1.)The SCOTUS is ruling on that now. I don't see how you can factually say that's false. It is a states issue, states are the ones who issue the marriage certificates and who set policy. It's within their jurisdiction to do so.
2.)It violates definition 1. It's a weak opposition that doesn't correctly equate with SSM.
3.) Interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it discriminates based on race. A latina woman and a black man can get married, it's a violation of their rights to say "you can't marry due to being different races.
4.)" Not allowing SSM is simply not altering the current legal definition of marriage in most states to recognize "marriage" as a union between people of opposite sexes.
5.)It's not unlawful gender discrimination to say that 2 wives can't make a marriage or 2 husbands can't make a marriage.
6.) If so, should we legally and forcibly make all states recognize polygamy?
7.)Someone could claim it violates their religious freedom and that marriage is a union between any number of consenting adults.
8.)Under the Constitution should this be forced? Why or why not?
9.)It's not unlawful gender discrimination to adhere to the facts.
10.)It's fact that a man cannot be a "wife" or that a woman cannot be a "husband."
11.) Many states do not recognize that, and it would be dishonest to warp the literal definition of a word because people feel uncomfortable with facts.
1.) very easily cause im dealing with facts. My response was to you saying its a state issues. Its is not in general because scotus has already ruled 14 times marriage is a right so its not a state issue in general. States can set up small t when they go to far and the issues is pushed they get a smacking just like they should, thats why i say it because its factual. I didnt not claim SCOTUS ruled on SSM yet just that its not just a policy/state issue. SCOTUS, facts and history disagree.
2.) according to what FACTS? i cant wait to read this.
3.)the way the law was set up is whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks but they couldnt marry each other so thats the argument you make when you say its already equal is it not?
what about when blacks could drink out of water fountains just like whites just not the same water fountains.
Its completely illogical disingenuous and irrational to claim these are somehow magically different when they are not.
4.) LOL yeah not allowing blacks to be men was simply not altering the current legal definition of a man that in most states to recognized, thats just silly. It discrimination period. This is what state supreme courts have already ruled.
5.) glad you brought this example up because this argument is going through the courts now and is being heard because on the surface its been determined at least valid so you dont get to decide that yet. (if its not gender discrimination)
6.) Polygamy does not fit the current mold of any discrimination going on now or is there any precedence here or in court decisions that loans itself to polygamy. Egual rights for gays =/= polygamy. If you disagree point one out.
but on a side note i would support people fighting for a new right to polygamy.
7.) they could but religion is meaningless to LEGAL marriage. Law isnt needed for RELIGIOUS marriage so that completely fails.
8.) no because theres no grounds for it, see above. Religions can marry who ever they want.
9.) you havent presented any facts that support your claim the way you frame it though
10.) yes this is true, completely meaningless to legal marriage though lmao completely and utterly meaningless tp legal marriage a legal contract.
11.) i agree people need to realize that their opinions are meaningless to the facts and that their own traditions are also meaningless to facts, them being uncomfortable gives them zero right to force their opinions on others.
Dishonesty and warp thinking is that word is only for man and woman, the fact is its not, reality proves that along with dictionaries and contracts etc etc etc ONe side has facts on what that word can mean what do the others have? uncomfortable feelings.