LOL How can you say that? Your stance is based on the law or is it based on emotion?
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?
You think you can relate a semi vs a full auto to hetero and homosexuals? Please tell me you're kidding.
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.
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?
Besides, once again, I am not arguing this based on sexual preference, I'm arguing it based off gender.
But that isn't the law for marriage. The only court rulings have been on race and never ever sexual orientation.
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.
Cheap words without evidence to support it weighs very small.
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.
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.
I'll leave this one up to CC,
LOL I wouldn't if I were you.
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.
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.
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.
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 people
Nope, it doesn't. It doesn't have to.
YES is does if you are going to base changing law on it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Prof has been thread banned. If he posts in this thread again he will be infracted for each post he makes. 
