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.
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"?
Well see already you've inferred you comprehend to 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.
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.
I don't care about your legal arguments, your scientific ones are shit.
Interracial marriage bans applied to both races. White people couldn’t marry black prior and black peoples couldn’t marry white people.being a member of a race or gender requires no act. sexuality implies action.
no, unequal treatment based on sexuality, because it happens to both genders.
Interracial marriage bans applied to both races. White people couldn’t marry black prior and black peoples couldn’t marry white people.
It’s still unequal treatment.
Interracial marriage is an action. Same sex marriage is an action.
The unequal treatment comes when the state tells you who you can’t marry. One time it’s based on race. Other time it’s based on their gender. It’s the same problem.
You don't know? A moment ago you were Sure as hell. Do you know or not? It's kind of an important point pertaining to the rest of your argument. If you don't know and can't claim to know then we can take the rest of your assertions at face value since you are, by your own admission, making them from a place of ignorance.Either choice or genetic or environmental issues that lead to same sex attraction.
So in other words biology isn't perfect.viruses do what they are programmed to do. Cancers are cell reproduction going haywire.
It isn't normal for an organism with vision to have some people born blind but it does happen doesn't it?it isn't normal for an organism that reproduces sexually.
It seems more important to you. I dont care if homosexuality is the norm, only that it is accepted as natural.Why is it being normal so important to you?
Biology doesn't make judgements. It follows physics and can't do that which physics won't allow and will do, given enough time, whatever physics allows.This is a biological judgement, not a moral one.
Fundamentally people understood that parties in a marriage would be the same race.same sex marriage changes what was fundamentally understood to be the parties in a marriage, interracial marriage did no such thing. That's why it's up to the State legislatures to change it rather than the courts.
Again, not based on gender, on sexuality.
You don't know? A moment ago you were Sure as hell. Do you know or not? It's kind of an important point pertaining to the rest of your argument. If you don't know and can't claim to know then we can take the rest of your assertions at face value since you are, by your own admission, making them from a place of ignorance.
So in other words biology isn't perfect.
It isn't normal for an organism with vision to have some people born blind but it does happen doesn't it?
It seems more important to you. I dont care if homosexuality is the norm, only that it is accepted as natural.
Biology doesn't make judgements. It follows physics and can't do that which physics won't allow and will do, given enough time, whatever physics allows.
Fundamentally people understood that parties in a marriage would be the same race.
The courts made the right decision. Bans on same sex marriage violate equal protection. What people “fundamentally understood” about it is meaningless. That’s jiggery pokery to borrow a phrase.
Looking for the relevance here? When you can deny equal protection based on a completely irrelevant phrase like “changing fundamental expectation”, which has zero legal relevance, and which is based entirely on a vague summation of what “people” think, then you’re no longer logical.Only in our country in reaction to slavery, the abolition movement, and then as a part of the reaction to the failure of reconstruction.
Looking for the relevance here? When you can deny equal protection based on a completely irrelevant phrase like “changing fundamental expectation”, which has zero legal relevance, and which is based entirely on a vague summation of what “people” think, then you’re no longer logical.
“Only in our country” is pretty relevant since the laws we are talking about exist in our country.
Good bye. I never lie
Whether same sex marriage is a new concept or not is both debatable and irrelevant.I'm talking about the reasons for inter-racial marriage bans in our country, which were only in RESPONSE to the prevailing issues at the time, they weren't intrinsic to the concept of marriage as a whole during this period.
The idea that two people of the same sex can marry is a completely new concept, one from only the last two decades or so. That makes changing marriage a legislative act, not a judicial act. That stems from sexuality not being the same as race or gender. That stems from history, biology, and precedent.
Whether same sex marriage is a new concept or not is both debatable and irrelevant.
Equal protection applies to new concepts and old concepts.
Again, you can’t say you aren’t discriminating based on gender with a same sex marriage ban. It’s not logical. Yet you keep saying it and ignoring any argument against it.
It’s not judicial fiat. It’s following the constitutional principle of equal protection.Making things equal or not is debatable and 100% relevant, especially when you want to use judicial fiat to force it on others.
You aren't discriminating based on gender, but on sexuality.
It’s not judicial fiat. It’s following the constitutional principle of equal protection.
How can you discriminate on sexuality without discriminating on gender? It’s impossible. It makes no sense.
Of course it’s equal.But it's not equal.
Because you think they all are the same when they are not, that's why you can't make sense of it.
Of course it’s equal.
It’s about a man and woman equally.
If the state says who can marry is dependent on whether that person is a man or a woman, then you can’t say that they’re being treated equally.
This is another red herring. You need water to live but too much will kill you. Then again, maybe you want to die and want to go out like a Pirate. Contexts matters.Arsenic is natural, try eating it sometime.
Your blindness or near sitedness is seen as a defect of your eyes, not of you as a person. Your eyes don't work like you want them to and so they're defective. Even when they working perfectly sometimes they're defective for the task. Luckily we have enough ingenuity to overcome these defects. You can use glasses to see past your face and I can use binoculars to see over distances my natural eye couldn't.Being blind or nearsighted such as myself is a defect, an admitted one. Being attracted to the same sex when your species reproduces sexually is a defect as well.
It would help explain a lot more to you if you actually understood it.Again with the physics?
This is another red herring. You need water to live but too much will kill you. Then again, maybe you want to die and want to go out like a Pirate. Contexts matters.
Your blindness or near sitedness is seen as a defect of your eyes, not of you as a person. Your eyes don't work like you want them to and so they're defective. Even when they working perfectly sometimes they're defective for the task. Luckily we have enough enginuity to overcome these defects. You can use glasses to see past your face and I can use binoculars to see over distances my natural eye couldn't.
You're arguing that homosexuals themselves are broken. They on the hand probably wouldn't find anything defective about their attraction to the same sex. If they want to procreate their problem would be that they couldn't do so biologically, together. Luckily we have technology that can help them conceive biological children in other ways if that is their desire.
It would help explain a lot more to you if you actually understood it.
It’s like playing whack a mole. It’s both debatable and irrelevant if it’s a new concept. Equal protection isn’t just for old concepts. It’s for all concepts where it applies. As we both agree, marriage is a concept where it applies since we both agree that equal protection applies to letting people of one race marry people of another race.No it isn't. It's an entirely new concept from heterosexual marriage as found in human history.
Considering they weren't even asking to do it until the past 2 decades, again the proper forums are the State legislatures, with the feds only enforcing full faith and credit between the States vis a vis issued marriage licenses.
Like with Plessey and Roe, Obergfell was judicial over-reach not based on the constitution, but based on what the majority wanted personally.
Loving fixed the issues stemming from Plessey regarding marriage. We have seen Roe fixed, now I doubt we will see Obergfell fixed but one can hope.
