It appears the Surpreme Court will uphold gay marriage bans

Nobody is talking about sex. We are talking about marriage.

False framing. The issue is gender discrimination, not orientation.

Central issue.
.

Rights can only be held back if a state interest is served by the restriction.

Other nations are not relevant to the U.S.

False framing corrected above.

 

Depends on which "civil right" you're talking about.

 

No it doesn't. No civil right can be removed via popular vote.

 

.

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio and Hodgson v. Minnesota have zero relevance to same sex marriage.

Are you referring to the District judge's ruling in Wisconsin to prove same sex marriages are constitutionally protected? That begs the question.

 

1/3 of the world is christian. Christians are some of the biggest hypocrites when the tout their sins are less than the sins of others. Fix the christian sinning, then work on the rest of the world.

 

Whenever a discussion involves Gay and Straight...we're also talking about sex obviously. Or we'd simply be discussing people in general.

Translation: I cannot provide the list you asked for.

Nope. Putting a tag of "protected class" doesnt change a thing.
.

So again, which "rights" exactly are held back from gay people.

Give me a simple, bullet point list so I can look down between the columns and see exactly which, and how many rights we're tlaking about.

The info was very relevant to the argument about society and rights granted within.

 

It has been answered numerous times. You just don't like the answer so you pretend that it is not an answer at all. You do that because you do not believe that being gay is not a choice, and do not accept the fact that gays are human beings with feelings and needs.

 

So it only applies to behavior of choice. Good to know. Now, you may believe it is only a choice, but that is only an ill informed opinion. So the discussion is over.

If you're upset with your subjective view of deviant behaviors, you should be upset with adulterers. Especially christian's in 2nd or more marriages, living the adulterous lifestyle. That would be the better target for the self righteous.

 

Ahhh ok, Christianity. Didnt understand what you were referring to. Anyway, this line is a swing and miss with me as I'm not religious and not counting "sins".

- - - Updated - - -

And you forgot the link to the Gay gene. That discussion is a non starter because it hasnt been discovered. Leaves only Choice.

Perhaps it's our fault for not tearing down Marriage sooner and allowing them to have 20 wives or husbands...then people wouldnt cheat. Simply add another Wife/Husband to the fold....

Thats what will be coming next once we validate that everyone can determine what a Marriage is depending on their own desires.

 

Still cannot answer I see. We boht know why of course. The very cry about "rights" is nothing but a ruse to push an agenda. When asked to list them out, all we ever get are answers like above...which always have one reason or another to conveniently not list them out...

 

I am not forgetting anything. Is there a hetero gene?
I agree, what's wrong if one wants 20 wives or husbands.
It will only come next if the gov't can control all the issues that would crop up. Would there be a priority list to benefits? Plenty of things would have to be sorted out before multiple spouses would be legal.

Perhaps if it gets to a point where it would be mass confusion, state sponsored marriages would become a thing of the past.

 

It is an agenda, no doubt. To have those who are in the small minority of the world who have the sexual orientation to be attracted to the same sex to be legally married to the person they love.

 

There seems to be as all animal species seem to know what to do....even the ones that cannot produce a conscious thought. Think it's just coincidence that animal life hasn't died ut? lol.

Of course you agree. People on your side of the aisle dont care a bit about Marriage. you'd happilly watch it get changed and changed until it's nothing but a meaningless word encompassing any number of willing bodies and genders.

No thanks.

Well that's your engame for sure, but not mine.

 

We are discussing people in general. Sex isn't relevant to marriage, civil rights, or the legal Question before the court.

My post didn't need translating. I will not allow you to falsely frame the legal issue. The legal issue is gender discrimination, not orientation.

Of course it does, as certain classes are protected and others aren't.
.

False framing corrected above.

Asked and answered. Gender discrimination.

no it wasn't. Other nations are not relevant to US law.

 

Orientation still unproven, and plenty of people who were Straight or Gay...then switched, or the "Bisexual" who has this innate ability to...well...choose anything at all at any time... puts this into serious doubt.


Anyway, another post goes by and theres no list of "rights" that somehow Straights have and Gays dont. Big surprise. Nothing but a battle cry without substance.

 

So where's the gene? And since same sex behavior is observed in THOUSANDS of species, besides humans.............

- - - Updated - - -

This is merely science denialism.

False framing which was corrected.

 

Ok good...so then there is No "Gay" or "Straight" and Marriage as it is is fine. Glad we reached an accord.

Discrimination is based upon rights. The same rights you and your side keep saying Gays dont have.....yet again, we notice here you cannot produce them.

Again.

Irrelevant to actual "rights". For the basis of "rights" yoyu dont need to be a protected class to have them. Again showing that "rights" is a word you guys throw around without any real understanding of what you're saying.
.

Framing is accurate. You again, cannot list out the rights that Straoights have that gays supposedly do not. We both know why, because it's a false narrative meant to push your agenda. We ALL have the same rights, which are distributed on the Human platform.

Vague and innacurate attempt. "gender discrimination" implies one Gender cannot Marry while another can. last i checked everyone, Male-Female-Straight-Gay- had access equally to Marriage and everything, under the same exact criteria.

Unless of course you wish to show otherwise....which we both know you can't and wont.

other Nations and observations of "human rights" discrepencies show that Society creates the "rights" they give to themselves. if not, we'd lal have the same number...we dont.
Totally relevant to thsoe who understand what we're talking about in regards to "rights" and society.

 

No, same sex behavior is not found in thousands of species at all.

Sure thing. you call it science denialism, others call it real world example.

Again, unable to answer. Each time you do this, it only makes it worse for your side as it reaffirms what ive been saying. There are NO actual "rights" being denied Gay people. if there were you'd have loved to hand me that list by now. instead you have to fall back on hoping you can paint the picture as false framing.

I'm seeing through it, and so is everyone else. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for tkaing such liberties and spreading untruths.

 

Now you feel the need to lie about what I said? Your argument is weak, but to resort to outright fabrications now is unbecoming.

Asked and answered.

You have to be a protected class to be protected from arbitrary discrimination.

I understand perfectly what I'm saying.
.

Nope. It's false which is why I corrected you.

False framing corrected above.

This same argument didn't work for interracial bans either.

Perfectly articulate and accurate. Jim can marry jane, but not john. That is discrimination based on gender.

This didn't work for interracial bans either.

Asked and answered.

are not relevant to US law.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm

Right. Like people denied the earth was round.

False framing already corrected.

Rich you've been corrected enough times for your dishonesty, false framings and science denial.

 

Sorry that you dont like the inevitable places your argument leads you.

has never been answered. You are being untruthful. How about you repost this "answer" you gave?

Discrimination, which is based around the belief that ones stated rights are being violated....the same rights and violations you keep refusing to list out. if you cannot list the rights and the uneven application...you have no discrimination, at which point being a "protected class" means nothing.

Then why not list out the rights a Straight Person has that you claim gays do not?

What you call correcting someone, doesnt make it so. I clal it refusing to answer a question which was fundamental to proving your entire case.

You simply claiming to correct me doesnt erase this inability on your side.

Correct frmaing under the context of rights and how some people claim one side has less. Again you cannot show it, and hope to claim false frame to cover your inability to produce.

Genetic trait...Chosen behavior. Simple as that and we've already been down that road a hundred times.

No it is not, all three of those people can Marry someone under the exact same rules. Discrimination doesnt exist simply because you think Jim should be able to marry John LOL.

Genetic trait...Chosen behavior. Simple as that and we've already been down that road a hundred times.

Dodged again.

There are NO rights which a straight Man has that a gay man doesnt. Proven now with your continued inability to show any.

Very relevant to societies and the rights they allow themselves to have. Hide under the words of "us law" if you like, but it doesnt change one iota of the point made. Society decides for itself what laws, customs and traits it will allow.

That includes the US where we have DECIDED that a 10 year old cannot marry ...anyone. OMG that poor childs "rights" are being infringed.

 

Too bad about this disclaimer...

In other words....they might be mistaken.

Add to this the obvious liberties being taken like this example. Right under the picture of the 2 Birds which is trying to show us a Female-Female "couple" it clearly states:

Cooperating like a society while Males are away. You guys want to boil this down to being a Sexual Relationship....

Text books do not invalidate those examples I listed. they're real.

The only "false framing" going on is by you who cannot show what you claim to be happening.

I love the way you believe that by disagreeing wiht something that somehow I've been "corrected" lol. You havent corrected anything, in fact you havent even been able to support your sides CLAIMS of discrimination. You cant even list out what rights the Straight guys have that Gay guys dont...yet you claim imbalance.

Kind of hard to claim your missing "rights" when you cant even list them out isnt it? A big sham.

 

The bottom line is this: You either believe-or are pretending to believe- that gays can just decide to be straight and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. Fortunately, most people, including judges-as I have demonstrated- do not agree. I don't know or care what you actually believe at this point. The hard truth that you must face is that you will not prevail.

 

you fabricating an argument for me doesn't really lead anywhere.

Asked and answered.



[AUOTE]Discrimination, which is based around the belief that ones stated rights are being violated....the same rights and violations you keep refusing to list out. if you cannot list the rights and the uneven application...you have no discrimination, at which point being a "protected class" means nothing.[/QUOTE]
Spelled out repeatedly. Gender discrimination.

False framing which has been corrected.

It's a false framing which was corrected. The issue is not orientation discrimination.

I'm not making claims.

False framing already corrected.

And you were corrected each and every one of them. Gender isn't a chosen behavior.

This didn't work for interracial bans either.

And you were corrected each and every one of them. Gender isn't a chosen behavior.

False framing already corrected.

Nope. What other countries do or don't do is not relevant in any way.

Already addressed. Age is not a protected class. Gender, like race, is.

 

You are more than welcome to provide a scientific study supporting your claims. Your denialism is meaningless however.

Science denialism.

Repeatedly done so. Jim can marry jane but not Jason, because of Jason's gender. That is gender discrimination. Orientation is not relevant.

It's not a disagreement. You are purposely fabricating what the argument is. Claiming orientation discrimination, when I keep pointing out the issue is the gender of the couple. That is the correction.

Another fabrication.

False framing already corrected.

Right to marriage is being denied based on gender. Can't do that any more than you can deny it based on race.