I'm not sure how we're supposed to interpret thatNot to mention that every time I have used a "Men's" bathroom, I wasn't prevented from doing so by anyone.
I'm not sure how we're supposed to interpret thatNot to mention that every time I have used a "Men's" bathroom, I wasn't prevented from doing so by anyone.
Fair enough, sorry for a false accusation
Yes they are, the state is taking a moral stance that homosexual unions are just as much a marriage as a traditional heterosexual one.
The state would be acting upon a moral issue and taking a moral stance against the will and morals of the majority. I have said this before, there would be no legal recourse or complaint if the majority voted for a marriage definition hat included same sex relationships. The state would be imposing one moral stance as superior to the other. That is absolutely imposing morals upon an entire society.
Here is an essay that was written and is backed up by numerous scientific sources that states that homosexuality may develop due to sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. Sexual Abuse: A Major Cause Of Homosexuality?
It is a well-documented fact that many many homosexuals were sexually abused when young. (This paper will conclude with a list of some books which support that statement.)In other words, there is an abundance of evidence that many many homosexuals were born heterosexual but were disoriented by sexual abuse.
What do polygamists have to do with the state mandating gender roles?
I'm not sure how we're supposed to interpret that
Absolutely nothing. tex still doesn't understand how one defines sexual orientation and that polygamy is not one. Pay him no mind.
Haha - and this is in Virginia?? I know of at least a few college dorms (mostly in CA) that are unisex (or "gender neutral") - that brings it up a whole level. Not just shared toilets, but showers etc.LOL however you wish.
If the women's bathroom line is too long and I gotta go, I'm going in the men's bathroom. Simple as.
We have men's and women's bathrooms here at work and they are absolutely identical. They are also one person only bathrooms. We all use them as though they are unisex even though they are designated otherwise. It would be stupid not to. Why should I stand in the hall trying not to piss my pants when there's a perfectly good bathroom right in front of me that just happens to have "Men" written on the door? It's silly.
But, no one stops me or anyone else from using that bathroom. So, there's no reason for me to petition the company to have unisex bathrooms.
Absolutely nothing. tex still doesn't understand how one defines sexual orientation and that polygamy is not one. Pay him no mind.
So what about marriage? If the state stops mandating the gender roles of marriage does that somehow affect the argument that marriage should be restricted to two people?
Why is it discrimnatory? What class of people does it discriminate against? Sex, men and women, are a protected class, just like race is a protected class.
Whereas sexual orientation is not a protected class, nor are polygamists or pedophiles. The judge found a wealth of evidence to support that the state had no rational grounds by which to prohibit two people of the same sex from marrying. Whereas polygamists and pedophiles are not only not a protected class, but they are not supported by any credible evidence.
That doesn't fly. The 14th ammendement Equal protection clause says:Nope, only protected classes.
And you can't even read a CDC study. You lost pages ago but you just haven't admitted it.
Why not yell at the guy doing the baiting?The greater point is IT DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL. It has nothing to do with the argument. It's OFF-TOPIC.
The greater point is IT DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL. It has nothing to do with the argument. It's OFF-TOPIC.
Because it breaks equal protection under the law as you just stated. Why would it not cover more than two people? How could you restrict it?
Why is it discrimnatory? What class of people does it discriminate against? Sex, men and women, are a protected class, just like race is a protected class.
Whereas sexual orientation is not a protected class, nor are polygamists or pedophiles. The judge found a wealth of evidence to support that the state had no rational grounds by which to prohibit two people of the same sex from marrying. Whereas polygamists and pedophiles are not only not a protected class, but they are not supported by any credible evidence.
If you claim more than 2 people cannot marry what are you pointing to that invalidates the 14th ammendment coverage based on this ruling? Explain yourself.
Nope, only protected classes.
It was a counter to his argument. Go back and read what he advocated. I've only explained it a dozen times.
Any person. Not protected classes. PERSON. So again, how can you discriminate against people who are Polygamists for example? Explain how.
How could you restrict it?
There are a few ways. One is on rights issues. Polygamy rarely works out in a non-oppressive manner. We even still have modern day examples of this in the US. If this were done in a way that completely abides by the rights of the individual, you can try to work around that. But the polygamist communities such as in Arizona, that's not how it works in practice. So you can always go that route.
Another way is to site precedent. Which would be Utah. It was not even allowed into the Republic unless it made polygamy illegal.
And you can't even read a CDC study. You lost pages ago but you just haven't admitted it.
It was a counter to his argument. Go back and read what he advocated. I've only explained it a dozen times.
There are a few ways. One is on rights issues. Polygamy rarely works out in a non-oppressive manner. We even still have modern day examples of this in the US. If this were done in a way that completely abides by the rights of the individual, you can try to work around that. But the polygamist communities such as in Arizona, that's not how it works in practice. So you can always go that route.
Another way is to site precedent. Which would be Utah. It was not even allowed into the Republic unless it made polygamy illegal.
Additionally, there is no law preventing from a group of people living together and having whatever relationship they want.
You haven't refuted my argument. Mostly because you don't understand it. But keep making your foolish claims. As impossible as it may be, it's making you look even LESS knowledgeable on the topic.
This is f'd up and off topic, but there is such a law in my city. It's called the 2 + You rule. You can only live in a house with 2 other unrelated people. Now none of this is polygamy concerns, it all stems from college students and property owners; but I still think it's a f'd up law.
Then you cannot stop Polygamists. They have every right to the 14th amendment. No where does it say the 14th ammendment doesn't apply to groups of more than 2 people or stops at a certain age. No could you stop children and adults from marrying. Again, the 14th ammendment applies. That is the gaping hole in the ruling.
I've barely been skimming this thread and it is my understanding that if "other sexualities" (such as?) *because people are born gay - but afaik they are not born polygamous* want their issue addressed then they need to file suit as well.
Bestiality is deviant, homosexuality is not.