[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Omahahonors

Judges that enforce freedom, despite the political pressure from the extreme religious right, is what America is all about. The founding of our nation revealed that this isn't a new concept American's must deal with. These 'liberal' judges have been protecting America from the forces of Tyranny, similar to the church of England, dating all the way back to the day the Declaration of Independence was written. They are merely protecting America from falling back to the strict socialist (monarchist) ideals you feel are needed to be forced on the livelihood of us all.

Your idea of a centralized church-law enforcement has been practiced for centuries and breaks many fundamental American rights like freedom of religion and no government intrusion. I hate to say it Calvinist, but you are the biggest socialist on this board.

How's about you actually drop the strawman argument and try to argue the point? I don't want some centralized church-law. I've never argued for that. But then, if you actually paid attention to what I said it'd be more difficult, huh?

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

When you can identify the victim in a consensual homosexual relationship between two adults, then your example will have weight. Until then, the compelling argument point stands and you have nothing.

My argument is not in any way about the victims. If you're unable to see that after all this time then I really can't do much for you.

You keep saying they are wrong, but you don't say why they are wrong. This is because your argument boils down to "they are wrong because I don't like their decision" rather than anything from a legal perspective.

Because the law does not recognize sexual preference in any way when considering marriage. Gay people are no more discriminated against than anyone else. I'm not allowed to marry another man, and neither is any other man--regardless of sexual preference. There is no discrimination. To suggest there is would be to manufacture an issue. Any judge who rules for 2 men to get married because of sexual preference is legislating from the bench.

[iamjacobm]

Jump to about 4:30 mins into this video or watch the whole thing. Sounds oddly familiar.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com - Anderson Cooper remembers Jamey Rodemeyer

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by iamjacobm

Jump to about 4:30 mins into this video or watch the whole thing. Sounds oddly familiar.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com - Anderson Cooper remembers Jamey Rodemeyer

And this has what to do with the discussion?

[iamjacobm]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

And this has what to do with the discussion?

Did you watch it? It is about the people in your same boat that say there shouldn't be special laws for 3% of the population. While that 3% are being bullied to depression and suicide in schools across the country.

It absolutely is relevant to the conversation.

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Because the law does not recognize sexual preference in any way when considering marriage. Gay people are no more discriminated against than anyone else. I'm not allowed to marry another man, and neither is any other man--regardless of sexual preference. There is no discrimination. To suggest there is would be to manufacture an issue. Any judge who rules for 2 men to get married because of sexual preference is legislating from the bench.

Codswallop. The United States government is prohibited, constitutionally, from treating one group of citizens differently, under the law, than another group.

To wit, from the 14th Amendment:

no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

That means you can't have 'separate but equal'. It means you can't enact or enforce laws that apply to women but not men. (As an aside, that is being used to strike down laws requiring women to wear tops where men are not required to, such as beaches and parks. It's not universal yet, but if it ever sees the inside of SCOTUS it will be, it's a black letter violation.)

And, on point, it means you can't tell gay people they can't get married when straight people can. The district court ruled thusly, and it's next step will be the 9th Circuit. I'd be shocked to the point of passing out if they did not concur. Then it's off to SCOTUS. Legal beagles much smarter and more knowledgable than me are saying that's a tossup, but IF SCOTUS upholds the case, it's game over.

SSM would, instantly, be the law of the land in all 50 states.

And 20 or 30 years from now, people will look back amazed at the fuss, as we currently do on interracial marriage. They really argued about that??

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

Codswallop. The United States government is prohibited, constitutionally, from treating one group of citizens differently, under the law, than another group.

To wit, from the 14th Amendment:


That means you can't have 'separate but equal'. It means you can't enact or enforce laws that apply to women but not men. (As an aside, that is being used to strike down laws requiring women to wear tops where men are not required to, such as beaches and parks. It's not universal yet, but if it ever sees the inside of SCOTUS it will be, it's a black letter violation.)

And, on point, it means you can't tell gay people they can't get married when straight people can. The district court ruled thusly, and it's next step will be the 9th Circuit. I'd be shocked to the point of passing out if they did not concur. Then it's off to SCOTUS. Legal beagles much smarter and more knowledgable than me are saying that's a tossup, but IF SCOTUS upholds the case, it's game over.

SSM would, instantly, be the law of the land in all 50 states.

And 20 or 30 years from now, people will look back amazed at the fuss, as we currently do on interracial marriage. They really argued about that??

so you can't have a special form of marriage for gay people? It's not the heteros that are asking for same-gender marriage.

Glad to see you agree with me.

[DentalFloss]

No, it means discriminating against them is Unconstitutional. As the Court ruled. I doubt very much that I would agree with much of anything you have to say.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

No, it means discriminating against them is Unconstitutional. As the Court ruled. I doubt very much that I would agree with much of anything you have to say.

I agree. We shouldn't discriminate. That includes special rights for gay people. If you create a form of marriage for gay people only, then heteros like me won't be able to take advantage of it. That's unconstitional.

[Raphael07]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I agree. We shouldn't discriminate. That includes special rights for gay people. If you create a form of marriage for gay people only, then heteros like me won't be able to take advantage of it. That's unconstitional.

You could marry a man if you want. The thing is, its likely only gay people would take part in it.