Support for same sex marriage at an all time high

That's as ridiculous as the idea that people will try to legalize marriage to animals.

Simply a retarded thing to say.

Gays have gay sex all the time, and have throughout human history, and will soon be able to be legally married everywhere in the US.

Deal with it.

 

nope. two men can't marry. neither can two women. but a man can marry a woman. unequal.

my argument is of course not moot, seeing as how federal court after federal court keeps agreeing with me.

nobody has argued that gay is a third gender. the argument is that people are being denied the right to marry, based on gender. And that is not allowed.

 

What about the right to marry more than one spouse that should be legal too to be equal in your world.

- - - Updated - - -

What about the right to marry more than one spouse that should be legal too to be equal in your world.

 

file a lawsuit in federal court

 

every dead pope is turning in their grave... hehehe.

The crack between church and state still aint big enough though.

 

Last I remember...I thought Dixon was in his 20's. I could be wrong though...but your point is valid

 

Perhaps. As long as same sex marriage entitlement (i.e. fiscal benefits) is differentiated from equality and marriage. Otherwise, YOU are a single-phobe.

 

Perhaps you can tell me the hypocrisy of your argument then? Let's all form a coalition for tax breaks, inheritance and healthcare deferment and screw over the last remaining minority? Don't you think the "gay" population will increase if some ridiculous law is passed, or are you in favor of video cameras in everyone's house so that the FBI can confirm homosexuality?

 

No. That is gay behavior discrimination. Gender is physical. Sally pairing up with Samantha is a behavior--an action. The genders---male and female--are treated equally under the law--with both genders adhering to same policy requirement.

If the constitution protected sexual attraction or orientation as a "right"--meaning all sexual attractions/Orientations are equal under the law--then proper adherence would mean we couldn't discriminate against any sexual attraction/Orientation.

 

Throw the gays a bone (no pun intended). Give them marriage equality and simultaneously get rid of all tax breaks and fiscal benefits associated with marriage. It is by definition discriminatory and was only "justified" when the intention of the country was to increase its population and offer stability to the family.

 

I already defeated this argument by showing you he comparison to interracial marriage

 

No, you didn't. I defeated your argument by explaining how race and gender are physical attributes--and the physical attributes is what is protected.

You admit that gay isn't a gender. But you are trying to make it a race--its not that either. Just like marriage between a brother and sister isn't a racial or gender ---neither is it when it comes to gays or sexual orientation.

PLUS--you argument doesn't work because you discriminate against sexual orientation/attraction when it meets certain criteria that YOU designate--Consent.

That is the same thing as protecting Asians and whites but discriminating against blacks---due to a personal criteria that someone chooses that excludes blacks from the same treatment under the law.

You can't discriminate when you make sexual orientation/attraction a constitutional right.

 

Fair enough. Phase them out over 5-8 years. Why is this such a political problem in the USA?

 

Are you Obama?

 

Sorry Meta---you are so off base. What you are doing is what we call a twist of words...and that is to make sexual orientation a protected status by twisting it into gender discrimination. But the government is not discriminating against a gender. You need sexual orientation in that clause.

 

But you clearly "moved the goalposts" like Obama. Are we now discussing UFO's or gays? Should I call you Barack or Meta?