US declares "gay rights are human rights"

I agree. I'm growing increasingly weary of this nonsense. If I reply to him now, it'll probably be because of boredom.

Of course he'll probably just take this as an admission he's "won", even though no one else actually thinks that. Let's leave him to it..

 

Ok... I'm officially bored =P Can't resist the entertainment, Dixon is the gift that just keeps on giving...

Sooooooooooooooooooo (lol) saying you support something is now tantamount to saying you wish to exclude from consideration every other related issue?? LOLOLOLOL

 

And no, not "gay" rights... SSM is for everyone, gay or straight who wishes to marry a member of their own sex. Like platonic same-sex "couples".... -_-

 

Any two people, yes... Male or Female or any combination thereof. Opposite sex platonic "couples" can do this in 50 states. It's not fair for platonic same-sex "couples" who cannot marry in 44 states. I'm not talking about homosexuals, you're focusing on them. I'm focusing on EVERYONE'S right to marry a person of their own sex. If procreation is irrelevant, there is no reason to deny people their right to be joined under the law to a member of their own sex.

God this is fun!!

 

Coming from the one who can't decide whether or not consummation is a requirement for marriage or not, thinks tens of thousands of feminine gay men across America are pairing with butch gay women because they'd rather reject the homosexual lifestyle, and who thinks lesbian women somehow have higher rates of HIV than straight women. And who also likes to repetitively accuse others of spouting irrelevant points, only to rant about how gay men have higher rates of HIV...

YOU. ARE. A. JOKE.

 

This sums it up nicely, so eloquent

 

You wouldnt have a clue. All the court cases have only sought to extend marriage to gays.

 

Weve got the thoughts bouncing around in your head, ya got anything else to support your position? Ive supported all my views with cites to court precedent. You have emotion and hormones, nothing else. None of you people have ANY outside sources to support your views.

 

And obviously, that's because it's a separate issue which has no bearing on the couples suing to marry.

Hopefully, mothers and daughters raising kids across America will soon start suing for marriage rights... right?

 

Your "sources" consist of court opinions from 40 years ago and definitions of the word "marriage" relating to motherhood which have no real bearing on the discussion...

Walker's 2010 decision can be read if you want to hear a ruling to the contrary. Other than that, I'm not sure what sources you're expecting.

 

Try to convince Rahl of that.

 

Actually the court cases cited range from 40 years ago to 2006. Your so full of it. Never even read the exerpts I provided, did you. Your like a little kid, eyes tightly shut, hands clasped over your ears as you yell la la la la la la la la to avoid hearing what you dont want to hear

ANY SOURCE other than the personal thoughts in your head.

 

No one is denying that those rulings exist, but unless SCOTUS rules on a case like Prop 8, the issue of constitutionality hasn't actually been settled once and for all. District and federal judges can decide all sorts of things, but their rulings aren't absolute like a SCOTUS decision. Questions still linger. And the most recent ruling counters previous rulings.

And even if it's not unconstitutional to deny SSM, it's not the only way to legalise it. The movement would just shrug and move on with lobbying lawmakers/putting it on the ballot.