Pedophilia is a psychological disorder characterized by attraction to prepubescent children. Trying to link gay marriage to pedophilia in this manner is pathetic, and I pity you for falling this low.
The first cases of the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with assault weapons, and the original intent behind the 2nd never even likely imagined such things. And yet you'd believe they're covered right?
Simply because the broad thing, such as marriage or arms, has only been applied to specific subsets of it does not necessarily mean it is regulated ONLY to that subset.
Besides, once again, I am not arguing this based on sexual preference, I'm arguing it based off gender.
Actually, no. Read my posts, because its evident by your repeated statements that are either countering things I didn't say or ignoring things I've said that you're not.Then by your logic you cannot exclude ANYONE no matter what size, age or sexual preference from demanding the same thing. That is the key point you keep missing.
You can DEFINITELY discriminate against people....however the state has to show a certain level of proof of a certain level of necessity based on what status is being discriminated against. While currently it is questionable, and is likely going to be answered by the Supreme Court in time, at what tier sexual orientation will fall under it is not a question when it comes to gender. That one is clearly already defined as the mid-tier "Quasi-Suspect", and requires the state to substantially show an important governmental interest in performing said discrimination. Of which I argue has not been shown when it comes to same sex marriage, not to the level that would be needed to discriminate against gender.
I'll leave this one up to CC, but the vast majority of studies I've seen linked or referenced that are legitimately peer reviewed and undebunked regarding sexual orientation point to nature over nurture in regards to said orientation.That is where we totally disagree. There is no natural finding in even a majority of homosexuals to characterize it in that way.
Even so, as I said, while I understand where people are coming from arguing sexual orientation and think there's a decent case for it, my personal feeling on it does not deal with orientation at all. It deals with gender.
Nope, it doesn't. It doesn't have to. Number of people is not a "grouping", such as race, gender, ethnicity, religious designation, etc. So arguing "You allow me to marry one person but not two people" is not arguing discrimination against an equally protected group but discrimination based on the number. There is no constitutional protection against discrimination based on such a thing. If I say every person can have one spouse, then everyone can have one spouse. You can not point me to a specific group that is getting something another group does not get or can not have.Nowhere in any part of the Constitution does it specify the number of people than can marry. If you are going to claim it is a right you cannot descriminate against the number of people marrying each other.
However if you say everyone can marry a person of the opposite sex, I can point you to men and say "they can't marry females but females can" and I can point to females and say "they can't marry males but males can". That is specifically showing you a grouping of people who are able to do something under the law that the other grouping can not do. More than that, there is legal basis showing that gender is unquestionably protected under the EPC and at a medium tier of scrutiny. There is no court case I can think of in any way shape or form that suggests "number of people" falls into such a thing.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
so much ANGER!
either way, it's pretty gross
that's why the doj, in justifying a state's refusal to recognize a gay marriage, compared it to marrying one
14 is not prepubescent, usually, for example