"Equal Rights" is a joke

I couldn't agree more that all should be given an Equal Opportunity. An equal opportunity for happiness and that is all that the gay community is asking for. Why is that so wrong? Why does it bother so many people? How does the marriage of two men or two women possibly affect your or anyone else's marriage?

Are you against same-sex marriage because it is just a way for homosexuals to get tax breaks? Well guess what? They get to have the same tax breaks as heterosexual couples because of a little clause in the 14th Amendment called the Equal Protection Clause. FYI, the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution.

Are you against same-sex marriage because homosexuals cannot procreate. Well since heterosexual couples do not have to prove that they intend to or are biologically capable of procreating, this becomes an unfair requirement for homosexuals. See the 14th Amendment above.

So maybe you are against same-sex marriage because it is against the will of God? I hate to have to tell you this, but not everyone believes that God is against same-sex marriage for even that there is a God. And under the 1st Amendment, the government cannot create laws that favor one religious group over another.

The assertion that laws against same-sex marriage are not discriminatory because a heterosexual cannot not marry a same-sex partner either is so ridiculous that it borders on the absurd. It is like saying that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were not discriminatory because not only could blacks not marry whites buy whites could not marry blacks.

 

How were Adam and Eve the first Christians? Christ's birth was still several centuries away. There is no mention of Christ in Genesis. In fact the first vague mention of the messiah is in Deuteronomy 18:18-19, after Moses frees the Israelites from Egypt so if Adam and Eve were any religion, they would be Jewish though even Judaism really started with Abraham.

 

I was going to mention this but I didn't think it was worth the ink.

 

That your post is nonsense. And doesn't qualify. Homosexuals don't have the same rights. Because they can't marry their beloved person and you yes. Simple.

 

You are correct! Thanks for that.

 

Pretty pathetic to look to government tax breaks and governmental entitlements to bring you happiness

Its not required of homosexuals. And why would it be unfair to "homosexuals" any more than it is for ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS of the same sex who might wish to marry. You people have a multitude of arguments you present as rationale for extending marriage to homosexuals, and yet, EVERY argument provided applies equally to any two consenting adults, and yet you only want to extend marriage to homosexuals.

 

Nonsense. Heterosexuals cant marry their beloved if they are of the same sex. Just like homosexuals. Would be like demanding a license plate for your horse, government tells you that license plates are for cars, and you whine in response that you dont want to drive a car, you want to drive a horse.

 

And that wouldn't substantially stand in the way of their overall happiness and well-being... would it?

You've just illustrated the primary reason that homosexual people MUST fight for LEGAL changes. No matter how YOU want to frame this, it is something that needs to CHANGE.

Just STUPID to say (in light of all that has been discussed in this thread).

That is a horrible analogy, you should realize that; and as I implied before, your kind of response is more indicative of reasons to CHANGE the existing laws in many places, to something that is ultimately more fair/humane.

 

Exact same argument used during the interracial marriage trials.

Whites can't marry blacks and blacks can't marry whites. See, everyone is equal. Right?

Pathetic really. At least try to come up with an original argument.

 

Nothing wrong with that logic. It was held to be unconstitutional because purifying the white race isnt a legitimate governmental purpose.

 

neither is keeping homosexuals from marrying.

and it was held unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amdnemdnt. it had nothing to do with legitimate governmental purpose.

 

Marriage isnt limited to heterosexuals, to keep homosexuals from marrying. My brother and I, both heterosexual, are also prohibited from marrying because we are of the same sex. Only couples made up of both sexes have the capacity to procreate.

 

which is irrelevant to who can marry. which is why no marriage law in any state requires the ability or intention to procreate in order to get married.

you would think after having this argument repeatedly destroyed, you would move on to something else.

 

Well, its irrelevant in the 6 states with gay marriage. In the other 44, it is why mariage is limited to a man and a woman.

 

nope. not a single state requires the ability/intention to procreate in order to get married. which is why procreation is irrelevant to who can or can't marry.

 

I didnt claim they did require the ability or intent to procreate. Government doesnt require those who purchase auto liability insurance to get in an accident either. BUT, the potential of an accident is precisely why the government encourages all drivers to have auto liability insurance.

 

The only way your argument is valid is if the govt required procreation. It doesn't work any other way. And your retarded comparison of insurance, and marriage has already been shown to be invalid.

 

Nothing but silly Rahl logic with no basis in reality. Feel free to present ANYTHING other than your personal opinions and declarations of fact, repeated again and again and again....to show otherwise.

 

dixon, this is ridiculous! If YOU think or believe that homosexual people do or do not have EQUAL rights in America, please state your qualified reasons for that now.

In ANY case, the only CONCLUSIONS any of us can relate about that is our OPINIONS. I specify 'conclusions', because the debate is currently proceeding as we all share our opinions here. LAW is being reviewed AND formulated concerning these issues.

So please, state you opinion, and don't try to sell it as being what is or will be carved into indestructible matter for all time.

 

My opinions agree with the two cited court cases. Which parts didnt you understand, and Ill try to help you out.

 

nothing but idiotic dixon logic. in order for your statement that the government licenses and regulates marriage is because of procreation to be true, the government would have to require that two people applying for a marriage license have the ability/intention to procreate. no such requirement exists, making your statement incorrect.

 

There is so much that you refuse to acknowledge and consider. That is what I'm seeing of your mindset/responses.

Even so, as I said... this stuff is in court as we speak.

 

Thanks to dixon's ridiculous logic, I've learned to SWAT-DOWN that irrelevant approach handily. I ran into it a few days ago, and it was rather easy to put that argument in its proper place.

 

You didnt swat down anything. Both you and Rahl, it was a swing and a miss. I have legal precedent, you two have opinions based upon emotion and hormones.

 

dixon, you've just named only 2 people who have dismissed the bulk of your argument as being irrelevant. That you will not or cannot accept that, is your problem.