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.
And here we go with the idiotic argument that "anyone can enter a marriage, provided they do it with the opposite sex" and pretending that it's not discrimination.
Sorry, it is.
If party A can get married, but party B cannot because it has a different gender makeup than party A, and that's the only reason, then it's discrimination.
Also to note: No parties will be given special treatment when same-sex marriage passes.
Why is it up to me to go find some obscure case to support my statement against your silly arguments? You're the one making the dumb argument that supposedly innocent little homosexuals are being treated so horribly by big bad heteros.
This is getting old, Strel. You're smarter than this...I know you are.
Because your argument has been refuted, with legal sources. Our argument has been supported with legal sources. Yours has not.
Your argument is not legally valid, that's why. Your argument is based on a serious lack of understanding of how equal protection works, that's why.
You are being willfully ignorant. It's rather obvious at this point, since you cannot find even a single source to support the idea. It's not like courts haven't been handling this issue LOL.
Just like your argument that marriage is not a right - this argument is simply wrong. We've proven it wrong with citations to law and quotes right out of legal opinions that are valid and good law the day we cited them, as they still are today.
Where are yours? Why do you think it is acceptable for us to refute your argument with legal sources, but that you are under no obligation to respond to them?
And here we go with the idiotic argument that "anyone can enter a marriage, provided they do it with the opposite sex" and pretending that it's not discrimination.
Sorry, it is.
If party A can get married, but party B cannot because it has a different gender makeup than party A, and that's the only reason, then it's discrimination.
Also to note: No parties will be given special treatment when same-sex marriage passes.
You're completely ignoring the point. Completely.
Honestly...I think you guys are just flat out incapable of comprehending it. Maybe it's the public school system...I don't know.
The argument you've made regarding Party A and Party B has nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination against gay people. 2 straight men can't marry either, nor can 2 straight women. Sexual preference is not even an issue.
Having said that, since the same rules apply to all parties (a spouse is someone of the other gender), there is no discrimination.
You guys need to go gather in a chat room or something and try to come up with an actual argument that makes sense. You're completely defeated on this argument.
Honestly...I think you guys are just flat out incapable of comprehending it. Maybe it's the public school system...I don't know.
The argument you've made regarding Party A and Party B has nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination against gay people. 2 straight men can't marry either, nor can 2 straight women. Sexual preference is not even an issue.
Having said that, since the same rules apply to all parties (a spouse is someone of the other gender), there is no discrimination.
You guys need to go gather in a chat room or something and try to come up with an actual argument that makes sense. You're completely defeated on this argument.
Please.
Point out anywhere that I said it was discrimination against gay people.
It's discrimination nonetheless, but not specifically gay people, even if it affects gays more than straights.
In my opinion? Yes. I support polygamist marriages, as well - provided that they are all able to legally consent to the contract.
However, that is not the discussion, and legal case, at hand. Unless you know of some polygamists that are trying to get a case before the SCOTUS?
Actually it is the discussion at hand. if you are going to proclaim that people are dsicriminated against, not able to enter into a contract, then the number of individials in question is irrelevant..
1. Anyone can "sign the contract" under the same restrictions as everyone else. My wife and I both had to find someone of the opposite gender to join into contract with.
Thats correct, my girlfriend and I have entered into a "contract", and even though we are not married, that contract will be recognized by any court in america. Nothing is stopping two individual parties from entering into a "contract" with someone else, ragardless of their sexual orientation in regards to things like wills, estates, assets, even parental rights now...
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.
