Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
How is it not obvious?
There are some who insist the rulings have not been based on discrimination against homosexuality, but on sex-based discrimination against those who wish to marry the same gender.
I'm pointing out that they're wrong.
Do you disagree?
I think there is no significant difference.
Note, for some who are having trouble with the issue --
This ruling is not based on discrimination by sex (gender).
This ruling is based on discrimination against homosexuality.
This has been true of every ruling.
It is most certainly NOT as sexual realtions are not required in (related to?) marraige at all, one may have them outside of marraige or elect not to within marraige. This is about gender since only the gender of ONE spouse, in a marraige is desried to be changed, not the sexuality requirements of either.
Getting closer, and closer.:mrgreen:
most Americans would reject a Fascist police-state.
The last century and a half has worked out pretty damn well.
Seeing as your morality clearly is completely different from a rational person, don't you think you're a tad biased?
Typical hypocrisy. You can't stand the constitution when it goes against you, but fallaciously use it to defend everything else.
When this law is struck down, I'm buying the drinks!
Then maybe it's time to scrap the old Constitution and write one where the invocation of MORALITY as the highest Legal determinator is more clearly defined.
Hemlock all around, I hope.
homosexuality is no less immoral than say, wanting to kill everyone who is a member of an opposing political party.
I learned long ago that the opinions of the majority of Americans should be rejected out of hand due to their incompetence and lack of understanding.
When this law is struck down, I'm buying the drinks!
No, Shirley Temples for the guys, and shots of Jack for the ladies
homosexuality is no less immoral than say, wanting to kill everyone who is a member of an opposing political party.
ummmm. Hell yes homosexuality is far less immoral than wanting to kill people.
DOMA and other bans against SSM violate the 14th amendment. So there.
Homosexuality not immoral in any actual sense of the word, killing people who simply disagree with you is immoral in every sense of the word.
So do title 9 (separte but equal?), different age limits for taxation, voting, drinking & 2nd amemdment rights and affirmative action (race based preference?) laws. A lot of unequal treatment exists in law yet has been held constituional.
ummmm. Hell yes homosexuality is far less immoral than wanting to kill people.
That's fine. I learned long ago that the opinions of the majority of Americans should be rejected out of hand due to their incompetence and lack of understanding.
On that we will have to severely disagree.
Not hypocrisy at all. I believe that the Constitution creates a certain set of rules. There are only two ways to change those rules..... 1. Amend the document. or 2. Replace the entire document. My problem is with people who believe that the document is "flexible" and can or should just be ignored when it's inconvenient for them. Personally, I believe that the original document was flawed because it was too vague and allowed itself to be modified at all. My idea is to correct that vaguery and ensure it is not polluted or distorted by removing the ability to modify the document afterwards.
So do title 9 (separte but equal?), different age limits for taxation, voting, drinking & 2nd amemdment rights and affirmative action (race based preference?) laws. A lot of unequal treatment exists in law yet has been held constituional.
Not necessarily since morality is subjective.Homosexuality not immoral in any actual sense of the word
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?