- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Gay people actually do exist and actually do want to be treated equally under the law. Sorry to burst your bubble, it's not "make believe." You talk about intellectual integrity, but you aren't responding to the intellectual arguments about how equal protection challenges work. Why is that?
And where do you get this
Under our current laws a Man can legally enter into a contract with people a woman can't, and vise versa.
Now run along.
Then why do states still have these laws?
Gay people actually do exist and actually do want to be treated equally under the law. Sorry to burst your bubble, it's not "make believe." You talk about intellectual integrity, but you aren't responding to the intellectual arguments about how equal protection challenges work. Why is that?
Yes there is. Equal protection clause.
Slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason. Animals and children cannot enter legal contracts. If you're so interested in marrying your dog, you're free to start lobbying to allow animals to enter into legal contracts.
Appeal to tradition fallacy. The definition used to be one man and one woman of the same race. Don't even get me started on the early biblical versions of marriage! How many wives and concubines did Solomon have?
No, you are blocking peoples' rights based on emotions.
You said you were leaving the thread because you'd spent too much time here. Now you're demanding other people leave. That's even more desperate than your earlier argument of semantics. :lamo
Even if that's the case, I don't see that as a reason to combat it.
"Activists" on EVERY side do this, and it drives me crazy. From Gun Nuts to Environmentalist Whackos, activists NEED controversy to fuel their incessent need for attention, power, self fulfillment, and wealth.
Annoyance or problems with activists are never a reason in my mind to necessarily oppose or be upset with a generalized notion.
You pretty much look at every movement. Once they reach their initial goal and seemingly succeed it weakens a bit and then those desperately trying to cling to relevancy and power have ot make it out that succeeding at what they wanted wasn't success and must constantly be creating the impression of a situation hanging on a knife's edge.
I get the annoyance with that; I just don't think it's anything to really go off of OTHER than feeling annoyed at activists.
There's simply no integrity in the debate to begin with. We've just heaped a new definition on a word that already had a definition. It's like deciding that English is the same language as Russian. You can say it, or pass a law declaring it, but that doesn't make it so. That's where our system has lost any sense of integrity.
This whole thing is simply about votes and political power. Nothing more. Otherwise this would have been changed sometime in the past 3,000 years or so.
The goal of gay people is to have you pay for their marriage?
Let anyone marry anyone and anything they like. It wont effect me. If your going to do it go all the way.
Thank you for your opinion. As it's not an actual argument, however, you've given me nothing to respond to.
still nothing huh?
please let us know when you have ANY facts that support your failed claims, heck let us know when you have ONE fact that supports your failed claim. We'd love to tread it, thank you.
That target hasn't been defined yet, we'll see.
Um, I get that from our marriage laws.
Marriage laws currently allow a man to enter into a legal contract with a woman and become married to her.
This is something, legally, a woman is unable to do. She can't enter into a legal contract with a woman and become married to her.
This is a contractual, under the law, that a man is able to do that a women is prohibited from doing.
At best, it's "seperate but equal", which has been established to be an unconstitutional method of attepmting to circumvent equal protection.
Perfectly fine.
Know this. No one, ever, in the history of this forum or any other, has ever changed their opinion based on these meaningless exchanges on the internet anyway.
And my side of this has few that care to even bother, while your side pretty much lives on these sites 24/7. I'm in unfriendly territory every time I peak into this digitally socialist baby shower of a chat room.
We're all just practicing our typing skills and refining our grammatical prowess. Nothing more.
Ridiculous. Every McDonald's customer is not a murderer.They have the same rights under the current laws as everyone else.
No, you can't. You can leave your property to a human being in a trust to be used to take care of the dog. The dog does not actually own the property.Can I leave my property to my dog? Sure i can.
True, but not relevant to this discussion. The state is barring gays from getting some of those benefits, in violation of the 14th amendment.I dont need a legal contract to get married and neither do gays unless i want something from the state
Between a man and a woman isn't universal either.The definition of having to be the same race was not universal in fact it was the exception
You're full of it. You absolutely do want to block someones' rights. You're hiding it behind this libertarian nonsense because you know the other arguments failed. You never, ever, even once expressed the idea that the government should "get out of marriage" until it became obvious that same-sex marriage was definitely going to happen.I dont want to block anyones rights. Im a Libertarian. What part of get government out of the marriage business escapes you?
Correct. Same-sex marriage does not affect you, and therefore should be legal. While the government can constitutionally eliminate all marriages, you know as well as everyone else that this isn't going to happen. As long as the government recognizes marriage, it must do so in accordance with the 14th amendment, which precludes a gender-based distinction in absence of an important state interest.Let anyone marry anyone and anything they like. It wont effect me.
See? This is how I know your libertarianism is bull****. An actual libertarian wouldn't be spitting out the social conservative rhetoric like this. An actual libertarian would recognize that the people have the right to dissolve a contract they created.If your going to do it go all the way. Of course marriage wont mean much anymore but then again its been all down hill since progressives introduced no fault divorce
Yawn.
Because states routinely have laws that are counter to the constitution. That is, in part, why we have the Federal Court System established.
It would not be as necessary if states or the federal government just never had unconstitutional laws passed. But that's not the case.
Is your argument seriously that because a law is on the books it's constitutional? Despite the mountain of evidence highlighting SCOTUS cases documenting where a state had a law, sometimes even a long standing law, and it was over turned becuase it was unconstitutional?
A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man . Both have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex
another deflection and facts are still wining
do you have anything new to post that hasn't been destroyed yet?
A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man . Both have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex
Men and women are inherently separate but equal
Persecution complex, nothing more.
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?