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.
You’re the one talking about sexuality because you can’t admit that it’s really about gender.Race isn't sexuality, despite your desire of "If I say it is, it is"
You’re the one talking about sexuality because you can’t admit that it’s really about gender.
I’ve explained this over and over again. All you do is reply with “I say it isn’t so it isn’t”. You don’t respond with a logical argument. You just dig in.
Your antisemitism is strong.
You accept Loving because it’s obviously right after 60 years of normalization. If you existed in the 60s, you’d have been as opposed as you are now. If you lived 60 years in the future, you’d support Obergfell as obviously right.I accept loving because it was correct, race is a factor in equal protection with regards to marriage. Sexuality isn't.
And I notice you dodged replying on my comment about the forced acceptance imposed on the bakers and photographers I mentioned.
You pretend as if you speak for nature but nature allows for homosexuality as well. Why do you seem so concerned with who's more common? It's a silly point no one is arguing.Nature is responsible for how species work. Sorry, but heterosexuality is default for sexually reproducing species.
The human condition allows us to make choices. Consider bees with their structured society. You won't find a worker bee deciding he wants to do beat box bee poetry. Why? Because it's not in their nature. On the other hand human beings can change careers, can change religions and belief systems, laws, life partners. That is totally within our nature. You don't have to legislate things that are not in our nature because we can not do things that are not within our nature anymore than a bee is able to do things outside of what is natural to bees.My issue with this is ppeople trying to justify life choices without acknowledging the default human condition.
Acceptance within the law and society. You can't claim to tolerate gays if you want to use the force of law to treat them differently.It's part of the whole need for acceptance rather than tolerance, and why said acceptance is forced on people by SJW "warriors" like you.
You accept Loving because it’s obviously right after 60 years of normalization. If you existed in the 60s, you’d have been as opposed as you are now. If you lived 60 years in the future, you’d support Obergfell as obviously right.
Your argument doesn’t have a legal basis.
You pretend as if you speak for nature but nature allows for homosexuality as well. Why do you seem so concerned with who's more common? It's a silly point no one is arguing.
The human condition allows us to make choices. Consider bees with their structured society. You won't find a worker bee deciding he wants to do beat box bee poetry. Why? Because it's not in their nature. On the other hand human beings can change careers, can change religions and belief systems, laws, life partners. That is totally within our nature. You don't have to legislate things that are not in our nature because we can not do things that are not within our nature anymore than a bee is able to do things outside of what is natural to bees.
Acceptance within the law and society. You can't claim to tolerate gays if you want to use the force of law to treat them differently.
You haven’t shown reasoning.You just do the same thing, it's opinion vs. opinion, you just don't get it.
I've shown my reasoning, you've shown yours.
No, they are not, because gender isn't being discriminated in this case, sexuality is.
Because they are different.
You haven’t shown reasoning.
These are examples of you evading logic and digging in.
Your opinion of yourself is over inflated.
Hell yes. You’d be absolutely opposed to the judicial overreach of the Warren court and you’d be making the EXACT arguments against interracial marriage that you are about same sex marriage.No, I wouldn't.
I am against Roe as well, so unlike you I look at each case individually.
Also I am not against SSM when voted in legislatively, so you can't say it's because I am against Obergfell because I am against SSM.
Nope. Both genders don’t face the same situation. One gender can marry a man. One gender can’t.You didn't quote where I elaborated on each, several times, such as saying sexuality is an act, race and gender are inherent traits, as well as since both genders face the same situation it isn't gender discrimination.
I guess hacks are going to hack.
Hell yes. You’d be absolutely opposed to the judicial overreach of the Warren court and you’d be making the EXACT arguments against interracial marriage that you are about same sex marriage.
Like how equal protection doesn’t apply because the interracial marriage ban affects both races really. Like how states can pass interracial marriage if they want and that’s proper. Like how judges are putting themselves above legislatures. Like how judges are unelected and unaccountable. Like how interracial marriage was not a part of the historical tradition of the nation.
All arguments made against Loving that you make against Obergfell.
Nope. Both genders don’t face the same situation. One gender can marry a man. One gender can’t.
That’s a fact.
How do both genders face the same situation when only one gender is allowed to marry a man?Both genders face the exact same situation, only the different sexualities face different situations.
How do both genders face the same situation when only one gender is allowed to marry a man?
Explain that.
How is that the same situation? One can marry a man. One can’t. That’s not the same.because the other gender faces the same situation. It's the different sexualities that have the issue.
How is that the same situation? One can marry a man. One can’t. That’s not the same.
Congrats. You made the “separate but equal” argument.One can marry a woman, the other can't. Mirror situation. It's the sexuality that's the issue. Both genders face the same issue.
Congrats. You made the “separate but equal” argument.
Now you’re defending Plessy.
I never claimed I wanted tolerance. I was just dismantling your silly arguments about nature and your hubris in thinking it needs you to help it define human limitations. There are however some things we should absolutely be intolerant about. Like bigotry.And you can't claim you only want tolerance when you force a baker to either quit or bake for an event they don't want to work for.
That's forced acceptance.
