Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,658
- 83,710
- 2,635
I see what you mean. I've asked him about a dozen times to explain why he thinks marriage is a fundamental right but he's too scared to answer because he knows the answer tacitly admits I'm right.Ok, so we've established you can't answer a simple question ... now you're playing with strawmen. I didn't say anything about them seeking protection as a class. I said they are seeking the same protection of their inalienable rights that straight people have. That doesn't make them a special class -- that makes their rights equal under the law.When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write lessAre you prepared to answer yet? Why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?
Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a legal point.
people like you do more harm than good
the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do goodIt helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
And again I ask -- why do you think marriage is an inalienable right?
Don't ask Dante shit repeatedly. I've seen him ignore questions time and time again when he gets in a corner. He's only here to throw out noise. Do us all a favor and stop feeding the fucking troll.