Not correct. You need to go look up the word "discrimination" and try to understand, we routinely "discriminate" all the fucking time! We are not allowed to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, creed, religion, or national origin. The right to due process is not being denied to gay people in this argument, if anything, the right to due process is being denied to those who wish to prohibit gay marriage!!!
Not correct. Go read the 14th, nothing in it about race, creed, color or national origin (which we can discriminate against until they become citizens). Debates on the 14th show that the listing you gave is superfluous and predicted your dishonest interpretation of the listing, would lead to trouble. So they did not include it.
We cannot discriminate against a class of people unless it serves a valid state interest. For instance, you could argue that rapists are a class of people. However, laws against rape serve a valid state interest, in protecting the rights of the individual, and it is not allowed simply because it is deviant behavior. Some of the things you list could be deviant behavior.
The right to due process is being denied as you are restraining a fundamental liberty without just cause.
I never claimed it was, again you are deliberately attempting to misconstrue something I said for the sake of being right in an argument. It's silly and childish, and you need to stop it. The "age of consent" (regardless of what that age might be in any state) is an arbitrary age we determined and set into law! It is not a scientific or natural point at which anything transpires physically or mentally with an individual, it is a point WE ESTABLISHED based on our morals and ethics.
You said...
No, it's not. Homosexuals should be free to marry anyone of legal age, who consents and is alive, not related to them closer than 2nd cousin, and of the opposite sex... the same criteria we require for ALL marriage, because that is what MARRIAGE is!
Your argument is that we cannot change THE definition of marriage and then you gave your definition. But the definition you gave is the result of several changes and is not universal.
Well, at first you said it was a 'guideline' and you were going to go through them one by one, when you got to this one, you claimed it was silly for me to be pointing out it was a rule and not a guideline. I don't know what the fuck you are smoking in your crack pipe, but it is obviously deteriorating your brain rapidly!
I never said it was equivalent to any and all distinctions, just that it was part of the parameters of marriage, along with being a single male and female of the opposite sex.
I did not. I said it was stupid that you would include it in the definition, as it is clearly implied in the right to contract or marry. You can't just a write up a contract and hold someone else to it, that did not agree to it to begin with. You cannot marry someone, which includes an obligation for the marriage partners debt and a right to communal property, without their consent. Of course, not. Then you pretend that this necessary REQUIREMENT is equal to any limit that can be dreamed up. It is not. This requirement serves a valid state interest, i.e., to protect individuals from fraud and is obviously part of the right to contract or marry. Without it the right to contract would be a right to steal from others.
The only thing deteriorating is your level of debate as you spin to more and more ridculous assertion and include outright falsehoods in your presentation.
*sigh* The link you gave confirms exactly what I stated to be the case.
It does not. First cousins are allowed in some states and in several others there is a means for gaining an exception. In your state cousin marriages are allowed. You are just fucking lying now.
Again, the word "consent" can be 'redefined', if we can 'redefine' marriage! What you claim is or isn't 'consent' at this time, becomes irrelevant... Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman... at this time.
We have "redefined" consent and marriage. How we define consent can be altered NOW and regardless of whether we allow gay marriage or not. So fucking what?
You're damn straight the meaning of marriage is not being changed. Gay people can call their thing something else. State interest is self evident, the people of the state reject Gay Marriage! End of discussion! The State holds NO power to supersede the will of the people
!
NOBODY CARES ABOUT WHAT WORD IS USED. Neither the opponents or the proponents of gay marriage care about the word used. SOME of the opponents want to allow "seperate but equal" civil unions, to shut the proponents up. History shows that it will not be equal. As soon as it passes they'll start looking for ways to grant special rights to the male-female couples.
The People oppose it, that is reason enough!
The People oppose it! That is the "reason" to prohibit it.
The people of Virginia opposed interracial marriage. The people of Texas opposed homosexual sex. Neither was enough.
The might makes right argument has been rejected from the very beginnings of our nation.
I'll tell ya what "state action" you'll get from Alabama, an almost unanimous vote to ratify a Constitutional amendment protecting Traditional Marriage. You keep shoving this shit down people's throat, and that is what will happen. If you don't believe me, just keep pushing for it, and we'll see! There are CONSIDERABLY more people opposed to changing traditional marriage to include homosexuals, than those who wish to see Gay Marriage become law of the land. That is why you are having to completely ABANDON libertarian principles to avoid admitting we should all get to vote on it.
You are so FUCKING stupid you don't even understand that "state" can be used to refer to government, in general. I was not talking about Florida or Alabama, to exclusion of municiplaities or the feds, but government in general.
What libertarian principles am I abandoning? If you think libertarians support the right of the majority to pass whatever law it chooses then you are, again, horribly misinformed. In fact, that's not even what most conservatives believe. You will find that argument more frequently among some of the democratic socialists on the left, but even most of the left support certain individual rights as being beyond the reach of the majority/state (that's the general use, again).