"God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."
Moderator's Warning: The Prof has been thread banned. If he posts in this thread again he will be infracted for each post he makes.
Originally Posted by Jerry
You guys are ridiculous for even spending 3+ pages for debating the definition of jail bait. Anyways, I guess this fight isn't over and honestly it doesn't really seem to definitive which way it will go right now.
"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan
Wait a second... gay marriage? I heard that there was a bill passed to protect the sanctity of marriage... you mean this wasn't a bill to make divorce illegal? So then, let me just see if I've got the facts right:
If divorce is the leading contributor to destroying the sanctity of marriage and no effort to make divorce illegal has ever been well known or popular in modern history then why would efforts to prevent homosexuals from getting married come before efforts to make divorce illegal? I can only come to one logical conclusion: proponents of the bill are basing their support on religious belief. If you want theocracy, there's several countries in the middle east that would love to have you I'm sure.
All men are created equal, right? I'm not sure how I could be reading that wrong.
A working class hero is something to be
You think you can relate a semi vs a full auto to hetero and homosexuals? Please tell me you're kidding.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?
Full auto vs semi is a laughable comparison to sexual orientation and you know it. Why are you so against going through the same process for law that is actually in the Constitution?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.
But that isn't the law for marriage. The only court rulings have been on race and never ever sexual orientation.Besides, once again, I am not arguing this based on sexual preference, I'm arguing it based off gender.
Cheap words without evidence to support it weighs very small.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.
Again you did not answer the question. How can you limit marriage to 2 people or two people over 18, 16 or whatever if you conclude marriage is based off gender alone? The answer is you can't. And you could never point to any sexual orientation and claim there is interest in performing discrimination if you claim that gender alone validates marriage. That is the trap you keep falling into.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.
LOL I wouldn't if I were you.I'll leave this one up to CC,
Not a single study showed any common traits or natural behavior in even a majority of homosexuals and the ones that keep getting peddled around here are based off questionnaires filled out in private or based off fruit flies or twin studies and each and ever time there was never a proven pattern in even 75% of the subjects of the study. And no legitimate scientist or therapist would ever base their findings off such an uncontrolled environment as a private questionnaire. Its laughable to say the least.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.
Which again is no basis for marriage in any law or judgment ever made. You can't make up law when you want to support a personal conclusion. You go through the process of creating the law you want but for some reason you don't want to play by the rules set forth in the Constitution. You want to avoid them and let a judge for the second time invalidate the votes of 7 million peopleEven 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.
YES is does if you are going to base changing law on it.Nope, it doesn't. It doesn't have to.
Then you cannot discriminate how many spouses, how old they are or any other limitation based off that argument. Again that is the trap you keep falling into. You generalize your argument so far out you couldn't even begin to stop anyone or any sexual orientation from asking for the same thing using the gender argument.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.
What stops polygamists from claiming you can't discriminate against them based on gender? What about the sicko who wants to marry a child and they base it off gender? You can't point to the laws against polygamy or any other law since you want to disregard the laws on the books today that prohibit same sex marriage.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.
The Constitution specifies how laws are to be created and it was never through the court system but since your side continues to loose each and every public vote, you use judicial activism to get what you want but don't pretend you are following the constitution because its clear you aren't nor do you take into account the incredible slippery slope you fall into with such general arguments based on nothing but gender.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.