SBu
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2013
- Messages
- 1,523
- Reaction score
- 636
- Location
- Washington State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Well it has more impact than you might think.
Like...what?
Well it has more impact than you might think.
It matters to the homosexual, for that is - again - the basis on which they are contesting various laws they deem as "unfair."
Please provide an example where the government has singled out, targeted homosexuals for unequal treatment, let alone proceeded to treat them so. I suspect the only "examples" you'll generate will be those that prohibit homosexuals from marrying and/or enjoying the same benefits society confers on normal married couples. In that case, the government isn't "singling out" homosexuals, nor is it "targeting" homosexuals so as to treat them unequally. At the very worst, they are nothing more than laws clarifying the intent and purpose of laws already on the books - laws which would never be necessary were it not for those individuals presuming to be discriminated against by virtue of their sexual behaviors.
The homosexual lobby is fighting hard to legitimize their behavior in society's eyes, to remove the stigma of its deviancy and perversity, to enable them to engage in their behavior without any stigma, without any shame. This is but the latest battleground in that fight. Nothing more. It is a "rights" issue only because they want it to be. Period.
Ahem - marriage benefits received by man and woman, husband and wife are by definition "special rights." They are special by virtue of them being different than rights and privileges we give to many others in society - e.g. singles.
So to say homosexuals who want these same rights aren't seeking "special rights" but "equal rights" is absolutely absurd.
So to say homosexuals who want these same rights aren't seeking "special rights" but "equal rights" is absolutely absurd.
A distinction without meaning. Marriage benefit laws are, by definition discriminatory - and always have been! By your own definition, the evaluate categorically rather than individually - SINGLES being the perfect example for those laws have always discriminated between singles and marrieds.
To you it may be a dodge, but the simple fact of the matter is that putting forth two lengthy lists of identical adjectives describing two "couples" where the lists differ by but one adjective does not a valid argument make. Moreover --- when that one adjective is the sole differentiator of the two "couples" and deals strictly with homosexual behavior, you're not only not advancing your argument but you're hurting it. And you're CERTAINLY not doing it any favors from a legal perspective either.
Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior. It has NOTHING to do with "societal norms" as if society could capriciously decree what is normal and what isn't. And to compare deviant sexual behavior with interracial marriage is to take us back to my argument at the very beginning of this thread. It's absurd on its face. So you have your answer - and I daresay you've received it many times in the past ten years you've been asking it - but I daresay you'll never acknowledge the cogency of any argument that deviates from your own - which isn't a little ironic if you think about it.
I'm shocked that gay marriage gets this kind of attention on a thread. 100 pages of responses and counterpoints? Why do people care this much?
also its not 37 states, many people inside those states are fine with equal rights, just like most of the country and when some of those states have pushed those cases to the SSC they lost based on equality, law, rights and discrimination. the best part is it was the BANS those states did that helped them lose.
SO try your eyes because equal rights for gays is coming and discrimination is losing.
except its factually true that he did win the debate. he has facts and you do not
and the best part about this country which you are obviously to uneducated on this topic to know about is, in REALITY, it wont effect you, your marriage, what you think of it or risk it in any way what so ever. SO your failed fear tactic and straw man nobody cares about. YOU will still be allowed to conduct your marriage however you see fit. EVen though your views are too selfish, bigoted and anti-american to let others have theirs. You should thank god you live in a country like the US. Or you could always move out. Good luck!
Yeah, that's another way of stating what we've been asserting re the homosexual lobby. Kudos for stating it so succinctly.fear, bigotry, hate, and or ignorance
Actually, it appears that it's very relevant. Heterosexuality is very different than homosexuality. Heterosexuality fulfills a biological need for a species to continue. Homosexuality is outside this realm as a completely different entity.#1 - Whether homosexuality is an innate genetic characteristic or not is irrelevant to the issue.
. What are homosexuals not protected against? This is a noble sounding statement but I don't see how this is an argument for homosexual unions being termed marriage.ALL citizens a due equal protection of the laws and no group is to be denied such treatment unless there is a compelling government reason for such unequal treatment.
The word discrimination needs to be defined.When discriminatory laws are formulated in a capricious and invidious manner such laws can be challenged and the government then has the burden to demonstrate a valid compelling interest has to why such discrimination should continue.
if this is directed toward me then this is a straw man argument as I have made no such claims.(And neither "tradition" or "My religion doesn't agree with it" are valid secular reasons.)
This is why I pointed out how these groups are not similar. Can you logically describe how they share a common feature that universally links them to the civil liberties movement?When such a basis is challenged the comparison then is make on like situated groups to explain why one group is excluded (illegal) and the other group is included (legal).
your argument assumes that an individuals success at the goal of producing offspring is the discerning factor in defining the term marriage. It is not. Heterosexuality is the describing factor.So here is your chance to answer a question I've been asking for well over a decade. To date no one has been able to supply a cogent answer as to why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a different gender relationship are allowed to Civilly Marry (in all states), yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a same gender relationship are allowed to Civilly Marry (in most states)?
there is no need to create laws that ban marriage. Only laws that define it.#2 - Please cite any Civil Law banning Civil Marriage based on sexual behavior. Last time I checked each and every one of them banned Same-sex Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the parties involved and gender is based on genetics and therefore is an "innate" characteristic.
The qualification or disqualification for marriage is based on behavior. Not on the color of ones skin. Virginia V. Loving's ruling was based on Eugenetics and racism. If the case was about Mr. Loving and Mr. Jeter, they would not have been married. Trying to equate homosexual behavior with physical traits is sophistry.And no, it is not a quality of the "individual" that is the measurement. In other words because a lesbian is allowed to marry a man, then she is treated consistently under the law. If the basis was the "individual only", then the Loving case would have been decided in Virginia's favor since both Mr. Loving and Ms. Jeter (to later become Mr. & Mrs. Loving) could both Civilly Marry, just not each other. The measurement was how they were treated as a couple.
1.)Its 37 states, talk about not dealing with reality, what a joke position.
2.) Did you agree with the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court...or Plessy v Ferguson? The Supremes are human and they make mistakes, often grave mistakes...so get a grip on the real Reality.
3.)The Supreme Court has no business telling states what their marriage laws are, there is no jurisdiction there. As has been proven many times before, and I am not about to bang my head against the wall arguing with any lunkheads who want to argue it further...if one didn't understand it before with so much explanation, I am going to suppose one does not have the candle power to cogitate it out.
4.) All rights are currently equal...all men have the same rights, all women have the same rights, whether gay or straight. There is no discrimination. Sorry.
5.) And your obvious and misplaced bias is showing my man, but thanks, as you would say, for playing, game over. Bub-bye...and wahhhh wahhhh wahhhh as regards your other positions...
6.) bigots should look themselves in the mirror, maybe even mirrored glasses will do...
7.) like you said, those who do not like the way we do things here in the good old US of A are always welcome to move elsewhere...
8.) I hear they like your type gay views in Canada, eh?
9.) Take your failed "fail"l calls to someone might care and perhaps who is not really into debate and just wants to bicker with you... I think you will be a lot more equally matched then, speaking of equality.
Yeah, that's another way of stating what we've been asserting re the homosexual lobby. Kudos for stating it so succinctly.
Agreed.What I'm saying they are irrelevant has a function of law and it doesn't matter if homosexuality is a "choice" or "genetic".
Please explain to this 'clueless' leftie, precisely HOW does same sex marriage "risk" the ceremony and legal standing of marriage for opposite sex folks.
Well, let me count the ways...marriage, which the left has made myriad attempts to discredit by pushing easier divorce rules, have pushed hard to make it politically incorrect to shame those who would give birth outside of marriage which was and should be the proper way to have children, the folks that have advocated so hard and passed legislation for Great Society programs that in effect push the father out of the equation and now you want to make it a laughing stock by going against thousands of years of Western tradition, that goes against the tenets of any of the major religions. The fact that this will unlock other doors, other Pandora boxes in which the demons will destroy, make a mockery, as does SSM, of the idea of marriage. Once you erase the traditional lines, once you go with the silliness of letting anybody that "truly loves" each other be the only real criteria for allowance of marriage, you are going to get brothers marrying sisters, brothers or any combination of such, marrying each other, fathers with daughters, sons with mothers, sons and daughters marrying either parent they want [ as long as they are of age and are "in love" ] or even both...once tradition goes and that line breached, who is to say a three year old, since all sense will be long since be gone, cannot marry? As long as they love each other its okay, right?
An analogy might be when we had social promotions, then you could not really tell who had earned a diploma and so the diploma started becoming a sham...meant little. If anyone can be awarded a diploma, if anybody can be married, then it means little if not nothing.
The unintended consequences of what it is your side proposes, for the selfish sake of such a few, is absolutely astounding. There, now that you have some clues one cannot any longer claim to be ignorant, clueless.
1.) actually its not because of the people in it, thats reality, you know how presidents care about NY, FLORIDA, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS cause of population? yeah same basic concept lol that's REALITY
2.) yes all human make mistakes
3.) you are free to have that opinion but history and facts prove you wrong. good move not arguing against those facts not injuring your head arguing against them.
4.) also not the case has proven by recent SSC cases
5.) no bias at all i stand for equal rights and not discrimination. nice try but its a fail. your welcome, game is over and you are losing. dont cry about it
6.) let me know when you do this
7.) im happy we the US is fighting for equality, dont see me crying about it you see me supporting it, i like that my country protects my fellow Americans rights
8.) yes Canada is another place they like equality and you wont be happy in, so now you have identified two place that wont make you happy, your first steps are already done
9.) your angry and emotion is showing lol see which one of us is happy? its me. and i accept your concession. Let us know how russia is,
1.)Try to make some sense and then maybe we can chat. Besides, we have already argued all this and you lost, not going to fight a battle I already won with someone who won't even remember it...I mean, why?
2.)Oh, you are happy all right, blissfully obliviously happy no doubt, with those positions...wow...lol... good luck with all that. Me? I am happy enough not to waste any more of my time. Ciao.
Thought so, nothing more than religiously-based bias against humans who don't think as you
Good non comeback. Empty but deliciously and mercifully succinct in the saying of nothing. Thanks.Thought so, nothing more than religiously-based bias against humans who don't think as you
Except by you or any other lib...ha ha ha...hurts I know...but you are happy, obviously obliviously blissfully happy...so smile...ha ha ha... with your positions on everything, what else ya got, might as well smile...:lol:you expected something else? every post he makes is fallacy based, flat out lies and or bigoted views and gets destroyed by any poster that tries.
Except by you or any other lib...ha ha ha...hurts I know...but you are happy, obviously obliviously blissfully happy...so smile...ha ha ha... with your positions on everything, what else ya got, might as well smile...:lol:
Except by you or any other lib...ha ha ha...hurts I know...but you are happy, obviously obliviously blissfully happy...so smile...ha ha ha... with your positions on everything, what else ya got, might as well smile...:lol:
Wow, sounds like maybe a lot of projection going on there.I'm not happy because I really dislike bigotry and I encounter far too much in our society. I'm one of the privileged ones, European descent, affluent, college educated, well traveled - so when I see those not as privileged as I am, I try to do something to change the situation. Others seem to prefer returning to a time when only those like myself had any opportunity. I think that would be incredibly stupid but some folks don't see it that way, for them any change in their privileged status is discrimination against the ones who 'deserve' societal preference
I cannot help you with your reading comprehension, you will just have to work on that...and you are a lib, you may not know it, but yeah...very liberal. bubbyei dont even know what that says? im myself am a horrible typer and i still cant make that out
also im not a lib, just another failure by you,
you in russia yet?
any facts to support your failed claims yet?
let us know!
I cannot help you with your reading comprehension, you will just have to work on that...
2.) and you are a lib, you may not know it, but yeah...very liberal. bubbye
AJ, you just do what you need to do... I have no control over that...but it is a part of the issue, of course.1.) thats not this issue and i can prove that fact if you like so your post look more silly
2.) nope, fact is im not
any facts to support your failed claims yep? guess not
let us know when you are ready to man up and talk facts
AJ, you just do what you need to do... I have no control over that...but it is a part of the issue, of course.
2.)Speaking of of course, of course you are a lib, maybe you have a few conservative views, but on this and just about anything else we have "chatted" about, amongst all the fails and prove you wrongs is a very liberal guy with a very liberal, read indecorous and faulty, manner of debate/discussion. Sorry to be the one to have to break it to you. Now, really, I have done all I can here, you will have to get more guidance elsewhere...
:rofl Got straw? :dohtranslation: no you still got nothing and arent man enough to discuss facts. We already knew that, this is why your posts get destroyed by poster after poster. You provide us with great entertainment.
1.) nope its what you wrote, words that dont make sense, repeating words etc.
2.) nope im factually not, repeating this lie will never make it true only me laugh harded at your failed posts.
facts prove you wrong again, i love it, please dont stop.
any facts to support your failed claims yep? guess not
let us know when you are ready to man up and talk facts
lets see if next post you can stay on topic and actually provide any facts to the conversation
:rofl Got straw? :doh