Maybe that's where your issue lies :2razz:
Y como insistieran en preguntarle, se enderezó y les dijo: El que de vosotros esté sin pecado sea el primero en arrojar la piedra contra ella.
Bien esta lo que bien acaba.
Oh POO, BH! If the term means the same as what we have, all the legal rights and everything, equal standing, everything, explain to me where this is discriminatory. You're picking at a stupid term. Let marriage belong to the church and civil union to those who choose it.
Purrs,
Pookie
Oh POO, BH! If the term means the same as what we have, all the legal rights and everything, equal standing, everything, explain to me where this is discriminatory. You're picking at a stupid term. Let marriage belong to the church and civil union to those who choose it.
Purrs,
Pookie
What does that even mean?
Maybe its some sort of matrimonial slavery?
Gay men can marry gay women, though, so no D/discrimination.
It is orientation Discrimination
Pleae quote an existing law which stipulates an orientation requierment.
Pleae quote an existing law which stipulates an orientation requierment.
A law does not necessarily need to use a category of people within the law to discriminate against that category of people. A perfect example is presented in poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses that were instituted to prevent black people from voting although they didn't specifically mention race.
the fact that two males or two females are unlawfully allowed to marry each other is all the proof that is needed. the laws stipulate a man and a woman. the laws are hiding behind NOT saying orientation and using this "gender" issue to confuse the matter.
it is not complicated...
So you have no example....
I'm not going to bother looking for one. I already showed that it is irrelevant because a law does not need to specifically mention a group to discriminate against them.
The laws weren't made with discrimination in mind, unless you're ready with an extremely well sourced conspiracy theory.
If you are correct here, then the same sex marriage legislation you support is deliberately discriminatory against polygamists as you only refer to 2 people being married.
Clearly, just as you are not trying to be discriminatory against other groups, neither is the existing law attempting to be discriminatory against homosexuals.
Yet you still don't understand.
I never claimed, nor would I claim that the laws were made with Discrimination in mind, but that does not alter the fact that this is how the laws actually are. I am keeping a simple issue... simple. I clearly do understand and if you are going to be petty and not apply a logical counter, then I will bid you a nice day.
Originally Posted by YamiB
A law does not necessarily need to use a category of people within the law to discriminate against that category of people.
...and that was that, apparently! :rofl
give yourself a pat on the back. you won the whole thread.
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?