- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
They can both marry someone unrelated and neither can marry someone related.a man can do something a woman can not do and vice versa solely because because of their gender.
Your mere disagreement and say-so means exactly dick. Provide evidence that I'm wrong.
Its not "mere disagreement". I'll attach equal protection 101...but you are going to have to take the time to read it.
There are three levels of analysis under equal protection depending upon the nature of the right involved and the class of individuals.
Suspect classes and fundamental rights receive the highest scrutiny.
non suspect classes and/or rights that are not fundamental receive standard scrutiny.
There is an intermediate level that the court sometimes employs.
Let me search around for a link and you can read a little more indepth if you choose.
Here's a link I found with a quick search that isn't bad...it explains the process fairly well. I was looking for something a little more user friendly...but the info in this is accurate.
Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause
That's old news, learned all about it years ago and formed my position from there.
Care to address my argument now?
Your argument is "same but equal".
Only if I support Domestic Partnership
I never have. In fact I've often warned anti-gm folks on DP not to either, like Navy. I told them that granting Domestic Partnership enables gay-marriage. However, it would appear that most anti-gm are both short sighted and under the naive assumption that gays would stop at Domestic Partnership.
Suppose some minority wanted to have multiple wives, but the majority was against it. Eventually enough anti-polygamist acquiesce to some Domestic Partnership equivalent to polygamy, identical to marriage in every way except the name. How easy would it be to challenge in court and win "marriage" for polygamists.
They called my argument a Slippery-Slope and dismissed it out of hand.
IMO they don't look very wise today.
What would the polygamist argument be in front of the SCOTUS?
Only if I support Domestic Partnership
I never have. In fact I've often warned anti-gm folks on DP not to either, like Navy. I told them that granting Domestic Partnership enables gay-marriage. However, it would appear that most anti-gm are both short sighted and under the naive assumption that gays would stop at Domestic Partnership.
Suppose some minority wanted to have multiple wives, but the majority was against it. Eventually enough anti-polygamist acquiesce to some Domestic Partnership equivalent to polygamy, identical to marriage in every way except the name. How easy would it be to challenge in court and win "marriage" for polygamists.
They called my argument a Slippery-Slope and dismissed it out of hand.
IMO they don't look very wise today.
What exactly is wrong with polygamy?
What would the polygamist argument be in front of the SCOTUS?
That's old news, learned all about it years ago and formed my position from there.
Care to address my argument now?
I do not support immoral people getting married either. So your argument is useless.
We are not denying anyone anything. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want just like everyone else.
I will not support the lifestyle. It is wrong just like polygamy etc.
If that were the case we would not even be having this argument.
More red herrings. :roll:
Dude if you are not going to stick to the subject and continue with the "race" thing that has nothing at all to do with it, we are done here. You know my position, do you want to continue to beat a dead horse?
I receive my marching orders from God, and I really don't care one bit what you think about that.
They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they like, and that is correct and equal, period.
It is discrimination based on gender. The genders are treated the same but not equally when one can do what the other gender can not.
Wow it's like you didn't even Google the quote and read the ruling in full and learn about the Lemon Test.
They obviously don't see the divorce rates. A relationship can take a VERY bad turn once you wake up and realize you're legally bound to that bastard/bitch until death or nullification of said contract. Either way, it's an expensive set of chains to try and take off. Let em have it. >: D and if their divorce rate skyrockets up past the straights, we can rub their noses in it. OR we just all live happily ever after humping whatever gets our rocks off.
Freedom of religious practice.
(Think Muslim)
I just think this argument revolves around the fear of americans that this will lead to gay sex becoming mainstream. Mothers and fathers all over the country are afraid they will come home and find their sons or daughters in the sack with a friend of the same sex. This is a real worry, but guess what, it happens everyday, somewhere in this country, some young person is engaged in this behavior, and it is o.k, it really is. I just do not happen to think that if this becomes mainstream(and it has already), that this will stop young people from following their instinct, and you are either born with an attraction for the same sex, or you are not.
You simply cannot legislate this away, let people be free, freedom is always the best option!
You aren't born with an attraction to anything. You hit puberty and chemicals start sloshing around and hormones make you do crazy stuff. This whole "Born gay" thing is silly. You may "mature" gay during puberty, but I highly doubt you're born with it.
Not to mention, why would you be born with a natural instinct, so to speak, that goes against the survival or your race. If that were a logical argument, gay could be seen as counter-evolutionary and it's clearly just for getting your rocks off. Nothing wrong with that.
You would be in the minority of those against gay marriage in that case, as there is no widespread movement to prevent hedonists or the like from getting married, so why focus upon gay people?
Yes and with anti-miscegenation laws, everybody could marry within their own race. Somehow you fail to see that parallel. You can apply arbitrary restrictions that apply to everybody, but they'll only meaningfully apply to some, i.e. those with different sexual preferences for another race or the same gender.
In what way is allowing others to form a marriage contract supporting their lifestyle? I don't support people marrying for money, but if they want to that's their business.
It is absolutely possible for intelligent people to disagree on what is logical.
Dude, it's called an analogy. When you took the SAT did you write red herring everytime you were supposed to find the analogous relationship?
A gay friend once told me...."do you really think I wanted to be born this way, from the first day of school, I was attracted to the other boys, who would want to grow up this way"
I can only share my experiences, I am not a biologist, but I do believe people are born gay.
You aren't born with an attraction to anything. You hit puberty and chemicals start sloshing around and hormones make you do crazy stuff. This whole "Born gay" thing is silly. You may "mature" gay during puberty, but I highly doubt you're born with it.
Not to mention, why would you be born with a natural instinct, so to speak, that goes against the survival or your race. If that were a logical argument, gay could be seen as counter-evolutionary and it's clearly just for getting your rocks off. Nothing wrong with that.
A gay friend once told me...."do you really think I wanted to be born this way, from the first day of school, I was attracted to the other boys, who would want to grow up this way"
I can only share my experiences, I am not a biologist, but I do believe people are born gay.
Jesus, EpicDude. Did you one day decide, "I like women"? Did you? What in your body made you like women?
I don't see how you cannot understand that there are anomolies (did I spell that correctly). People can be born being half boy/half girl. Can you explain what happened there? What if it's a girl, and she's unable to conceive because her uterus and ovaries didn't form correctly. How do you explain that? Because...it does happen.
...I'd like to see some documented evidence to support his claim...how can you say you're attracted at such a young age?
I am not out to convince anyone, this is just what I believe.
Your argument that it has to be a fundamental right in order to be discrimination?
If that's what you are referring to....again...you are wrong. Governmental limitations placed on ANY right or privilege can be deemed discrimination if it does not meet the required interest showing depending on the tier of scrutiny it receives under equal protection analysis.
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?