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.
And neither are they dictated by citizens' personal preferences.We are not a theocracy, so obviously our rules don't come from some religion's storybook.
Failure to promote every person's sexual fettishes to equal standing with conventional sexuality doesn't make them second-class citizens. It simply acknowledges that hetero- and homosexuality are not the same thing and should not be treated as though they were.If you want to make gay Americans second class citizens, I suggest you amend the Constitution.
marriage laws don't discriminate by gender....all men all women can marry....
discrimination doesn't fly....sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like skin color...
Yes it is but it's not as cut and dried as skin color. That's why you're having a hard time figuring this whole thing out.
there's no proof of that.....or would you care to provide it....?
marriage laws don't discriminate by gender....all men all women can marry....as i've said before if you can apply gender differently you can apply numbers differently....
we now have 41 states with laws that define marriage as one man one woman...how are those marriage laws unConstitutional.....they also are applied to everyone equally....no rights are being 'repressed'....
The Commonwealth of Virginia made the same argument, that the laws were applied equally to everyone when they segregated Civil Marriage based on race. The SCOTUS didn't buy it then either.
Same applies to segregation by gender.
>>>>
discrimination doesn't fly....sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like skin color...
marriage laws don't discriminate by gender....all men all women can marry....The Commonwealth of Virginia made the same argument, that the laws were applied equally to everyone when they segregated Civil Marriage based on race. The SCOTUS didn't buy it then either.
Same applies to segregation by gender.
>>>>
discrimination doesn't fly....sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like skin color...
It doesnt need to be.
In both Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court clearly established that equal protection and privacy rights pertain to freedom of choice, the right of the individual to self-determination, and the fundamental tenet that government can not interfere with how one defines himself as an individual. Therefore whether homosexuality is a choice or naturally occurring is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and this is consequently a failed argument.
marriage laws don't discriminate by gender....all men all women can marry....
discrimination doesn't fly....sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like skin color...
It doesnt need to be.
In both Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court clearly established that equal protection and privacy rights pertain to freedom of choice, the right of the individual to self-determination, and the fundamental tenet that government can not interfere with how one defines himself as an individual. Therefore whether homosexuality is a choice or naturally occurring is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and this is consequently a failed argument.
you can define yourself in a thousand ways.....by choice or by your nature.....that doesn't make you a Constitutionally protected minority class like blacks....in fact it all flys in the face of being a 'class'....
as individuals you are not being discriminated against either....you can still marry the opposite sex if you choose.....as many have done....
Yes it is but it's not as cut and dried as skin color. That's why you're having a hard time figuring this whole thing out.
there's no proof of that.....or would you care to provide it....?
I'm here to tell you it's immutable.
How's your heterosexuality? Immutable? Or did you turn straight at some point?
there's no proof of that.....or would you care to provide it....?
I'm here to tell you it's immutable.
How's your heterosexuality? Immutable? Or did you turn straight at some point?
if it is 'immutable' then that proof would have been in the Courts by now and this whole question would have been already resolved....
there's no proof of that.....or would you care to provide it....?
I'm here to tell you it's immutable.
How's your heterosexuality? Immutable? Or did you turn straight at some point?
if it is 'immutable' then that proof would have been in the Courts by now and this whole question would have been already resolved....
I'm here to tell you it's immutable.
How's your heterosexuality? Immutable? Or did you turn straight at some point?
if it is 'immutable' then that proof would have been in the Courts by now and this whole question would have been already resolved....
You didn't answer the question.
Is your heterosexuality immutable?
if it is 'immutable' then that proof would have been in the Courts by now and this whole question would have been already resolved....
You didn't answer the question.
Is your heterosexuality immutable?
i don't have to prove immutability.....gender is the criteria for marriage....
you're the one claiming immutability so as to be a protected class....so prove it....
marriage laws don't discriminate by gender....all men all women can marry....
discrimination doesn't fly....sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like skin color...
It doesnt need to be.
In both Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court clearly established that equal protection and privacy rights pertain to freedom of choice, the right of the individual to self-determination, and the fundamental tenet that government can not interfere with how one defines himself as an individual. Therefore whether homosexuality is a choice or naturally occurring is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and this is consequently a failed argument.
you can define yourself in a thousand ways.....by choice or by your nature.....that doesn't make you a Constitutionally protected minority class like blacks....in fact it all flys in the face of being a 'class'....
as individuals you are not being discriminated against either....you can still marry the opposite sex if you choose.....as many have done....
You didn't answer the question.
Is your heterosexuality immutable?
i don't have to prove immutability.....gender is the criteria for marriage....
you're the one claiming immutability so as to be a protected class....so prove it....
Run away! Run away!
It doesnt need to be.
In both Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court clearly established that equal protection and privacy rights pertain to freedom of choice, the right of the individual to self-determination, and the fundamental tenet that government can not interfere with how one defines himself as an individual. Therefore whether homosexuality is a choice or naturally occurring is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and this is consequently a failed argument.
you can define yourself in a thousand ways.....by choice or by your nature.....that doesn't make you a Constitutionally protected minority class like blacks....in fact it all flys in the face of being a 'class'....
as individuals you are not being discriminated against either....you can still marry the opposite sex if you choose.....as many have done....
So...Religion isn't protected because it's a choice.
you can define yourself in a thousand ways.....by choice or by your nature.....that doesn't make you a Constitutionally protected minority class like blacks....in fact it all flys in the face of being a 'class'....
as individuals you are not being discriminated against either....you can still marry the opposite sex if you choose.....as many have done....
So...Religion isn't protected because it's a choice.
read your Constitution.....religion is right in there....unlike gay marriage...
you can define yourself in a thousand ways.....by choice or by your nature.....that doesn't make you a Constitutionally protected minority class like blacks....in fact it all flys in the face of being a 'class'....
as individuals you are not being discriminated against either....you can still marry the opposite sex if you choose.....as many have done....
So...Religion isn't protected because it's a choice.
read your Constitution.....religion is right in there....unlike gay marriage...
if it is 'immutable' then that proof would have been in the Courts by now and this whole question would have been already resolved....
You didn't answer the question.
Is your heterosexuality immutable?
i don't have to prove immutability.....gender is the criteria for marriage....
you're the one claiming immutability so as to be a protected class....so prove it....
You didn't answer the question.
Is your heterosexuality immutable?
i don't have to prove immutability.....gender is the criteria for marriage....
you're the one claiming immutability so as to be a protected class....so prove it....
So you admit then to discrimination based on gender. That's helpful.
i don't have to prove immutability.....gender is the criteria for marriage....
you're the one claiming immutability so as to be a protected class....so prove it....
So you admit then to discrimination based on gender. That's helpful.
not at all.....you are free to marry a man....
So you admit then to discrimination based on gender. That's helpful.
not at all.....you are free to marry a man....
Just as blacks were free to marry blacks and whites to marry whites. Argument tried and failed. It must be so frustrating to see history run you over.
i don't have to prove immutability.....gender is the criteria for marriage....
you're the one claiming immutability so as to be a protected class....so prove it....
So you admit then to discrimination based on gender. That's helpful.
not at all.....you are free to marry a man....
