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.
You have yet to actually give me one reason that people having equal rights is somehow not equal.
I can get married to anyone of the opposite gender that I want...within certain parameters. So can any other man in America.
How EXACTLY is that discrimination? Please be specific. At this point you've just been spouting hot air while claiming to be smarter than everyone else.
I'm going to continue to point out that your argument here could be made pretty much exactly the same way in order to support anti-miscegenation laws.
You're discriminating on the basis of gender - who are you to decide what a man can and cannot do with another man, or what a woman can and cannot do with another woman? And that's key to the district court's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
You have yet to actually give me one reason that people having equal rights is somehow not equal.
I can get married to anyone of the opposite gender that I want...within certain parameters. So can any other man in America.
How EXACTLY is that discrimination? Please be specific. At this point you've just been spouting hot air while claiming to be smarter than everyone else.
It's discrimination. A heterosexual is naturally attracted to the opposite sex. A homosexual is naturally attracted to the same sex. By having the government only allow those who are naturally attracted to the opposite sex to have the ability to get married creates an unfair playing ground. People should be allowed to marry whoever they're naturally attracted to.
Currently, heterosexuals have the convenience of being nautrally attracted to the opposite sex, and face no issues regarding marriage legality.
In 20 years from now this will be a non-issue. It will be looked upon in the same manner as interracial marriage.
It is not up to the govt to define ANY marriage. A "marriage" is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY. It is up to the church to allow or disallow marriages.
Marriage is not a religious ceremony. It hasn't been for the majority of human history. If it's so religious, why do you allow atheists to get married?
It's discrimination. A heterosexual is naturally attracted to the opposite sex. A homosexual is naturally attracted to the same sex. By having the government only allow those who are naturally attracted to the opposite sex to have the ability to get married creates an unfair playing ground. People should be allowed to marry whoever they're naturally attracted to.
I'm not guaranteed the right to marry the person I'm most attracted to. She wouldn't agree to it, and frankly she doesn't know who I am.
Quote:
Currently, heterosexuals have the convenience of being nautrally attracted to the opposite sex, and face no issues regarding marriage legality.
So what? The law is blind to issues of attraction and love. That's not how we create legislation.
Quote:
In 20 years from now this will be a non-issue. It will be looked upon in the same manner as interracial marriage.
Perhaps. But it won't stop me from arguing common sense now.
We can all marry someone of the opposite gender. It's equal treatment for everyone. The fact that you can't do it your own way is irrelevant.
So was it equal treatment when everyone could only marry their same race? No one was being discriminated against right? Everyone was equal. Blacks couldn't marry whites, but whites couldn't marry blacks either.
I'm not guaranteed the right to marry the person I'm most attracted to. She wouldn't agree to it, and frankly she doesn't know who I am.
You're guaranteed by the law to marry the person you're most attracted to. The law can't control whether she feels the same way or not.
Quote:
So what? The law is blind to issues of attraction and love. That's not how we create legislation.
Not according to Loving v. Virginia it's not. The State cannot infringe on the right of a person to choose who they marry based purely on protected class status.
LOL I think that was meant to read as "it is saying the same thing you are saying". Not what you are, but what you are saying. That's how I read it, at any rate.
So was it equal treatment when everyone could only marry their same race? No one was being discriminated against right? Everyone was equal. Blacks couldn't marry whites, but whites couldn't marry blacks either.
You will never get a reasonable response to this question.
Or, they won't answer because deep down, they actually agree that it's "common sense" or "god's will" or "natural" to restrict marriage to people of the same race.
Or they'll simply say, "I'm entitled to my opinion. You're trying to force your opinion on me...." As if an expansion of the definition of marriage will REQUIRE them to get a same sex marriage!
I'd say these people aren't the brightest bulbs in the box, but then again, they're mostly old and dusty anyway, and their opinions, like lightbulbs of old, will be obsolete soon enough.
Marriage is not a religious ceremony. It hasn't been for the majority of human history. If it's so religious, why do you allow atheists to get married?
Tell me what church allows an atheist to get married there? You have to be a MEMBER or at least INTERVIEWED by the pastor for them to agree to your union.
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.
