You are incorrect. You can love your dog if you want to, and in your house you can even have sex with him, but you can't make the rest to recognize you both -you and your dog*- officially married.
The same applies to homosexuals and lesbians trying to marry members of their same sex. They can "love" between themselves any way they want, but to try to be accepted legally by the rest...that is different.
(*Amanzingly the god of the bible calls "dogs" to homosexuals in the first covenant of the bible, and the same title also appears in the last chapter of the book of Revelation, Outside are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the muderers, and the idolaters, and everyone that loves and makes a lie. Rev.22:15)
but to try to be accepted legally by the rest...that is different.
This is Anthony Kennedy's record as regards homosexuality - anybody want to weigh in on how he might rule on this? I've bolded what I think may give a clue:
Anthony Kennedy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You do not understand positive and negative rights (ln).Circular reasoning. You can put whatever label you want on them. People can say the same thing about black rights in the civil rights movement. The rights lacked existence.....hence.....positive rights....apples and oranges.
Affirmative action is a positive right that is not equally endowed and its discriminant is based on race and gender.I'm sure the racists of the past didn't consider themselves bigots either. Afterall...they were in the right. Blacks were an inferior race and not entitled to the same rights that the rest of society was. They thought...and many probably still do....that they are in the right mindset.
Discrimination is justifiable because those people are different than us. Apples and oranges.
The law is applied equally. They state that NO ONE can marry someone of the same sex. Since this law applies to EVERYONE it is applied EQUALLY.
More mock legal scholars claiming that marriage and civil unions are the same.
Here, educated yourselves:
Civil unions create “second-class status” and are not equal to marriage a study out of New Jersey says. A commission was established to study civil unions and it has concluded that even though the intention of civil unions is to give gay and lesbian couples the same rights of marriage, in fact they do not.
The biggest area of inequality was in regards to employment benefits for spouses. Many employers refused to offer same-sex couples the same health insurance benefits as married couples.
The petition to make distinctions between rights has been rendered several times, without response.Civil Unions are Not Equal to Marriage - A Study Finds Civil Unions and Marriage are not Equal
Consider, too, that if a homosexual falls in love with another homosexual from another country, having a civil union with that individual is not going to be the necessary sponsorship that individual needs to become a citizen. There's a whole host of reasons why civil unions and marriages are NOT the same, regardless of what the "legal scholars" on here have to say. I advise actually taking a few law classes and/or studying a few law books before yammering on about legal philosophy which has no place in this argument. We deal with facts, not philosophy.
So how am I "incorrect"?
But see...that is where your entire premise is wrong. Those of us in favor of gay marriage couldn't care less whether the "rest" accepts it or not. People are free to have their own opinions and beliefs. I do not believe anyone should be forced to "accept" gay marriage if they are not comfortable with it. However, the state should not discriminate.
Debate the issues, your paltry legal background seems to have entitled you only to being a smart ass rather than a legal scholar.Disney, pay no attention to Monk.
....
Pay no attention to Monk. Debating anything with him is a waste of time. Ask him if an illegal immigrant can legally be murdered - then weep at his answer.
Nonsense, the government may not discriminate, private institutions may discriminate as they wish.Freedom from discrimination is a negative right, which the government, via the Fourteenth Amendment, has an obligation to prevent. Being similarly situated and being denied something under the law while another group of similarly situated individuals is being granted the same thing under the law, is, of course, discrimination based on something. In the case of same-sex marriage, it is obvious.
I beat your simpleton reason on every issue and that is why you reply with snot nosed posts.
It is no doubt that nothing good comes from homosexuality.
I strongly think in my humble opinion, that the fuss about homosexuality as something "normal" in sexual behaviour must be erradicated and that homosexuals must be encouraged to seek psychological help.
Otherwise, show here what good comes from homosexuality to humans as society or as species.
Knowledge is more important than imagination.
Conquer
Since knowledge is more important than imagination...
You'll be happy to learn that homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's DSM in 1973.
No, I'm not happy about it, and if you read my message, I am requesting to put it back in it.
Knowledge is more important than imagination
Conquer
15? :lol::lol::lol:No, you haven't. I'm still waiting for you to reference your yammer in the abortion thread. I've been waiting for a week now. You know, the yammer I proved wrong with 15 different sources.
"Clown Shoes"
15? :lol::lol::lol:
You cited three articles none of which were significant.
You are obsessive compulsive, delusional regarding self worth and regarding the actual significance and validity of your propositions.
No, I'm not happy about it, and if you read my message, I am requesting to put it back in it.
That is blatantly false and absolutely stupid.I cited four Supreme Court cases which directly contradict your idiotic statement that Equal Protection is afforded to citizens only.
If you are applying the term Natural Rights with a reference to inalienable rights, an appeal to authority will not justify inalienable rights.I also cited a U.N. Resolution delineating those natural rights you say do not exist, drafted and presented to the U.N. by an AMERICAN AMBASSADOR!
You present general arguments of conventional opinion.I cited the Missouri School of Law, and an article written by attorney Richard New. Importantly, I quoted the author of the Fourteenth Amendment. All of my sources refuted your sophomoric assertions, and you aren't man enough to admit it. I asked you for one source backing up your assertions and you've failed to present one.
I gave you fair warning not to engage in ad hominem with me; the portfolio of childish attacks is your game but, I am not a pacifist.You're a troll. You attempt to stupefy people with complex legal terms and philosophy, contorting actual law to fit your own conclusions. You just didn't expect someone with bona fide legal experience to call bull ****. Once someone did, you resorted to childish attacks. Why don't you get off the computer and go get a real education instead of sifting through Wikipedia blatantly misinterpreting everything you read, molding it into what you want it to mean. People like you disgust me.
"Institution Of Liars By Trade"
That is blatantly false and absolutely stupid.
Anyone understands that equal protection is extended to non-citizens (persons) within jurisdiction.
Do you see that your dishonesty and or mental limitations mean that you cannot be taken seriously?
If you are applying the term Natural Rights with a reference to inalienable rights, an appeal to authority will not justify inalienable rights.
It is pathetic that you promote yourself as a legal expert and lack any background, evident by an apparant void of discerning ability, to understand the myriad of WELL KNOWN AND OBVIOUS CONSIDERATIONS which distinguish between positive law and natural law.
You present general arguments of conventional opinion.
And, as with your initial retort, you blatantly lie that contrary arguments simply do not exist.
You do not accept the precepts of positive law and formation of the collective institution; and, you hide when challenged to defend inalienable rights; you debate in cowardly in nebulous terms.
I gave you fair warning not to engage in ad hominem with me; the portfolio of childish attacks is your game but, I am not a pacifist.
Your drivel stems from a sad self righteous dimentia, which makes you believe you are beyond question; it leads you to comically assert that bafoonery is exceptional brilliance.
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?