Separate but equal. Why are men's and women's restrooms separate because that means that men and women aren't equal. You're not following the bouncing ball here. Separation does not prove inequality.
It pays to understand equal protection analysis at least a little. The Constitution does not prohibit differential treatment or even discrimination as long as the state has a legitimate or compelling or important reason for doing so (different levels of scrutiny apply depending on the class affected and the right infringed).
Some cultures recognized plural marriages, too. But the FACTS are that societies overwhelmingly adopted 1 man + 1 woman models as their fundamental societal building blocks. Just like it is in nature with species that mate for life. All of them, too, have a 1 male + 1 female model.
You are free to live in denial but that doesn't change these facts.
The fact is that humanity is starting to overthrow the oppressive weight of religion and religion is the only reason that the 1 male + 1 female model has persisted. In most countries where religiousity is falling, gay marriage is being legalized. This is a good thing. Religion is failing, reality is prevailing. That's as it should be.
every time you bring this up it shows you clearly do not understand rights, laws and freedoms and nobody honest and educated on the matter falls for it, its laughable for you to think this has any meaningles
also not all restrooms are separate lol
peeping tom is breaking the law and infringe on the rights of others, your example fails
Nope. Prop 8 was a state constitution issue. If the gays are going to win this fight they are going to have to do it state by state.
If that was true, then the 1 man and 1 woman model of marriage would only be found in cultures that have a strong religious framework and the fact is that 1 man and 1 woman has been pretty standard for virtually every culture, religious or not. Picts, Celts, Native Americans, Eskimos, Asians, Budhists, Hindus, Mayans...
Again, what if he claims he's a woman trapped in a man's body. Where's the sympathy? Where's the love, my brutha?
shhhhhhhhh dont use common sense and facts when they are just gonna be ignored
Nope. Prop 8 was a state constitution issue. If the gays are going to win this fight they are going to have to do it state by state.
Equal protection does not mean, nor involve, a great many things.
Equal protection also does not involve equal outcome, nor equal reward.
Equal protection does not involve equal outcome for groups or pairings, but rather only equal opportunity for individuals.
Equal protection also does not mean equal protection (or outcome) under different TERMS, but rather only equal protection under the SAME TERMS.
Blacks did not petition Woolworth's to eat at the counter at any hour of the day and night, nor to demand whatever they wanted to eat under their own terms, but rather to be able to eat at that counter under the same terms as everyone else.
Women did not petition for suffrage under their own terms, demanding to vote whenever they wanted, for whatever they wanted, but rather only the ability to vote under the same terms as everyone else.
The fact of the matter is that gays already have access to marriage under the same terms as heterosexuals, but choose to not avail themselves of that institution by the terms that have existed long before the foundation of this country, going back to the mankind's first civilizations. Instead gays want to dictate theirr own terms, then claim denial of rights under those terms, and then demand these terms are recognized as the equivalent in benefit to society of heterosexual marriage, to receive the same recognition and reward, which is untrue, a false equivalence, and thorough corruption of the Constitution's terms.
As shown above, the cases before the Supreme Court cannot be legally sound by the terms claimed.
Given that DOMA does not prohibit the states from making any laws, nor does DOMA itself create any definition of marriage, but rather only recognizes the definition that long precedes this country, and has long been recognized in this country, ...
..The only thing that DOMA actually does is prohibit the abuse of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution from compelling one state fabricating a new definition of marriage by legislative or judicial fiat, nowhere in that state's original authority, and wrongly compel that redefinition on each and every state, which is contrary to the intent of the clause, and the Constitution overall.
Imposing gay marriage by abuse of the Full Faith and Credit clause would create a precedent of ever-expanding anarchy in which each and every state would be compelled to recognize the most expansive and irresponsible definition of any one state on any matter. As example, by such precedent, one state might expand Driver's Licenses to include the ability to operate aircraft, thereby compelling every state to recognize anyone with a Driver's License to allow them to fly any plane. Such an expansive definition would very soon take us back to a time prior to the Wright brothers. Now that's "Progress".
Why do you think that any the Federal government, any state government, or even any populist majority has the authority to dictate something that long precedes this country's existence, and is founded on the biological fact of human reproduction?
Where do the states have the authority to define marriage, when they have no original jurisdiction over marriage, nor to alter the definition of words to alter outcomes?
Neither the states, nor the federal government, have any authority in dictating the terms of society, social engineering, by which false equivalences are created, and made to meet the whims of a populist majority.
The fact of the matter is that marriage is recognized to involve a man and a woman, because this is how human beings are created, and societies promoted and advanced. Societies have a vested interest in recognizing the the public commitment of heterosexual marriages, because these are the means by which offspring are able to mature over the prolonged period to adolescence in a stable environment, to be produced, well-developed citizens.
Marriage is not a compulsion or demand to procreate, but heterosexual reproduction are the only means that offspring are produced. Marriage is not a guarantee that the offspring will be well-developed and positive additions to society, but the biological home is the best guarantee of this.
Society has no vested interest in whatever union, that cannot possibly produce offspring, and thereby does not promote its own offspring to habit society, and does not thereby advance society, and it is a false equivalence to insist that gay unions are the same as heterosexual unions.
If homosexual unions do have children, it is only as a result of broken biological and social ties, thus making recognition of these homosexual unions contrary to the interest of society.
This isn't about people reproducing, or worrying about people reproducing, this is about the fact of human reproduction, the fact that it can occur outside of a stable committed familial unit, and the fact that such reproduction is contrary to the interest of societies throughout mankind's history, hence the reason these societies have invariably, without exception, recognized the public commitment that is heterosexual marriage.
You yourself are undeniably a byproduct of those heterosexual unions, making your dismissal of their importance to society somewhat ironic.
Anyone ever call you.. naa ... never mind.
Our society was just condemned today to its own painful death.
Scalia nailed it in his dissent, indicating "Diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society". That diseased root is reference not only to a diseased tree, but the eventual demise of that tree. And we have the ancient Greeks and Romans before us as proof.
That's not freedom; it's utter stupidity.
The reference to 'diseased root" is not calling homosexuality a disease!
And while Homosexuals have made 'massive positive contributions to society", these contributions have not come as a result of them being homosexuals, which is the context of the discussion and Society's vested interest in heterosexual marriage.
They also do not form family units with their own children born of that relationship, but rather the children are only the result of severed social and biological ties, hence a harm to society.
You don't recognize children being born out of a committed parental union, as being a harm to society, and that broken social and biological commitments are both a harm to the offspring and society itself? That's curious. Ever read any sociology studies?
I did not mention the adoption of children, but yes, it is a harm to society for adoption agencies which are sworn to be operating solely for the best interests of the adoptive children, to engage in social engineering designs by awarding those children to unions from which those children could not have possibly originated.
No, not at all -- in California the definition of "marriage" is simply being violated, thus the violation won't stand the test of time, and remains invalid.
When you say that we can define a cat to be included in the subset of dogs, in effect, it is you who is being silly.
With respect to higher intelligece, a cat is simply not a dog, and an SS couple civil union domestic partnership is simply not a marriage.
No matter what dumbed-down ideological mindsets do in the political dualistic battle, that simply does not mean that redefinition occurred, obviously.
In this case it only means that violations of intelligence and definitive propriety occurred.
Gay marriage is not equal. It is not the same as marriage, and demonstrably not given the fact that the entirety of humanity is produced by heterosexual reproduction, and gay unions are utterly incapable of producing said offspring, which never go on to populate society, which has no vested interest in the recognition of gay unions.
Facts proving they are not the same ...
Without any claim of my being Carnac the Magnificent, I can say with absolute certainty that you yourself are the product of a heterosexual relationship, and not at all the product of a gay union.
Either that makes me absolutely clairvoyant, or I am relying on real, hard facts that have been around for a long, long time, and aren't about to change.
Biological fact isn't tradition.
It's biological fact.
Stating that women binding their feet in China is a good thing, because they always have done so, is an example of fallacy by appeal to tradition.
This does not involve any sort of appeal to tradition.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way."
That's nonsense. We legislate based on tradition regularly and it ranges from Christmas being a national holiday to summer vacation for kiddies.
But on a higher level, marriage really is about more than tradition. It's about establishing the fundamental building block of society and that's the family unit and the family unit starts is based on a mother and a father. Homosexuals have had to rely on claiming exceptional circumstances are the norm in order to rationalize that two men or two women living together and engaging in sexual relationshiops equates to "marriage".
1.) no trouble at all you factually lies :shrug: but please proceed and i will further point out the facts
2.)did you think anybody would buy this? you know the thread is still here right? you keep talking about people coming from heterosexual relationships. see post776 this is meaningless and its you suggesting that it matters to marriage, it does not
3.) 100% false
4.) see 3
5.) yep as proven in 1 your opinion is meanignless its not need, facts prove you wrong again
also as already mentioned somewhere early in this thread the bolded is 100% false
6.) you can double down on this if you like but it already lost and was proven false
I AGAIN ask you "do you have anything thats on topic to legal marriage and matters to the topic? anything?
No, its not 100% false. It is, in fact, 100% correct. Each and every person is the result of heterosexual relationships, even those that are using in vitro fertilization, are relying on heterosexual reproduction, a sperm and an egg, and that is heterosexually based, with the egg/ovum being called in ancient Greek, gamete γαμετή for "wife" , the sperm being recognized by the term "gametes", ancient Greek gametes γαμέτης for "husband". There's no getting around the fact, and you're wrong.
As shown in the link #770 above, I was referencing heterosexual relationships, not marriage, which shows your statement wrong, and your claim that I lost wrong.
We now know... as you have been told repeatedly, that this is inaccurate. DOMA was found unconstitutional based on the exact reasons that people have refuted your position with: it violates state's rights issues on regulating marriage. It is good to see that the correct decision was rendered.
This is false. Every single person is not the result of a heterosexual "relationship". Many people are the result of an opposite sex booty call. Some are the result of some sperm being donated to a woman for her to get pregnant by. Some are the result of a rape. Some are the result of an egg being donated for use in conjunction with sperm and a surrogate mother in order to make a baby. "Relationship" generally implies much more than any of these things.
And none of this has anything to do with marriage. Children are not required for marriage. And blood relation is not required to raise a child well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?