Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
I chose heterosexuality so i could get married. because being married is so awesome.
My conservative perspective on gay rights
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
dixon76710
New member
Thats not some special rule for gays only. Applies equally in the case of the single mother and grandmother. I'll take your dodge as an admission that you have no such justification
dixon76710
New member
LOLOLOL You havent yet even comprehended my argument. Some kind of willful ignorance or stuck on stupid?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
what? again, i ask you to EXPLAIN what you mean. i didn't dodge it at all. i have no idea what you're talking about. i've never brought up the single mother or grandmother, so i have no clue what your context is.
provide one single case that contradicts my claim. you clearly have no clue how scrutiny is applied in a court of law. in fact, go back and read your own statement on what scrutiny is and you will see it is "governmental" interest. your claim that i must prove the governmental interest is laughable.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
and you claim i'm dodging....this is nothing but ad hom dodge. you can't explain your points, so you resort ad homs. you can't prove your point, so you resort to ad homs.
you obviously have a very weak argument. why don't you explain and try and prove your point before resorting to ad homs....
dixon76710
New member
You even responded to the quote. Its pretty obvious you would rather dance, bob and weave, duck and jibe, anything to avoid actually addressing the relevant issues.
Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
Heterosexual marriage isnt special treatment, it's normal treatment for heterosexuals.
dixon76710
New member
Those were all court cases applying scrutiny, directly in contradiction to your claims. Got anything other than your personal opinions to support your assertions?......yeah, I didnt think so.
Really ?....Just what "rights" do you think you have that I don't have ?
Thats should be the purpose and goal of every US citizen.....to purge INELIGIBLE VOTERS from the voting rolls.....
Obviously... INELIGIBLE VOTERS, should not be allowed to vote.
lol.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
That's always been my position. The State grants a privilege license to those who qualify because it benefits society.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Although you've NEVER been able to quantify precisely how marriage "benefits society."
Just one more question you've dodged repeatedly.
Alias
Banned
We don't need to explain anything to you and your ilk. Who in the fuck do you asswipes think you are? Go fuck yourselves.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
States don't require a 'precise quantification' to justify their laws, Zippy. Are you now claiming that marriage does not benefit the state?
dixon76710
New member
More children with the benefit of both their mother and father in the home to provide and care for them and fewer born into the alternative of one or neither. Children born to single parents have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, drug and alchohol addiction, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal convictions as an adult.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
fatal flaw in your argument........"single parents".....gay marriage would allow them to not be single
oooops
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
actually, given marriage is a fundamental right according to our courts, it is not a privilege license. further, how does allowing gays to marry harm society? it won't change anything, except to give them equal access to the law.
Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
Yurt, if you're really pro gay, you need to reject the abrahamic faiths outright. Sorry. It's the way it is.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
my good lord, you're more ignorant than i thought. i figured you would not provide a cite to back up your claim. so i have to educate you:
from loving:
In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race.
and to further educate you - don't forget that the issue will highly unlikely fall under rational basis as i've explained:
Strict scruntiny
A law will be upheld only if it is necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose and if there is no least restrictive alternative. Least restrictive alternative: depending on the level of scrutiny, the court will consider whether there is a less burdensome manner by which the legislature may achieve its goal.
The government has the burden of proof.
Intermediate scrutiny
A law is upheld only if the law is substantially related to an important government purpose.
The government has the burden of proof.
The court probably does not consider the least restrictive alternative.
Rational basis
A law is upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate or conceivable government purpose.
The challenger has the burden of proving no legitimate government purpose or that the law has no rational relation to that purpose.
http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/legal/constitutionallaw/section5.php
you should have educated yourself like i suggested.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
not really, i respect our law that does not discriminate based upon religious beliefs. you should reread my OP.