Curious...do homophobes think they're going to "bring it all back"?

I predict when the decisions get handed down in June he'll whinge about an "activist court" who have "perverted the Constitution".

 

You just did dance.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not the topic of discussion.

 

See you say that but I can tell you enjoy attention whether positive or negative. And let's be honest you know what I'm saying is true, you're reliably predictable. And I'm going to enjoy the discussions we'll have towards the end of June.

- - - Updated - - -

See you say that but I can tell you enjoy attention whether positive or negative. And let's be honest you know what I'm saying is true, you're reliably predictable. And I'm going to enjoy the discussions we'll have towards the end of June.

 

Dix is just turning the coat inside out...and of course...it does nothing to legitimize his opinion

 

Court precedent legitimizes my opinion.

 

No it doesn't. You keep losing in federal court.

Using the courts for you argument is pretty stupid

 

Save that.....and if the courts start going against you, you MUST change your opinion, don't you?

 

LOLOLOLOL You are clueless. Dont even know what it is that you disagree with, only that you disagree. It IS these recent court cases that so beautifully demonstrate my point. Devil and the courts

- - - Updated - - -

No, they will have confirmed my opinion.

 

You seem to have confused yourself. You losing in federal court doesn't support your idiotic arguments.

 

No, you are simply confused again as to what is being argued. Like I said, you dont even know what it is that you disagree with, only that you must disagree. The California case and DOMA cases all "want the inequality to continue, wih an exception for the homosexuals."

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What everybody else said.

 

No i'm not confused. You seem to think losing in federal court supports your arguments. I'm just pointing out the stupidity in that

 

The courts have only ruled that the plaintiff (in the DOMA case) have been discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. They haven't had the chance to weigh in on the separate laws that ban closely related people from marrying.

There is also the fact that the highest level of scrutiny is being applied to homosexuals for obvious reasons. It wouldn't be rational to apply the same level to "family relation". But, if they want to challenge the laws that prevent them from doing so, they are free to do so. You can't call any court or judge out until you've heard them reject a challenge to overturn those laws while previously having ruled in favour of same-sex marriage.

 

Not past tense...FUTURE tense. If your opinion is based and supported on court decisions....if the court decisions in the future go against your opinion, by that standard?

You have to change your opinion, don't you???

 

You have made at least some progress with Dix...have you noticed how he is admitting his position is an "opinion"?......that's new!

 

It does support my argument being made here that all you people are resonding to. Just pointing out the stupidity for those who cant keep track of the discussion.

 

Nope. STILL these courts creating a right to GAY marriage "want the inequality to continue, wih an exception for the homosexuals". If the Supreme court goes against them, they will have failed in achieving what they want. If the Supreme court agrees they will have achieved what they want. Either way they STILL "want the inequality to continue, wih an exception for the homosexuals". Why would I change my opinion.

 

It's pretty clear that the courts in America are going to be ruling in favor of 'EQUALITY' overall. The 'homophobia' that leaked into America's laws long ago, is slowly but surely being filtered-out. It is mainly a matter of time.

 

You seem to think losing in federal court supports your arguments. I'm just pointing out the stupidity in that

 

The courts will be ruling to reduce inequality by expanding the marriage license. As long as the marriage license exists there will always be inequality attached to it. That is how licenses operate. But that is an entirely different argument not relevant to the current court cases. The courts can't just rule on any issue. That is why they can't rule on gay marriage if dealing with a case that has nothing to do with gay marriage.

 

No. Both Perry from California and the Windsor DOMA case were decided on the lowest rational basis standard of scrutiny, while still applying a different standard only because they are homosexuals. Precluding the same arguments being applied to platonic or closely related couples.

 

Sweden has had same sex unions as long as almost any country. ONE HALF of ONE % of all new marriages are same sex marriage. A nearly imperceptible reduction of the discrimination, applicable only to homosexuals, because only homosexuals are offended by marriages limitation to heterosexual couples, the only couples with the potential of procreation. So you advocate marriage limited to sexual couples, the only couples with the potential of achieving orgasms together. We can't have a preference for biological parents providing and caring for their own children together in a marriage as opposed to apart or not at all, but we can maintain 99.5% of the discrimination so sexual couples are better able to form stable homes. Absurd!

 

platonic couples can already marry. but neither platonic couples or closely related couples are issues before the court, so they're irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

strawman

 

That has nothing to do with anything I said in the quote you were responding to.

 

Actually it directly addressed your claim of a reduction in discrimination. You just couldn't formulate a response.