Now that we're back in power, can we turn the tide on the war on marriage?

The only sin that matters is your own.

 

Who is a scientific authority figure? I do research, I'm not listening to any science teacher. I'm doing this on my own.

 

Nope. Dismissing the case has the same legal effect as ruling in the merits. The lower court rulings were upheld. If they were going to overturn the appellate court rulings, they would have.

actually it means the appellate court rulings were upheld. If a contrary decision is reached by an appellate court then the SCOTUS a will likely hear the case. But seeing as how they could have overturned any of the 4 that have ruled against you, it's not going to go well for you if they take a case.

- - - Updated - - -

The DOMA decision has been used in every one of the cases as precedent for overturning the state bans.

It doesn't say what you want it to.

 

Marriage is a right. Farming isn't. So that's a false analogy.

Rights can only be denied if a governmental is served by that denial.

No such interest is served by excluding same sex coulles from marriage, thus it's unconstitutional to ban them.

- - - Updated - - -

But those benefits are part of marriage. You can't give one couple benefits in marriage but not another when the marriage is identical.

- - - Updated - - -

Procreation or the ability to do so is not a condition of marriage. It is an invalid argument.

 

We don't.

- - - Updated - - -

It most certainly does give them the right. The only time it doesn't is if acting on it directly infringes on the rights of someone else.

As much as you don't like it, this is a free country.

 

Be that as it may, it has nothing to do with me.

You might as well ask what justification there is for denying the right of quadriplegics to be NFL cornerbacks.

Same evidence the signers of the DoI had to back up the principles adduced therein. You're welcome.

I'm afraid the question is too insolently idiotic to bother with, sorry for any inconvenience.

That has no application here.

Meaning you dissect brains from homosexual cadavers, or modify embryonic DNA so as modify the sexual proclivities of the child?

Not likely. More likely your research consists of reading papers published by those you deem credible because they have all the right letters after their names.

 

So I'll put you down as a dodge and avoidance on all questions asked. Gotcha. Me personally though, I believe in equal rights here in America. It's a shame some people are opposed to the core concepts of this nation however. Let me guess though, you're not one of those who actually believe America is for Americans but is instead for a select group within its borders? It's alright, I'll pick up the slack and continue to fight for equality and fair treatment for the both of us since you're not really interested in that.

 

In the words of Larry the Cable Guy, "I don't care who you are, that right there's funny!!"

 

Thank you. Generally, no one finds me as amusing as I find myself.

 

Can't let a good zinger go to waste!

 

who the hell cares

No, what you actually believe in is the right of perverts to a fraudulent sense of self-esteem at the expense of the self-respect of decent people.

Ain't it, though?

Well seeing Americans worthy of the name are heading towards minority status in America, both legally and morally, I must admit that dumb luck has led you pretty close to the truth.

 

I'm pretty sure what I said is I believe in equal rights here in America. But it's alright, when you don't have an argument it's best to just make up a position for the other person. I get it. But hey, you go ahead and keep trying to deny people their rights. I'm going to be over here actually being a real American. After all, someone has to believe in freedom, liberty, and equality for all.

 

sounds like a reasonable bill, think would get bipartisan support

could just say artists are not required to produce art against their beliefs..... that pretty much covers it

dressmaking is an art\personal service
cake decorating is an art\personal service
marrying people is an art\personal service

but I would not go so far as to say a store could not sell things on the shelf to people they did not like.. that falls into the false advertising category and discrimination category

if you wont sell a clock or a bottle of water to a homosexual person, that should still be against the law

.

 

I disagree. Not only are they harming others but they're harming themselves and causing problems for the rest of society.

 

You missed the memo about social conservatives losing a ton of influence in the GOP the last few years. Libertarians rule/social conservatives and liberals drool. We are taking over the GOP so you guys can go sit in a corner and feel shame. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

But that's not justification for paying out hundreds of millions of dollars every year. We can find ANYBODY to raise the child. Siblings can raise the child, a gay couple, a gay single person, a straight single person, grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, complete strangers, foster parents... hell even wolves and monkey's have been shown to successfully raise a child to adulthood.

Why don't we provide subsidies to all of those couples too? We don't do so because the skill of RAISING a child to adulthood is a generic skill that essentially anyone who is not a complete maniac can do. But the ability to CREATE the child is a UNIQUE skill inherent ONLY within the heterosexual paradigm.

Furthermore, the benefit from raising the child is a minute portion of a fraction of 1% of the benefit of procreation and it CERTAINLY doesn't justify the hundreds of millions of dollars we pay out for those benefits every year.

 

Because we are not paying out subsidies because we like to give our money away. We are paying out subsidies to promote procreation. And homosexuals are incapable of procreating in and of themselves. The ONLY way a homosexual can procreate is to forgo their partner, bring in a third party of the opposite sex and engage in the heterosexual paradigm at least on some level (ie egg and sperm)

As such they do not qualify to receive those benefits.

Just like someone who claims to be a "farmer" but doesn't produce any vegetables should NOT get the same subsidies as a farmer who DOES produce vegetables.

 

They are gaming the system as well. But one of the main differences is we don't know if tomorrow that heterosexual couple, in and of themselves, might procreate. The homosexual couple will never procreate in and of themselves. Ever.

 

And just as you explained they can procreate after all so your argument falls apart. Not to mention homosexuals are very likely to adopt as I have already mentioned and thus helping keep children off the street and providing a nurturing and loving home. Why should that be exempt?

 

I'm going to ignore your moronic arguments here and invite you to the thread I just made

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...-appeals-court-upholds-gay-marriage-bans.html

 

And? Procreation is a choice, not mandatory. Lots of heterosexual couples choose not to have children themselves and some can't even if they wanted to. Why should they receive benefits?

The fact is their is no legitimate reason to exclude homosexuals from the same rights and benefits as heterosexuals. What you're arguing against is a physical issue which is no ones business but theirs.

 

No, THEY cannot procreate. ONE of them procreates with a third party.

Regardless, we just won in the 6th Circuit Federal Appeals court so this is going to go to the Supreme Court and the crying by the homosexuals when they uphold the rights of a State to define marriage is going to be absolutely epic.

You're welcome to join me on the thread I just made. http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...-appeals-court-upholds-gay-marriage-bans.html

 

I know what you said. Unlike you, however, I see it for what it is: a platitudinous, mealy-mouthed vacuity.

Hardly necessary when one understands - as I do in this case - the adversary's motivation better than he does.

Well yes and no. Child molesting parents can raise a child that passes the mirror test at age 18, but in the overwhelming majority of cases that adult will be a drain on society.

 

Yes, they can procreate. Maybe not with each other but they can.

 

So you know what I said better then I do? Does this mean you're a mind reader? Possibly see the future? What other super powers do you have? Because the last I checked I meant what I said when I believe in equal rights here in America. But by all means if you have evidence of the contrary then please post them.

One can also take their child to church to have them molested by a priest. What's your point?