Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your first sentence is idiotic but you accept it axiomatically because if you don’t stick with it, all of your nonsense crumbles.sexuality is the crux of the issue in Same Sex marriage, not gender.
That's exactly what I am saying, because again gender and race are similar, where sexuality is not. Only one involves an action, or at least results in an action.
No I am saying the reasoning used to justify Loving doesn't apply to Obergfell, because while races are equal, sexuality is not.
Your first sentence is idiotic but you accept it axiomatically because if you don’t stick with it, all of your nonsense crumbles.
Same sex marriage is when two people of the same gender get married. Gender is the crux.
This is the part where you don’t have a logical reply. You just dig in and whine.
They want to marry someone of the same gender because that’s who they want to marry. It’s inseparable. Just because you can file it into a different category doesn’t change that. Gender is at the crux of sexuality so gender is at the crux or same sex marriage.Sexuality is the reason they want an SSM. Sexuality is not the same as race and gender.
It's called stating ones position. You are the one throwing a tantrum over me thinking you are wrong, and showing why I think you are wrong.
They want to marry someone of the same gender because that’s who they want to marry. It’s inseparable. Just because you can file it into a different category doesn’t change that. Gender is at the crux of sexuality so gender is at the crux or same sex marriage.
It’s like claiming you’re not discriminating against race, you’re just discriminating against interracial marriage.
It’s so fucking stupid. How do you not see this?That's their sexuality, it works for people of both genders. Thus gender isn't an issue.
race is intrinsic to inter-racial marriage. gender isn't because it's based on sexuality and attraction, not gender.
It’s so fucking stupid. How do you not see this?
Interracial marriage isn’t based on sexuality and attraction? Of course it is. They’re attracted to someone of a different race.
Banning same sex marriage means you ban marriages of people who are the same gender. But it’s not about gender? This is completely illogical.
Historically interracial marriage was not allowed in the United States. You’re mangling legal theories. You’re now distorting the historical tradition part of substantive due process into an equal protection claim, where it doesn’t belong. You’re even getting the historical tradition part wrong. Marriage is part of historical tradition meaning that it is subject to claims of substantive due process. You’re a lot less intelligent than you think. You barely understand anything you’re saying.again, different races are equal in the specific situation of a marriage contract, historically and via precedent. Sexuality isn't. Thus equal protection doesn't apply, and the only way to change it is via legislative action at the State level to change the marriage contract.
Historically interracial marriage was not allowed in the United States. You’re mangling legal theories. You’re now distorting the historical tradition part of substantive due process into an equal protection claim, where it doesn’t belong. You’re even getting the historical tradition part wrong. Marriage is part of historical tradition meaning that it is subject to claims of substantive due process. You’re a lot less intelligent than you think. You barely understand anything you’re saying.
Nice to see you’re retreating from the “same sex marriage doesn’t have anything to do with gender” bullshit.
Good bye. I never lie. You don't mind being an idiot serial accuser, though, because you worship the snippets who have rank over you and teach you hatred of the good like President Trump who did a hero's job for 4 years but was attacked before he even got moved into the White House with evil schemas to impeach him to teach him some kind of voodoo lesson. It failed to stop him from giving people who never had them, worthwhile and high-paying jobs they could be proud of; working on cleanup of the Atlantic ocean for starters: making people accountable who didn't want to be accountable; concentrating on bringing up persons of color to be as good as everyone else, keeping crime low and taking good advice from successful judges, lawyers, accountants, constitutional scholars, stock market winners, but best of all, bringing the hope of peace to people of the middle east for peace everlasting. For his success, the Democrats had to make up lies that have been thoroughly debunked and oft found to be projections of their own criminal bents, not President Trump's attitude of honesty the best policy. There is a limit I will accept from anyone who wants everyone to think Republicans including me are not telling the truth. Fortunately, the American people are not as ignorant as the Democrats wish. We Republicans will be serving this country with the hopes that some of you on the left will learn rightness and justice. It sucks to be attacked by someone who sniffs out a way to turn the truth into a lie at whim in the least appropriate debate style known.Nope, no matter how many times you say that lie, it will still be a lie. They are not his property, they belong to the country.
And yes, there is no precedent for a search of a former President's house for documents, but there is also no precedent for a former president keeping them at their house.
You don’t have to worry about substantive due process because that was a minor issue with Loving and Obergfell. Your claim about “inter-tribal” marriage has ZERO relevance. It makes absolutely no difference to our legal system and constitution.It was only really legally codified as not allowed in response to the abolition movement and the general hardening of views on slavery. the laws after re-construction were part of the overall attempt to politically and economically remove power from the freemen.
Inter-tribal and racial marriage has been around for millennia.
Substantive due process is jiggery pokery, as Scalia once said about it.
It has nothing to do with gender from an equal protection viewpoint. No retreat there, dippy.
You don’t have to worry about substantive due process because that was a minor issue with Loving and Obergfell. Your claim about “inter-tribal” marriage has ZERO relevance. It makes absolutely no difference to our legal system and constitution.
The issue is equal protection. If races are equal, then people are allowed to marry whatever race they want. If genders are equal, then people are allowed to marry whatever gender they want.
It’s equal protection under the law.
You keep saying that same sex marriage isn’t about gender and that is still as stupid now as the first time you said it. Same sex marriage is when you marry someone of the same gender. A ban on same sex marriage is saying a man cannot marry a man because the state deemed that was the wrong gender for them to marry. It’s identical to a ban on interracial marriage where the state said a white man cannot marry a black woman bedside they were the wrong race for them to marry.But SSM isn't about gender, it's about sexuality. Race and gender are the same thing in the eyes of equal protection, sexuality is not.
Now to really blow your mind, if gender is truly equal, why can't men legally abort a child even if the woman wants to keep it? I don't mean an actual abortion, just in the legal sense where the man claims no responsibility for the child, same as a woman doing so by going through an abortion?
You keep saying that same sex marriage isn’t about gender and that is still as stupid now as the first time you said it. Same sex marriage is when you marry someone of the same gender. A ban on same sex marriage is saying a man cannot marry a man because the state deemed that was the wrong gender for them to marry. It’s identical to a ban on interracial marriage where the state said a white man cannot marry a black woman bedside they were the wrong race for them to marry.
Your example is likewise absolutely fucking stupid. If a woman aborts a pregnancy, there is no child. If a man does whatever the fuck you’re talking about, the child still exists. These are not equivalent procedures. Abortion is a procedure based on bodily autonomy.
Sexuality is behavior informed by biological characteristics. You might as well be arguing urinating or eating is behavior as if we could choose to abstain from either.marriage is an act. sexuality is a behavior, race and gender are characteristics.
Sexuality is behavior informed by biological characteristics. You might as well be arguing urinating or eating is behavior as if we could choose to abstain from either.
Not in gay individuals it's not.the default behavior is heterosexuality,
Normal doesn't mean unnatural. Gay people may not be a numerical majority, that doesn't mean they don't exist.anything else isn't the norm.
This is a red herring. My argument had nothing to do with arguments for the 14th Amendment.People aren't trying to use courts via the 14th amendment to do anything with urinating or eating.
Not in gay individuals it's not.
Normal doesn't mean unnatural. Gay people may not be a numerical majority, that doesn't mean they don't exist.
This is a red herring. My argument had nothing to do with arguments for the 14th Amendment.
Interracial marriage also requires an act. The act of engaging in a relationship of someone with a different race.Overturning the ban is based on equal protection, and that assumes SSM and hetero marriage are equal, which they are not. Again, because sexuality involves an act, and isn't an intrinsic trait such as race or gender, the equality logic doesn't apply.
abortion is an out from the responsibility of parenthood. If both sides participated in the conception willingly, why do only women get a legal out, assuming abortion is legal?
Sure as hell is isn't a rational argument. Do you have one to explain away the existence of gay individuals or are you simply going with "not uh"?In human beings, as sexually reproducing organisms it sure as hell is.
Well see already you've inferred you comprehend the reason to everyone's existence. What about those who disagree with you and no interest in having kids? What about viruses and cancers who kill their hosts and ultimately themselves? Whales who beach themselves by the hundreds? Biology is wonderfully more diverse than your limited perspective.Lack of attraction to those of the opposite sex is an impediment to passing on your genes, which is basically the reason for existence in organisms that reproduce sexually.
Again you don't seem to understand those words. Same sex attraction is perfectly normal for gay people. You have to put these words in their proper context.This isn't about morality, it's about biology. It's not about existing, it's what the normal or default condition is for our species.
I don't care about your legal arguments, your scientific ones are shit.The argument you jumped into is about the 14th amendment, try to keep up.
Interracial marriage also requires an act. The act of engaging in a relationship of someone with a different race.
You miss the fact that the part that is equal protection isn’t the act, it’s the people. Is a man equally protected if they’re told they can’t marry a man but they could if they are a woman? Of course not. That’s unequal protection. That’s unequal treatment based exclusively on their gender.
