SCOTUS protects marriage equality

[Yakuda]

Thank you. Serving in the US Army and, among assignments, with the JAG Corps, is the most public honor I cherish.

Then you wake up

 

[AProudLefty]

That's a square circle. You could argue they were denied the privileges afforded in marriage but they weren't denied marriage. I'm all for civil unions. You want to claim that a same sex union is the same as marriage but it's not. Any similarity is like a motorcycle to a bicycle.

What makes it different? @gfm7175 says that the ability to reproduce is what makes the difference. I soundly destroyed his argument.

 

[Yakuda]

What makes it different? @gfm7175 says that the ability to reproduce is what makes the difference. I soundly destroyed his argument.

I doubt it. You probably sputtered some nonsense about infertility and post menopause. Am I right? Oh course I am.

Procreation is one difference. Another is this is just about appeasing a group. Marriage wasn't established to appease a group but to encourage child rearing for continuation of a society. It encouraged people to stay together to care for their children so the govt wouldn't have to. Society gets nothing from sam sex unions but if you want to argue for the bennies of a marriage that's different

 

[gfm7175]

"What, in the present-day, can a so-called "straight person" do that a so-called "homosexual person" cannot do? IOW, where is this "inequality" that you speak of?"

Ok..you are clearly unwilling or unable to have an intelligent conversation about same-sex marriage and prefer to play dumb.

Let me know if that changes.

I asked you a question, and you EVADED it. Let me know when that changes.

 

[gfm7175]

A reminder... here's what @gfm7175 said:

"If you're happy that slavery was legally abolished, then thank a Republican for it."

Yup. A true statement. It WAS the Republican Party that was specifically formed in opposition of slavery and that legally abolished slavery.

 

[gfm7175]

See previous response.

So you can't answer the question. Got it.

 

[AProudLefty]

Yup. A true statement. It WAS the Republican Party that was specifically formed in opposition of slavery and that legally abolished slavery.

Which Republican should I thank for it?

 

[ZenMode]

Yes, a gay person could marry someone they don't want to marry if they announced they were gay.

So, in summary your, and @gfm7175 , idea of equality is:

"Straight people can marry the person they want to marry and gay people can marry the person that the straight people allow them to marry, even though it's not who they want to marry."

Got it!

If that isn't what America is all about I don't know what is....

@gfm7175 @Yakuda

Which part of this am I wrong about?

So, in summary your, and @gfm7175 , idea of equality is:

"Straight people can marry the person they want to marry and gay people can marry the person that the straight people allow them to marry, even though it's not who they want to marry."

 

[Yakuda]

@gfm7175 @Yakuda

Which part of this am I wrong about?

So, in summary your, and @gfm7175 , idea of equality is:

"Straight people can marry the person they want to marry and gay people can marry the person that the straight people allow them to marry, even though it's not who they want to marry."

I can see you're really struggling. Are straight people allowed to marry someone they don't want to marry?

 

[Jake Starkey]

That's a square circle. You could argue they were denied the privileges afforded in marriage but they weren't denied marriage. I'm all for civil unions. You want to claim that a same sex union is the same as marriage but it's not. Any similarity is like a motorcycle to a bicycle.

Quit gabbling. Say something sentient. Please.

 

[ZenMode]

I can see you're really struggling. Are straight people allowed to marry someone they don't want to marry?

Not struggling at all, which is why you can't actually point which part of what I said is inaccurate.

 

[Jake Starkey]

Then you wake up

I can't help that you are a loser, Yakuda. It hurts you when you measure your failure in life to fairly normal people.

 

[Yakuda]

Not struggling at all, which is why you can't actually point which part of what I said is inaccurate.

First you didn't answer my question and second I have pointed out numerous times the inaccuracy of what you said. This is what makes me realize you're struggling.

 

[Jake Starkey]

First you didn't answer my question and second I have pointed out numerous times the inaccuracy of what you said. This is what makes me realize you're struggling.

Your question is irrelevant. And you have given your opinion, which is valueless.

 

[ZenMode]

First you didn't answer my question and second I have pointed out numerous times the inaccuracy of what you said. This is what makes me realize you're struggling.

Again, which part of this is inaccurate?

So, in summary your, and @gfm7175 , idea of equality is:

"Straight people can marry the person they want to marry and gay people can marry the person that the straight people allow them to marry, even though it's not who they want to marry."

 

[Jake Starkey]

gfm7175 and Yakuda are bigoted, barely sentient, and hate. It's what they are.

 

[Yakuda]

Again, which part of this is inaccurate?

So, in summary your, and @gfm7175 , idea of equality is:

"Straight people can marry the person they want to marry and gay people can marry the person that the straight people allow them to marry, even though it's not who they want to marry."

My goodness. Ok for the millionth time want is not relevant to the application of the law. The govt doesn't give a shit if you want to marry the person you're marrying. All the govt says is what constitutes a marriage. Want doesn't figure into the equation or the application of the law. I will ask again

Is a straight person allowed to marry someone they don't want to marry? Does the law prevent that?

 

[ZenMode]

My goodness. Ok for the millionth time want is not relevant to the application of the law. The govt doesn't give a shit if you want to marry the person you're marrying. All they're say is what constitutes a marriage. Want doesn't figure into the equation or the application of the law. I will ask again

Is a straight person allowed to marry someone they don't want to marry? Does the law prevent that?

As I said, you aren't talking about law. You're talk about how you believe things should be, which is to say that marriage is reserved for straight people and you hide behind a nonsensical argument of "Well, gay people have equality because they can marry "someone" as long as that someone fits into the definition of marriage as defined by the Christian sky wizard."

In other words, you can't marry who you want to marry, you can marry who we say you can marry.

 

[gfm7175]

Yes, a gay person could marry someone they don't want to marry if they announced they were gay.

So, in summary your, and @gfm7175 , idea of equality is:

"Straight people can marry the person they want to marry and gay people can marry the person that the straight people allow them to marry, even though it's not who they want to marry."

Got it!

If that isn't what America is all about I don't know what is....

Nope, you don't "got it".

-- Any man can marry any woman.
-- Any woman can marry any man.
-- Any man can [join together with] any man.
-- Any woman can [join together with] any woman.

All four instances are legally treated in the exact same manner.

My point is simply a point about specific terminology (and that different words should be used to describe different things).

• Union between a man and a woman
  
  • Procreation IS possible (always in theory, almost always in actuality)
• Union between a man and a man
  
  • Procreation IS NOT possible (whether in theory or actuality)
• Union between a woman and a woman
  
  • Procreation IS NOT possible (whether in theory or actuality)

Now, sing it with me ZenMode... "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong"

It doesn't make any sense at all to use the exact same word to describe all three bullet points when one bullet point is NOT the same as the other two bullet points are.

 

[ZenMode]

Nope, you don't "got it".

-- Any man can marry any woman.
-- Any woman can marry any man.
-- Any man can [join together with] any man.
-- Any woman can [join together with] any woman.

All four instances are legally treated in the exact same manner.

My point is simply a point about specific terminology (and that different words should be used to describe different things).

• Union between a man and a woman
  
  • Procreation IS possible (always in theory, almost always in actuality)
  • Procreation IS NOT possible (whether in theory or actuality)

Now, sing it with me ZenMode... "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong"

It doesn't make any sense at all to use the exact same word to describe all three bullet points when one bullet point is NOT the same as the other two bullet points are.

-- Any man can marry any woman.
-- Any woman can marry any man.
-- Any man can [join together with] any man.
-- Any woman can [join together with] any woman.

Yes, thanks for confirming that you are trying to portray inequality as equality.

FYI, there's no requirement of procreation for marriage. If I'm wrong, find me a single law that says it.