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.
What's false? They're gay. They're getting married. The law doesn't ban gay people from getting married. The law doesn't care what your sexuality is.
We both know what the law cares about. Their gender. That's what makes it gender discrimination.
There's no lie. The government doesn't care what their sexuality is. The government only cares what their gender is.Their lying about their sexuality, which would technically be fraud.
And that's why it's about sexuality, technically a gay man and a lesbian woman could get married with no issue, and as such gender isn't the problem they have, sexuality is.
There's no lie. The government doesn't care what their sexuality is. The government only cares what their gender is.
How can it not be about gender when that is the basis of the discrimination?The purpose of SSM is sexuality, or at least accommodating it. That you have to use gender to describe it doesn't mean it has to be about gender.
How can it not be about gender when that is the basis of the discrimination?
It's like saying interracial marriage bans aren't about race. That's absurd.
But it doesn't discriminate based on a person's sexuality. The gay individual has the exact same rights and abilities as a straight individual (or a bisexual individual or a pansexual individual or any other sexual orientation). The sexuality of the individual is irrelevant.It's the terms we need to use to discuss sexuality, which is the main basis for the supposed discrimination.
But it doesn't discriminate based on a person's sexuality. The gay individual has the exact same rights and abilities as a straight individual (or a bisexual individual or a pansexual individual or any other sexual orientation). The sexuality of the individual is irrelevant.
Yet again, the sex of the person they're marrying is the only characteristic the state stipulates.It does discriminate on the basis of their sexuality, because they aren't getting what they want.
marrying someone of the same sex, because they are attracted to the same sex.
Yet again, the sex of the person they're marrying is the only characteristic the state stipulates.
The sexuality, attraction, or anything else is irrelevant. The state doesn't ask. It doesn't care. It doesn't have any relevance.
The state only discriminates based on sex, which you say is irrelevant despite the fact that it is the exclusive means of discrimination.
The exclusive means of discrimination isn't the crux of the argument?In reference to their sexuality, the crux of the argument.
That it doesn't ask doesn't matter, it's why SSM was put before the court in the first place.
The exclusive means of discrimination isn't the crux of the argument?
That's not logical.
You can't discriminate based on a characteristic if you don't even ask about it.
The fact is that the law forbids a man from doing what it allows a woman to do. That's discrimination based on gender by any stretch of the imagination.
The results matter, not the methods? You're now disagreeing with yourself.The results are what matters, not the way there. Unless you are talking about Constitutional process, in that case it really matters, and That's why I disagree with Obergfell but am OK with SSM as long as passed legislatively at the State level.
Also, you can't force bakers to bake a cake for a SSM ceremony if they have concerns on religious grounds.
You're right the first time. Methods do matter.Method matters.
The results matter, not the methods? You're now disagreeing with yourself.
You're right the first time. Methods do matter.
The method of making same sex marriage illegal was to discriminate based on gender. You can't do that.
Obviously sexuality can't be the "only thing that matters" if the only thing they ask is gender.In the case of the desires of the people wanting SSM, sexuality is the only thing that matters. To me following the Constitution's processes is the only thing that matters.
Again, it isn't gender discrimination because what was happening happened to both genders equally.
Obviously sexuality can't be the "only thing that matters" if the only thing they ask is gender.
Again, saying it affects both genders equally is as stupid as saying interracial marriage bans affected both races equally. Imagine if someone claimed interracial marriage bans weren't about race? You'd laugh at them.
The only thing they wanted changed is to remove gender restrictions on who they could marry.It's the only thing they wanted changed.
and again, race and sexuality aren't the same thing and can't be compared.
The only thing they wanted changed is to remove gender restrictions on who they could marry.
Just like the only thing they wanted in Loving was to remove race restrictions on who they could marry.
It's the same thing. They're directly comparable.
You say both genders are treated the same when there was a ban on same sex marriage but you refuse to say whether both races (black and white) were treated the same under interracial marriage bans.Because of their sexuality. Again both genders were treated the same, so no gender discrimination.
I can keep this up for months, buddy.
You say both genders are treated the same when there was a ban on same sex marriage but you refuse to say whether both races (black and white) were treated the same under interracial marriage bans.
You refuse to say because you know this blows up your logic. You're afraid to debate honestly.
So I'll ask again. Were both races treated the same under interracial marriage bans? Yes or no. Just answer it.
You’re afraid to answer the question and are just going to bitch about it.Because it's sexuality that is the crux of the issue, not gender.
My logic is fine, you just don't like it.
Race isn't the same argument as sexuality, so your last question is pointless and a shameless gotcha attempt.
