Are you saying that homosexuals define themselves entirely by their sex acts? Well, now that you mention it, I guess they do.
Certainly the argument implied by his statement.
Certainly the argument implied by his statement.
More like the argument you wished to read from his statement. Not the argument made when taken in context.
No they don't and I didn't say that at all. I guess that is the problem with this kind of bigotry they just don't see homosexuals as humans.
Again, the REALLY stupid strawman. Or is it so far out in left field that it's just a really stupid non sequitur?
Which is exactly what you did. In no way did I reduce homosexual to their sexuality.
Now explain to me why you thought that?
I already explained it. If your claim is that sodomy laws make it illegal for homosexuals to "be themselves", then you are defining "themselves" by their sodomy. And the really strange thing is that this isn't strange. It's not strange because homosexuals do that to themselves. The only people in the world that I know of that define themselves primarily by their sexual behavior is the GLBT community. Your post merely reinforced that.
Many of us have known all along that all same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional. Basically, Scalia pointed out what was true but he himself could not see the actual logic in the ruling of Windsor. Windsor gives these judges a case to reference here, but it isn't the reason those bans are unconstitutional. That reference is important in at least some of those states because some states simply have too many people that oppose same sex marriage still (despite that support decreasing every day).
But just because a ruling can be referenced in foreseeable future cases, does not make the ruling wrong. That is where Scalia's "logic" fails.
I already explained it. If your claim is that sodomy laws make it illegal for homosexuals to "be themselves", then you are defining "themselves" by their sodomy. And the really strange thing is that this isn't strange. It's not strange because homosexuals do that to themselves. The only people in the world that I know of that define themselves primarily by their sexual behavior is the GLBT community. Your post merely reinforced that.
I can't recall any way it has ever been illegal to "be oneself" unless one defines "oneself" by virtue of their sexual activity and that sexual activity is, at the time, illegal.
Actually, Scalia knew full well what Windsor meant. He said as much in his dissent.
I already explained it. If your claim is that sodomy laws make it illegal for homosexuals to "be themselves", then you are defining "themselves" by their sodomy. And the really strange thing is that this isn't strange. It's not strange because homosexuals do that to themselves. The only people in the world that I know of that define themselves primarily by their sexual behavior is the GLBT community. Your post merely reinforced that.
Oh he knew what was meant, he simply did not want to accept that the logic given for Windsor was sound for why it violated the Constitution, due mainly to his personal beliefs.
It's easy to understand if you turn it around, i.e. if heterosexual sex were outlawed. While heterosexuals would not define themselves by the sex they have, outlawing heterosexual sex would in fact make it illegal for heterosexuals to be themselves.
Sodomy laws were not the only things used against homosexuals in the past, even our own history. Prior to its removal as a mental disorder, homosexuality could be used to commit a person involuntarily without any evidence that they were actually having sex with someone of the same sex.
I can't recall any way it has ever been illegal to "be oneself" unless one defines "oneself" by virtue of their sexual activity and that sexual activity is, at the time, illegal.
I see. So why don't people engaged in other behaviors that are outlawed self-identify primarily by their illegal behavior? I've never yet seen a "tax cheat pride parade" and be SO damned proud they try to claim their behavior on the same level as "race".
I already explained it. If your claim is that sodomy laws make it illegal for homosexuals to "be themselves", then you are defining "themselves" by their sodomy. And the really strange thing is that this isn't strange. It's not strange because homosexuals do that to themselves. The only people in the world that I know of that define themselves primarily by their sexual behavior is the GLBT community. Your post merely reinforced that.
So what does that have to do with the fact that homosexuals identify themselves principally by their sexual behavior?
Someone is gay whether or not they ever have sex.
They *are defined* by society as gay because they are attracted to the same gender the way you, presumably, are attracted to the opposite gender. They merely recognize who they are but can only live the same life as you do, out in society with a partner and family (instead of hidden) by being subjected to others recognizing it.
Nicely written ruling, makes frequent reference to Loving, stating that prior to Loving, there was no history and tradition of marriage between races, so trying to claim tradition here fails.
I already addressed this. It's their activities that are being made a point of controversy, and not yours.
I see. So why don't people engaged in other behaviors that are outlawed self-identify primarily by their illegal behavior? I've never yet seen a "tax cheat pride parade" and be SO damned proud they try to claim their behavior on the same level as "race".