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.
LOL. Sort of like laws banning interracial marriages were the "same for everybody"? I mean, they punished blacks and whites equally for race-mixing (and yes, that was the legal argument of the day - it was rejected by the Supreme Court). Laws that allow heterosexual couples to marry and give them a collection of civil rights but forbid homosexual couples from marrying and exercising those civil rights doesn't really describe a law that is the "same for everybody." It describes a law that codifies invidious discrimination against homosexuals.
Also, have you heard of this law - The Defense of Marriage Act? It specifically treats married homosexual couples different than married heterosexual couples in that it gives married heterosexuals a collection of some 1100 federal rights but denies them to married homosexuals. How does that law fall under your "same for everyone" claim?
Thank you for making the point so eloquently, not that Finn is going to acknowledge any of what you have posted is true.
LOL. Sort of like laws banning interracial marriages were the "same for everybody"? I mean, they punished blacks and whites equally for race-mixing (and yes, that was the legal argument of the day - it was rejected by the Supreme Court). Laws that allow heterosexual couples to marry and give them a collection of civil rights but forbid homosexual couples from marrying and exercising those civil rights doesn't really describe a law that is the "same for everybody." It describes a law that codifies invidious discrimination against homosexuals.
Also, have you heard of this law - The Defense of Marriage Act? It specifically treats married homosexual couples different than married heterosexual couples in that it gives married heterosexuals a collection of some 1100 federal rights but denies them to married homosexuals. How does that law fall under your "same for everyone" claim?
Let's try that one more time: gays are not forbidden to marry. They can marry just like heteros. The law is same for everyone.
It is what it is. The law is same for all. You can't argue that it is not. What's next? Special laws for small groups of people who like to have sex with animals? Should we tweak the laws for them too so they can marry animals? No, they have to obey the same laws as normal people, just like heteros and gays have to obey the current laws.
It is what it is. The law is same for all. You can't argue that it is not. What's next? Special laws for small groups of people who like to have sex with animals? Should we tweak the laws for them too so they can marry animals? No, they have to obey the same laws as normal people, just like heteros and gays have to obey the current laws.
What about DOMA? DOMA's a law. Is it the same for all?
I don't get how people can fudge facts and outright spread rumors about APA being harassed by Pro-Gays. What a load of B.S. Sounds like conspiracy paranoid type thinking.
DSM-III categorized homosexuality as a mental disorder. It's pretty archaic to reference an outdated text, not to mention it's sociopolitical bias.
There are no current studies that indicate that being Gay is a mental disorder, even in medical journals. Geez. Blatant ignorance. Oh, "I'm pro-gay this pro-gay that, but it's just a mental disorder.. you mad? tata." Oppressive thinking on the net, doesn't surprise me. *roll eyes*
Do not laws that expressly deny the rights of marriage to homosexual couples violate the 14th Amendment?
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 get how people can fudge facts and outright spread rumors about APA being harassed by Pro-Gays. What a load of B.S.
If facts have been fudged prove it. What rumors have been spread?
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.
