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.
Excellent. You acknowledge that homosexuality is not a race and has nothing whatsoever to do with race.
I never said it was a race, you are just using that as a reason to deny us marriage rights and marriage. The reason against same sex marriage being stated are the same ones that were used against interracial marriage. It does not change the fact that we are being denied equal access to marriage and the rights and benefits because of the fact that we are gay. Being gay is not a behavior any more than being straight is, nor is it a choice any more than you chose to be straight. No one here has ever said we were a race, but we are a minority having our rights tromped on by the majority. Who is next in line to have their rights denied because of an immutable situation. I can not change my being gay and do not want to. I just want to stop being discriminated against for it and want my equal rights applied to me and all gays and lesbians, it is only fair and right.
The rationale used for prohibiting interracial marriages closely mirrors the rationale used for prohibiting SSM, and the court rejected it outright.
The case for homosexualized marriage needs to stand or fail on its own merit and ideally would involve a same sex couple. The rationale for interracial marriage between a man and a woman fails this test and is not applicable under any circumstances whatsoever.
Last edited by JobZombie; 12-03-2012 at 08:31 PM..
People should be allowed to have sex in public.. in plain view.. that's the next social norm we need to shatter... I don't care who is offended or disgusted by it.
The case for homosexualized marriage needs to stand or fail on its own merit and ideally would involve a same sex couple. The rationale for interracial marriage between a man and a woman fails this test and is not applicable under any circumstances whatsoever.
Not sure if you're being obtuse, or if you're simply uneducated on matters of law, but every case is dealt with on its own merits. Part of that merit is applicable case law, and yes, Loving v. Virginia is relevant here.
Just curious, but would you like to take a shot at making the legal argument against same sex marriage? Keep in mind that you're going to have to explain why the state has a substantial interest in prohibiting such.
It does not change the fact that we are being denied equal access to marriage and the rights and benefits because of the fact that we are gay.
Marriage is not of or about homosexuality. You already have the same rights and equal access to marriage as everybody else and you demand that society redefine marriage and expand its definition such that marriage and society accommodates the homosexual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer
I just want to stop being discriminated against for it and want my equal rights applied to me and all gays and lesbians, it is only fair and right.
We live in a heterosexual world that you perceive as unfair because you can’t get everything that you want and you only consist of perhaps 3% of the population. Perhaps nature is unfair, homophobic and bigoted as well. Then again life isn’t fair either. Never has been, isn’t and never will be.
Just curious, but would you like to take a shot at making the legal argument against same sex marriage? Keep in mind that you're going to have to explain why the state has a substantial interest in prohibiting such.
We disagree and obviously will remain in disagreement. Why don’t you make the case for homosexualized marriage? Keep in mind that you will be setting a major precedent that will not only redefine marriage but redefine society for everybody as well.
We disagree and obviously will remain in disagreement. Why don’t you make the case for homosexualized marriage? Keep in mind that you will be setting a major precedent that will not only redefine marriage but redefine society for everybody as well.
Please explain how it will redefine marriage or society, How? All adding the rights of marriage to gays will do is insure us protections we are being denied because of people iike you. Gays have families too, or do you not recognize that also? I am married to my partner of 34 years, so how does that affect society? We may be only 3% of the population, but that is no reason to deny us the same rights. There may be fewer Jews than gays, yet they are not denied equal treatment. My marriage does not affect or redefine my neighbors marriage one bit. But your marriage gets benefits and mine does not, we are being punished because we are gay, you are being rewarded for being straight. That is not fair, nor is it equal under the US constitution. Your kind will go down in the history books as the same type of dissenter as those that stood against interracial marriage, the right to vote for women and the denial of full humanity for American Indians. Go ahead and look like a foolish bigot in the future, that is your bed to lie in. I would never vote to take away or deny anyone their equal rights or equal treatment. America stands for freedom for all, not just the majority.
Marriage is not of or about homosexuality. You already have the same rights and equal access to marriage as everybody else and you demand that society redefine marriage and expand its definition such that marriage and society accommodates the homosexual.
Such logic was always used to prohibit interracial marriage and again, rejected by the courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie
No it does not.
First, your grammar sucks.
Second, would you like to bet whether or not the SCOTUS will cite the Loving case in its ruling? I would.
Quote:
[We disagree and obviously will remain in disagreement. Why don’t you make the case for homosexualized marriage? Keep in mind that you will be setting a major precedent that will not only redefine marriage but redefine society for everybody as well.
Doesn't work that way. The burden will be on the state to show that they have a legitimate, vested interest in prohibiting gay marriage. I place that same burden onto you.
Such logic was always used to prohibit interracial marriage and again, rejected by the courts.
First, your grammar sucks.
Second, would you like to bet whether or not the SCOTUS will cite the Loving case in its ruling? I would.
Doesn't work that way. The burden will be on the state to show that they have a legitimate, vested interest in prohibiting gay marriage. I place that same burden onto you.
The SC probably will cite Loving. 4 or 5 justices using it to invalidate ssm bans, and 4 or 5 concluding as the Minnesota SC did --- "Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination... in both a “commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a martial restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”
The same with the level of scrutiny. Some justices for a heightened scrutiny, others for rational basis review. Your continuing presumption that the SC will use a heightened level is a guess.
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.
