Free Bumper Sticker....Marriage = Man + Woman

[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq'] There is a material difference between one's race and one's sexual orientation. As such race is far more protected than sexual orientaiton.[/quote]

Would you care to grace us with what difference is?

I'm really hoping that you are going to go against all scientific data and say people aren't born gay and they can change.[/quote]

Briefly and in the simplest of terms, the difference is I can look at a person and know their race. I can't look at a person and know their sexual orientation. You can't hide race there is no sign on a person thats says "hi I am gay". Additionally the courts have looked to things such as historic economic disadantage (there are three criteria that is the only one I can recall off the top of my head) in determining what immutable characteristic should recieve more protection than other characteristics.

I don't know if people are or are not born gay. I do know that it has nothing to do with this discussion.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq'] There is a material difference between one's race and one's sexual orientation. As such race is far more protected than sexual orientaiton.[/quote]

Would you care to grace us with what difference is?

I'm really hoping that you are going to go against all scientific data and say people aren't born gay and they can change.[/quote]

Briefly and in the simplest of terms, the difference is I can look at a person and know their race. I can't look at a person and know their sexual orientation. You can't hide race there is no sign on a person thats says "hi I am gay". Additionally the courts have looked to things such as historic economic disadantage (there are three criteria that is the only one I can recall off the top of my head) in determining what immutable characteristic should recieve more protection than other characteristics.

I don't know if people are or are not born gay. I do know that it has nothing to do with this discussion.

CTL[/quote]

You can't always look at a person and know what race they are. I offer Slash, Tiger Woods and Vin Diesel as examples.

You can't always tell by looking if someone is handicapped but they are protected.

You can't always tell by looking what religion someone is but they are protected too.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']You can't always look at a person and know what race they are. I offer Slash, Tiger Woods and Vin Diesel as examples.

You can't always tell by looking if someone is handicapped but they are protected.

You can't always tell by looking what religion someone is but they are protected too.[/quote]

1. As a practical matter for what 95% of the time, you can. Thats close enough. I am not going to argue some bullshit little difference.

2. Being handicapped isn't equivilant to race either.

3. Sorry, religion is just a special case. It has consistently been something the government has sought to protect.

Look I am not trying to be a dick, but there is over 100 years of case law on this issue. Not all differences are equivilant. You aren't going to protect somone who dyslexic to the degree you protect someone who is native American.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Look I am not trying to be a dick, but there is over 100 years of case law on this issue. Not all differences are equivilant. You aren't going to protect somone who dyslexic to the degree you protect someone who is native American.[/quote]

And the reason there is over 100 years of case law is because the law has changed along with society. Now it's time to change again.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']Look I am not trying to be a dick, but there is over 100 years of case law on this issue. Not all differences are equivilant. You aren't going to protect somone who dyslexic to the degree you protect someone who is native American.[/quote]

And the reason there is over 100 years of case law is because the law has changed along with society. Now it's time to change again.[/quote]

Of course because change for the sake of change is good.

So being dyslexic I should be able to recieve the same benefits that people do with affirmative action? I am sure thats what AA was intended for.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']Look I am not trying to be a dick, but there is over 100 years of case law on this issue. Not all differences are equivilant. You aren't going to protect somone who dyslexic to the degree you protect someone who is native American.[/quote]

And the reason there is over 100 years of case law is because the law has changed along with society. Now it's time to change again.[/quote]

Of course because change for the sake of change is good.

So being dyslexic I should be able to recieve the same benefits that people do with affirmative action? I am sure thats what AA was intended for.

CTL[/quote]

This is not change for the sake of change. It's a change whose time has come.

You should not be discriminated against for your dyslexia any more than gay people who want to get married should.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']Look I am not trying to be a dick, but there is over 100 years of case law on this issue. Not all differences are equivilant. You aren't going to protect somone who dyslexic to the degree you protect someone who is native American.[/quote]

And the reason there is over 100 years of case law is because the law has changed along with society. Now it's time to change again.[/quote]

Of course because change for the sake of change is good.

So being dyslexic I should be able to recieve the same benefits that people do with affirmative action? I am sure thats what AA was intended for.

CTL[/quote]

This is not change for the sake of change. It's a change whose time has come.

You should not be discriminated against for your dyslexia any more than gay people who want to get married should.[/quote]

You simply don't get it.
 
No, you don't get it. Gay marriage will be legal soon because banning it is discriminatory and the courts will recognize that eventually. It is between two consenting adults and doesn't harm anyone else.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']No, you don't get it. Gay marriage will be legal soon because banning it is discriminatory and the courts will recognize that eventually. It is between two consenting adults and doesn't harm anyone else.[/quote]

Actually showing how little understand on this topic: Gay marriage is already legal in MA. The equivilant of gay marriage is legal in NH and Hawaii.

Don't confuse the ultimate result of this in the states as having any bearing on the flawed logic you people have used.

Have I claimed this harms anyone? Or would this be an example that because you can't compete against the reasons I have listed in opposition to gay marriage that you need to employ anti-gay marriage arguments I haven't made?

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Have I claimed this harms anyone? Or would this be an example that because you can't compete against the reasons I have listed in opposition to gay marriage that you need to employ anti-gay marriage arguments I haven't made?[/quote]

Someone's a little defensive today...

I merely stated the "no harm" part as one of the reasons gay marriage will eventually be legalized across the country.

You can unwad your panties now.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']Have I claimed this harms anyone? Or would this be an example that because you can't compete against the reasons I have listed in opposition to gay marriage that you need to employ anti-gay marriage arguments I haven't made?[/quote]

Someone's a little defensive today...

I merely stated the "no harm" part as one of the reasons gay marriage will eventually be legalized across the country.

You can unwad your panties now.[/quote]

No, I am simply not here to defend every reason some other idiot on the internet came up with to oppose gay marriage.
 
[quote name='eldad9'][quote name='Backlash']I just don't understand why someone would be against gay marriage? Where is the harm? Espcially since straight marriages in this country are in the shitter right now (too many divorces!).[/quote]

Because biblegod ( http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/biblegod.html ) said to murder all the gays. After all, they don't make babies and don't increase the size of the tribe. So by putting a death sentence on teh gay, it was hoped that at least some people would be scared "straight".

Of course the reason is long since forgotten.[/quote]

Does anyone else besides the Catholics forbid birth control? If not then they are the only ones who can use the "don't make babies" argument without looking like a bunch of hypocritical jackasses.
 
The worlds problems seem to be based on three things....

1. Religion
2. Inorance (Mainly because of number one.)
3. Oil (Money before oil was around.)

Those are also all the reasons for war.
 
Well, the bible forbids it, but only the most ... faithful, is that the word? ... of the christians and jews actually practice it.
 
[quote name='eldad9']Well, the bible forbids it, but only the most ... faithful, is that the word? ... of the christians and jews actually practice it.[/quote]

I'd say gullible, but same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top