Gallup- Support for same-sex marriage hits new high majority-

Prop 8 specifically discriminated against homosexuals.

 

Please don't pretend to be stupid

And of course neither of those scenarios are plausible. Prop 8'specifically discriminated against homosexuals

- - - Updated - - -

And specifically discriminated against gays.

 

Because marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

Except it isn't.

 

The case didn't prohibit anything. Like the supreme court said

Minn. St. c. 517, that's their marriage statute with its limitation to husbands and wives that dates from Minnesota's territorial days that "prohibited" same sex marriages.

 

Quoting a case that doesn't support your claim only makes you look stupid.

 

Feel free to read the court ruling.

You are wrong.

Actually it does discriminate against homosexuals- that is exactly what the Federal Court decided, and that the Appellate Court upheld, and that the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to over-rule.

Judge Vaughn R. Walker's conclusion, page 135:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.

- - - Updated - - -

Worth reprinting again since it doesn't seem to have been read the first time.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL.....once again- no, I advocate treating same gender/gay couples the same as opposite gender/straight couples.

 

And the CA law is discrimination based on gender at the face, and the real motive is discrimination based on sexual orientation (and courts do look beyond the face of a law when determining its constitutionality, btw).

It is hilarious that you quote these laws that prove my point.

 

If you very carefully ignore the INTENT of the proposition, and the EFFECT of the proposition, and the PUBLIC STATEMENTS of all who campaigned either for or against it. But all you have left is a nonexistent hypothetical case.

Look, we understand that same-sex marriage offends your personal morality, and probably the very existence of human variation in sexual orientation bugs the crap out of you, but pretending to be too stupid to pound sand doesn't aid your cause. The best way to defend your case is to show the clear and obvious damage that all OTHER married couples are suffering as a result of the same-sex marriages that have been performed. And if you could show that, you could consider it a public service, since almost none of them have even noticed, and those who have noticed are suffering nothing worse than indignation that their moral inferiors are achieving civil rights.

 

http://carm.org/love-homosexual-marriage

 

Wow Sam- just regurgitating someone else's canned argument? Seriously? I had higher hopes for you.

 

Can you refute those arguements? I quote other people's arguements because I'm not the smarter person there is.

- - - Updated - - -

Marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. that's not discrimination.

Read these arguements.

http://carm.org/homosexual-marriage-affect-me

 

It perfectly supports my claim. Explicitly states that it is the statute that prohibits same sex marriage and explicitly states that it is the term "marriage" that does so.
Nothing in the law changed in 1971. 1971 was just the first time a couple of the same sex demanded from the state a marriage. If tomorrow a court renders a decision that a man doesnt have the right to marry his dog, 2014 doesnt magically become the first prohibition of canine marriage in US law. It was always prohibited. Just as

Do you have ANY evidence other than your own words and claims I look stupid?

 

Except it's demonstrably not.

- - - Updated - - -

And nothing prior to this ruling prohibited same sex marriage.

Of course. The fact that you keep,proving my point trying to prove yours by citing a case that doesn't support your argument.

 

"That claim" referred to the quoted courts ruling.

 

That's just more of your words.

 

Did you expect something different? You keep blathering about same sex marriage having ALWAYS been prohibited, then provide a case which for the FIRST time actually prohibited it.

I can't make you look any stupider than you make yourself look.

 

Not anymore it's not.

 

Not anymore.

Utter claptrap written by a moron with an IQ lower than that of a goldfish.

 

Sam, there isn't really anything to refute here.

Same-sex relationships between two people have been around since forever. They aren't new, and they haven't been significantly less stable than opposite-sex relationships. The "slippery slope" fallacy you keep bringing up tends to ignore this,. It also ignores that other sorts of relationships are a different battle, not this one. It also ignores that very few such relationships exist, and there's been no public demand or application of them.

Now, I can't see the future, and it's possible that someday some other sort of relationship will be litigated. But that's not our concern here.

 

While you consistently avoid argument or evidence in your postings, I keep thinking I might be able to drag some out of you.

 

I would disagree. It's surely claptrap, but it was written for the Christian Apologetics Ministry. If I were paid to write such an article, it's pretty much what I'd produce as well.

So what we have here is the moralists who oppose same-sex marriage because it offends their hindbrain, the legalists who support it because it reflects the fundamental core of American philosophy, and the pragmatists who support it because it's clearly the direction things are going and does considerable benefit to some while harming nobody (except those whose emotions are offended.)

And the moralists won't change their view because they can't. They can only die out, slowly, with inadequate replacement. I think the anti-gay moralists will pass through the body politic and be excreted long before the anti-black contingent, whose continuing virulence has been highlighted by the Obama experience.

- - - Updated - - -

Translation: I can't provide a single argument myself, I can't answer any of yours, so it must be your fault.

dixon, you have become a walking joke.

 

What a baseless claim. And if # of sexual partners of those who engage in same sex relationships compared to those who engage in heterosexual relationships is any guide, those in same sex relationships are terribly losing the stability contest.

And two people in a same sex relationships as legal parents of the same child is a brand new invention.

 

Oh I think the quoted court decision and Wikipedia link YOU first provided on the forum both support the argument I in fact provided. What argument have you provided? You don't do argument and instead rely upon declarations of conclusions without ever providing an argument


Uhhhhh thought I was talking to Rahl. What argument have you provided Flint, that I haven't answered?

 

I read it the day it was put on the web by the state, and just read that portion again. Every single reason given would benefit the single mother and grandmother with children down the street just as it would a gay couple with children. And

d. Legitimizing children ...

Doesn't apply in the case of either.