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.
Even Bachmann was out repeating this load of crap in public not long ago. I've heard this articulated on this forum as well. I heard it again just recently, and it just burns me up. "Oh, the gays have equal rights and the playing field is level...they just have to marry a person of the opposite sex, same as me. See? No discrimination at all!"
The point is that the right to "marry" by their definition of marriage, meaning man and woman, is still there, hence no discrimination. This is related to the argument that with gay marriage could come any arbitrary definition of marriage. If you do in fact think "marriage" by definition is between a man and a woman, then that is a valid stance to take.
Personally I could give a damn who "marries" who but that's my take on it. It's really not that complicated at all, you all can go on about it for 50 pages but the simple fact that nobody seems to be able grasp is that you all just disagree on the definition of marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thePR
No one chooses their sexual orientation.
So you are suggesting such. Pathetic.
You know, you might not want to try to argue with someone who clearly has already beaten you before the debate started, based simply on his reading comprehension skills. He very clearly stated the exact opposite of what you've stated.
I don't think it's a mental "disorder" but it fits the definition of an abnormality or a mental defect simply by virtue of being out of the norm. It only fits one of the two qualifiers for being a mental disorder by the textbook definition, the other one being that it distresses the subject which gayness does not necessarily do, given the fact that we are obviously we are talking about internal distress rather than distress indirectly caused by the "disorder" via external forces.
Quote:
A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern that is generally associated with distress or disability (1), and which is not considered part of normal development or a person's culture (2).
You know, you might not want to try to argue with someone who clearly has already beaten you before the debate started, based simply on his reading comprehension skills. He very clearly stated the exact opposite of what you've stated.
I don't think it's a mental "disorder" but it fits the definition of an abnormality or a mental defect simply by virtue of being out of the norm. It only fits one of the two qualifiers for being a mental disorder by the textbook definition, the other one being that it distresses the subject which gayness does not necessarily do, given the fact that we are obviously we are talking about internal distress rather than distress indirectly caused by the "disorder" via external forces.
This coming from someone who openly hates and trolls. Your "thinking" really does a lot for you clearly because your lack of education does not help. You twist everything to have it fit your views. Please do yourself a favor and not pretend like you know anything on these topics.
The argument is that state marriage laws that discriminate based on gender violate equal protection. Thus far, the argument has not had much success. However, as more states enact laws sanctioning same-sex marriages, there will be more cases which will raise the issue of it as a "fundamental right" that is entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Perhaps constitutional challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is the "back door" to getting the Supreme Court to decide the issue.
Referring to the traditional definition of marriage a form of "discrimination" is analogous to calling taxation "theft".
Although both formulations have a kind of lunatic appeal, neither should be taken seriously by anyone in their right mind. I make this statement in full cognizance of how some here may find the phrase "in their right mind" discriminatory.
The argument is that state marriage laws that discriminate based on gender violate equal protection. Thus far, the argument has not had much success. However, as more states enact laws sanctioning same-sex marriages, there will be more cases which will raise the issue of it as a "fundamental right" that is entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Perhaps constitutional challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is the "back door" to getting the Supreme Court to decide the issue.
I don't think it was argued "based on gender", but the notion of state gay-marriage bans violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment recently did find success in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. I don't think the issue will reach the Supreme Court via some back door DOMA way - Perry v. Schwarzenegger is almost certain to be in front of the Supreme Court in the next 2 or 3 years.
Referring to the traditional definition of marriage a form of "discrimination" is analogous to calling taxation "theft".
Although both formulations have a kind of lunatic appeal, neither should be taken seriously by anyone in their right mind.
Let's say your state changed it's civil marriage contract law so that only couples of the same sex could get one - in other words, heterosexual couples were banned from contracting civil marriages and accessing the 1400 civil rights that come with a civil marriage contract.
Would you consider such a law a form of "discrimination"?
This coming from someone who openly hates and trolls.
As opposed to the guy that takes cheap shots at people and flat out makes things up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thePR
Your "thinking" really does a lot for you clearly because your lack of education does not help.
Yes, because I'm intelligent. That's what I do, I think, rather than take cheap shots at people about their educational attainments. I also like to think I have a pretty good grasp of the English language, my lack of education notwithstanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thePR
You twist everything to have it fit your views. Please do yourself a favor and not pretend like you know anything on these topics.
Great rebuttal. Why don't you say something of substance Churchill. The most compelling argument you've ever made was your argument that I was wrong about gun control because I "looked like the next Eminem."
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Would you consider such a law a form of "discrimination"?
Well that would depend on the definition of marriage would it not? What if cousins couldn't get together and enjoy those benefits?
It's all predicated on the definition of marriage.
As opposed to the guy that takes cheap shots at people and flat out makes things up.
Yes, because I'm intelligent. That's what I do, I think, rather than take cheap shots at people about their educational attainments. I also like to think I have a pretty good grasp of the English language, my lack of education notwithstanding.
Great rebuttal. Why don't you say something of substance Churchill. The most compelling argument you've ever made was your argument that I was wrong about gun control because I "looked like the next Eminem."
Yes, now once you have been called out you take your time with spelling. Congrats for using the automated spell check feature. Yes, you are clearly the expert on these things, hence all of your personal attacks and fallacies.
I do enjoy your talk of substance when your posts are pretty much you saying "This is true because I think it is."
Everything that you post is a lie and made up. But since you are always correct, why do you need to defend yourself?
Yes, now once you have been called out you take your time with spelling. Congrats for using the automated spell check feature. Yes, you are clearly the expert on these things, hence all of your personal attacks and fallacies.
Uhh... what? I'm a very good speller thank you very much. Speaking of personal attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thePR
I do enjoy your talk of substance when your posts are pretty much you saying "This is true because I think it is."
I backed up my assertion, something you have yet to do. Well, if you even have one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thePR
Everything that you post is a lie and made up. But since you are always correct, why do you need to defend yourself?
What did I "lie" about? You're making things up again.
If you could actually read (once again) you would see that I was agreeing with you. Homosexuality is not a "mental disorder."
Feel free to give me a rebuttal though, I could tear you apart right now but I'd rather not participate in your childish BS about spelling and education levels and tear you apart in an actual argument.
I don't think it was argued "based on gender", but the notion of state gay-marriage bans violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment recently did find success in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. I don't think the issue will reach the Supreme Court via some back door DOMA way - Perry v. Schwarzenegger is almost certain to be in front of the Supreme Court in the next 2 or 3 years.
I would be suprised if the Supreme Court takes jurisdiction of the Proposition 8 appeal (viz. Perry v. Brown); but then I was suprised when the court granted certiorari in Bush v. Gore; which, if there ever was a case for mandatory abstention, that was the case. The court seems reluctant to tackle the equal protection question head on; i.e., it is reluctant to rule that same-sex marriage is a "fundamental right" that raises the issue of equal protection.
This is the "back door" approach under the guise of "full faith and credit":
Uhh... what? I'm a very good speller thank you very much. Speaking of personal attacks.
I backed up my assertion, something you have yet to do. Well, if you even have one.
What did I "lie" about? You're making things up again.
If you could actually read (once again) you would see that I was agreeing with you. Homosexuality is not a "mental disorder."
Feel free to give me a rebuttal though, I could tear you apart right now but I'd rather not participate in your childish BS about spelling and education levels and tear you apart in an actual argument.
It must be nice living in your fantasy world, you should be very proud. Help yourself to a cookie.
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.
