds like a false dichotomy, but it would seem that you should either want everything banned or nothing banned.

Actually, that IS a false dichotomy, so ignore that last paragraph. But the first paragraph still applies.

"but it would seem that you should either want everything banned or nothing banned."


That doesn't make sense. That is viewing things only in black and white. I see no reason why I shouldn't think that gay marriage should be banned but murder shouldn't

That's why I said ignore my last paragraph. I realized it is a false dichotomy. Just pay attention to the first paragraph.

I don't know what first paragraph you are talking about, but I posted mine before I saw that you said to to ignore your last paragraph so sorry about that.

@Tom: This paragraph: "To quote a great FB group: "Don't like gay marriage? Then don't get one, and shut the fuck up!" " That is completely true. However, that line of thought SHOULD lead to anarchism: Don't like murder? Then don't kill someone, and shut the fuck up! Don't like theft? Then don't steal, and shut the fuck up!

So in you anarchisic world, if I DO like murder, then I can dust off my Uzi and go to town, right?

Yes, although that would probably be a bad idea because afterwards, people would generally be afraid of you and no one would like you or want to deal with you. So you'd be pretty lonely. And someone might try to avenge the person you killed, so I'd look over my shoulder.

"However, that line of thought SHOULD lead to anarchism: Don't like murder? Then don't kill someone, and shut the fuck up! Don't like theft? Then don't steal, and shut the fuck up!"

This is the same thing as the statement you retracted. You are saying that one ban that is lifted SHOULD lead to a totally unrelated ban being lifted. I would argue again that that is just viewing things in black and white, and is bad logic. Two people getting married doesn't affect me so I can argue for lifting the ban on gay marriage. Lifting the ban on murder could very well affect me in that someone could kill me, so I can certainly argue that it should still be banned.,

I understand that you advocate anarchy but saying that lifting the ban on gay marriage should lead to lifting the ban on other things isn't very rational, nor does it have anything to do with anarchy.

Why would I care? Hell, murder is fun, I'll just kill you all!

Con Boy:

It doesn't lead to anarchism. It leads to the government regulating what is its business to regulate, and keeping its hands out of what it shouldn't.

Only in your ignorant teenage mind are those two things linked.

On an unrelated note, anybody ever notice that regardless of the soundness of the arguments, every single person who advocates increased usage of hemp is a huge pothead? :P

@Tom: But the conservatives don't like being around gay people. You and me both say tough. Most people don't like being around murderers. I say tough. Now, I know most of you are going to flame me for this, but I go as far as saying that it is their right to kill people. Now, you will say it is your right to not be killed. That is true. That is why you also have a right to defend yourself. So basically I think there is one big natural right, the right to do what you want. God did not give that right. It is inherant. The reason God made Laws is because he wanted society to prosper. He banned things that would hurt society. Like muder. It sure wouldn't be good if everyone was killing eachother, which is why it is sin, and why everyone except sociopaths would feel guilty if they murdered someone. Okay. I'm ready to be flamed.

And obviously I also believe the government has the right to do what it does, however, I, as well as the all other anarchists, also have the right to stop it.

@Tom: "nor does it have anything to do with anarchy" How does that not have anything to do with anarchy? It doesn't have to do with SOME anarchy, but it does have to do with other types.

Anarchism is having no government, so it keeps its hands out of everything. That is quite obviously linked with the government keeping it's hands out of some things, and messing with others. (Heres a hint: They both involve the level of government control)

That was at Jack, btw.

"But the conservatives don't like being around gay people. "

First of all this is a mass stereotype. I consider myself a conservative and am certainly not bothered by being around gay people. The difference between the bans is that gay people do not threaten my rights. Murderers threaten my right to life.

@Tom: Okay, I meant conservatives who supported Prop 8 don't like to see gays get married. I think that's 99% true.

...

CB: You obviously aren't very good at reasoning. I hope this improves as you educate yourself.

I say there is a proper role for government. You say there is not. That means.... I'm not an anarchist, and you are.

BUT WAIT! THERE IS MORE!

You choose to profit from their being an organized government that secures your streets and funds the school you attend. Thus, you are the hypocrite and the leech, and I am not.

And before you say you don't want the government to help you.... you have the option of not going to school right now. There isn't even a law against it. So drop out, if you really have the courage of your convictions.

@Jack: "I say there is a proper role for government. You say there is not. That means.... I'm not an anarchist, and you are."
I think I understand that.

"You choose to profit from their being an organized government that secures your streets and funds the school you attend. Thus, you are the hypocrite and the leech, and I am not." I pay them taxes. That is all they deserve for their services. There are a lot of anarchists who use government services. Some of them don't pay taxes. The ones who don't pay taxes are the leeches. And I only use government services because their is NO ALTERNATIVE, so I am not a hypocrite.

'I think I understand that' was meant to be sarcastic, by the way.

There is an alternative. Drop out of your government funded school, and educate yourself. Buy books.

In other words, stop being a poser, and fucking act. Either that, or drop the act and get on board with reality.

@Jack: I won't be able to get into college that way. Because neither of my parents will be able to homeschool me. But I will homeschool my children when I'm a parent.

@Jack: Oh yeah, and my parents (well, my dad) happens to pay for that school with taxes, and I will to once they start taxing me.

One word. Poser.