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.
Your opinion aside, the argument is true. Gay people have always had the EXACT same rights I have in regards to marriage. Until recently. Now they have more.
Vizio gay marriage PRATT counter: 0003 times since 7-17-15.
Can you quote the Constitution where it guarantees marriage as a right?
Your opinion aside, the argument is true. Gay people have always had the EXACT same rights I have in regards to marriage. Until recently. Now they have more.
Why is it even relevant? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument. It's a red herring.
Let me know when you can give an answer to the first point, then we'll talk. Until then, as I said, it's noise. You're attempting to draw the argument off topic. That's called a "red herring". You can't answer the actual argument so you attempt to change the subject in hopes that we forget you have no answer.
OK, make a list of ALL the extra rights gays have that YOU do not...
You will either be WRONG, or I will aplogize for all the ways I thought of you on a cool breezy evening down on the beach...oh wait did I say taht out loud..
I meant aplogize for all the fundie comments I have ever made to you and all the other fundies here on C-D..
Yes. It does. And there are still restrictions on who I can marry and who I can't. As with anyone--regardless of their sexual preferences.
So based on that argument, all restrictions on marriage should be cast off...assuming the people getting married love each other?
As an extremist you can only find extreme examples. Of course there are laws in place to prevent you from marrying a twelve year old or your favorite Saint Bernard.
But how about returning to the real world and explaining to us why it should be illegal for two consenting adults without blood ties and mentally competent, should be prevented from marrying because of your misguided religious beliefs?
You can't. There is no more reason to disallow such a marriage than there is for me to demand all fundamentalist churches that spew hate garbage be closed. It wouldn't stop haters from organizing in secret nor planning more nefarious meetings like that of Glen Eyrie in the early nineties.
You are morally bankrupt. Your life views suck, not because of the message you could preach, but because of the message you do preach. Vizio, get out while you can. Judgment is coming like a freight train. Please don't stay on the tracks.
Could you explain how 1 state approving it invalidates my statement of "almost every"?
1 state? Did you even read the links? I listed 3 states were it passed on votes from the general public. If you're just going to ignore what I post and make up your own reality then there's not much I can do to help.
As an extremist you can only find extreme examples. Of course there are laws in place to prevent you from marrying a twelve year old or your favorite Saint Bernard.
So then we both agree that some laws on marriage are good and needed. So you really don't want true "marriage equality" or "marriage freedom".
Quote:
But how about returning to the real world and explaining to us why it should be illegal for two consenting adults without blood ties and mentally competent, should be prevented from marrying because of your misguided religious beliefs?
Because society has for thousands of years recognized that marriage involves a bride and a groom? That such a relationship provides a child with a mother and a father? That a child benefits from having a home with a mother and a father in it? Even most same sex marriage advocates recognize that. They realize that a child needs a role model that is of the opposite gender in their lives.
So things like jobs, drivers license, airline tickets, service at lunch counters, water fountains, seats on buses can all discriminate because they are not mentioned in the Constitution? I thought the sitting in the back of the bud, no Woolworth lunch counter and White's only water fountains was already decided as unconstitutional. Am I wrong? Is there a section in it that gives you a right to ride on a bus? Guess those SCOTUS were also in error.
1 state? Did you even read the links? I listed 3 states were it passed on votes from the general public. If you're just going to ignore what I post and make up your own reality then there's not much I can do to help.
ok....so 3 states? wow. We should just invalidate the definition of marriage and adopt the definition of marriage as legislated by 3 of the most liberal states in the country? So we now allow Vermont or New York to make law for Nebraska? Do you think that was the vision the founding fathers had in mind?
So things like jobs, drivers license, airline tickets, service at lunch counters, water fountains, seats on buses can all discriminate because they are not mentioned in the Constitution? I thought the sitting in the back of the bud, no Woolworth lunch counter and White's only water fountains was already decided as unconstitutional. Am I wrong? Is there a section in it that gives you a right to ride on a bus? Guess those SCOTUS were also in error.
Those things were discriminating based on a skin color. There is a difference between that and who a person chooses to have sex with.
ok....so 3 states? wow. We should just invalidate the definition of marriage and adopt the definition of marriage as legislated by 3 of the most liberal states in the country? So we now allow Vermont or New York to make law for Nebraska?
I don't know - you're the one who brought up the popular voting history of SSM as if it made a difference. Now that reality disagrees with what you wished it did I guess it seems like a bad tactic on your part. But I'm just guessing. Maybe you do have some sort of actual point to make despite not having the facts on your side.
The equal protection part. Have you actually read it along with the court decision? This is a pretty simplistic question for someone claiming that he knew better than the Supreme Court what that court could and couldn't rule on.
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.
