Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What homosexual would WANT to marry someone of the opposite gender?
Yet, you argue that heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender.
Calvinist has never volunteered his (presumably straight) own children or grandchildren to marry a homosexual, though he believes there is "nothing wrong" with the law because there is no law preventing a gay person from marrying someone of the opposite sex.
He also appears to believe it is "more right" (his own version of morality) for there to exist an infinite number of heterosexual marriages based on lack of love, attraction or mutual interest, than for there to exist same sex marriages based on love, attraction and mutual interest.
Of course DOMA violates the equal protection clause.
Consider two legally married couples in Iowa - one a male-male gay couple, one a male-female straight couple. If the man in the straight marriage employs his wife, he does not have to pay unemployment insurance tax of his wife's wages. If one man in the gay marriage employs his husband, he must pay this tax. Why - because of DOMA. DOMA treats married homosexuals differently from married heterosexuals (namely it denies married homosexuals 1100 civil rights). As such, it clearly violates the equal protection clause.
Thanks for repeating the common sense that you always post. I would rep you again if I could.
Is that not correct? Why should we legislate according to feelings, attraction, or love? There has never been a precedent for it in the past.
We've been through this 100 times already.
The courts don't buy this argument, the anti-gay marriage lawyers don't even make this argument, why on earth do you think it has any teeth whatsoever?
Is that not correct? Why should we legislate according to feelings, attraction, or love? There has never been a precedent for it in the past.
We're not. The law is based on gender, not feelings or attractions. People can marry one gender but not the other. That's gender discrimination. However, there is precedent for marrying the person of your choosing. You just like to ignore it.
We're not. The law is based on gender, not feelings or attractions. People can marry one gender but not the other. That's gender discrimination. However, there is precedent for marrying the person of your choosing. You just like to ignore it.
Again...it's NEVER been an issue before the gay rights activists started doing their thing. Why has this great travesty never been mentioned until recently?
The courts don't buy this argument, the anti-gay marriage lawyers don't even make this argument, why on earth do you think it has any teeth whatsoever?
Lol 100? Try adding a few more zeros on that number. Calvinist brings this argument up in every single marriage thread, and no matter how many people tell him he is clueless about how the law works, he continues to repeat the claim ad nauseum.
Some people are incapable of being gotten through to.
Again...it's NEVER been an issue before the gay rights activists started doing their thing. Why has this great travesty never been mentioned until recently?
Because until recently, being gay could get you killed (well, it still does but not as often). Gays stayed predominantly hidden and there wasn't enough support or understanding for them to feel safe to be more open.
Regardless, who cares when the issue presents itself. Interracial marriage didn't become an issue on the national stage until less than 50 years ago. Does that mean the first 150+ years of this nation's history where it was illegal was no big deal?
Women couldn't vote for most of Us history. Why wasn't that travesty mentioned earlier?
Societal change takes time because people like you keep holding it back to stick to so called "tradition".
Again...it's NEVER been an issue before the gay rights activists started doing their thing. Why has this great travesty never been mentioned until recently?
In the real world...the world that conservatives deny exists... things change, people change, society changes...nothing remains static.
Lol 100? Try adding a few more zeros on that number. Calvinist brings this argument up in every single marriage thread, and no matter how many people tell him he is clueless about how the law works, he continues to repeat the claim ad nauseum.
Some people are incapable of being gotten through to.
I've never seen you or anyone actually give a coherent argument against it. Can you please explain to me how "everyone has the same rights" is somehow unfair?
Again...it's NEVER been an issue before the gay rights activists started doing their thing. Why has this great travesty never been mentioned until recently?
Calvinism has been around an for 1/4 of an eye blink of all human history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
