Rhode Island legalizes Gay Marriage

you haven't offered any facts. just your opinions. which don't have any effect on anyone but yourself.

but that's what rightists do. they hate the constitution and are fascists wishing to control every aspect of other peoples lives.

 

UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Discrimination, at a minimum must be rationally related to serving SOME legitimate governmental interest. What interest is served only in the case of marriage of heterosexual and homosexual couples?
And "Gay marriage" was just made legal in Rhode Island, thus the title of the thread.

 

it is of course not unconstitutional. you have to have a valid constitutional argument to deny a class of people a basic civil right. you don't have one.

 

Fact! Each legal case is decided upon its own merits.

Same sex marriage does not open the door for any other form of marriage.

You can keep trying to use the slippery slope fallacy, however, our legal system does not work that way.

But please keep trying, beat that dead horse to a bloody pulp.

 

You dont understand the concept of a slippery slope argument, or you dont understand the argument made. Its not a slippery slope argument.
And no one is talking about a case. We are talking about legislation just enacted in Rhode Island. You dont even know what you are talking about.

 

You apparently didn't read the post of yours I quoted.

 

So you think all marriage is unconstitutional?

What a novel concept.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh the legislation that ended discrimination against same sex marriage in Rhode Island?

What about it?

 

No, I don't think all marriage is unconstitutional. And the rhode island statute only ended some of the discrimination against same sex marriage and didn't end any of the discrimination against opposite sex marriage.

 

legislation which legalized same sex marraige, and had no other effect.

- - - Updated - - -

incest marriage and pedophilia are seperate from same sex marraige.

 

Isn't that what you claimed though?

UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Discrimination, at a minimum must be rationally related to serving SOME legitimate governmental interest. What interest is served only in the case of marriage of heterosexual and homosexual couples?

 

No, marriage limited to heterosexual and homosexual couples is unconstitutional discrimination against those who are still excluded from marriage. Marriage limited to heterosexual couples is not because only heterosexual couples procreate.
Now answer the question you felt compelled to respond to while avoiding providing an answer.

 

But those are the people entitled to be married under Rhode Island law- so you are still saying that marriage in Rhode Island is unconstitutional.

I strongly encourage you to find the exceptions and bring their claim against RI as soon as possible. I hope and expect to find you a vigorous advocate for incestious marriage.

 

Here's some of the text from the legislation added.
No one
15 shall marry his or her sibling, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, stepparent, grandparents'
16 spouse, spouse's child, spouse's grandchild, sibling's child or parent's sibling.

 

Nooooo denying consenting adults who wish to avail themselves Of the benefits of marriage is unconstitutional. Two Related adults are just as capable of cosentig to marriage as any other couple.

 

already illegal. all this legislation did was legalize same sex marriage, and had no other effect.

incest marriage and pedophilia have nothing to do with same sex marriage.

 

procreation has nothing to do with who can marry.

- - - Updated - - -

then take your case to court. it has nothing to do with same sex marriage

 

That is how you misunderstand it, not my problem. I am not the one who is dancing as I know that I am absolutely right. If you do not see the truth of what I say then you have become enslaved by the social propaganda and now have no thoughts or opinions that are your own. Sad but true.

 

Does if they are two closely related people of the same sex.

 

Nope......

 

And while you're dancing with your delusions, society is moving on and becoming more tolerant and loving. But you have the free will to remain enslaved to your outdated ideals.

 

By by becoming more tolerant and loving they are also declining, as is the purpose of the radical gay progressive agenda.

 

You have that exactly backwards. Listen to yourself. More tolerance and more love equals decline. That's preposterous.

 

Hummm, we shall see. I have historical perspective where that has repeated many times, Rome, Nazi Germany, and Soviet Russia.

After the gay agenda has had its effect, next will be the constitution.

 

Two males getting married would be a homosexual couple. Homosexual means "of the same gender" where heterosexual means "of opposite gender". They don't have to be engaging in sexual activity nor even be prone to nor interested in homosexual sex in order to qualify as a "homosexual couple". So, you are mistaken when you say that homosexual couples are not being discriminated against by claiming that two straight guys can't get married, either. That is exactly what is being discriminated against by only allowing heterosexual marriages. I'm embarrassed for you for making such a ridiculous argument.

 

Your question implied that couples other than homosexual couples were not allowed to marry. That implies heterosexual couples as there are only two kinds of couples, heterosexual and homosexual. Heterosexual couples are allowed to marry, which is why I asked that question. You implied that they were not.

At the end of the day, you don't have a leg to stand on. I suspect that you are very likely so opposed to homosexual rights because you are in fact attracted to others of the same sex and have been brought up to loath yourself and cannot cope with acceptance of others of similar orientation. Otherwise, you really wouldn't care about homosexual marriage.