How Is It Legal????

[The Rabbi]

No they don't.

A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman. If they had equal rights then a man or a woman could then Civilly Marry a woman (who agreed of course).

Your argument failed when it was used for race and the logic fails when you try to use it for gender.


>>>>

But all men are the same in this, as are all women.

No their not. A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry another woman. Different treatment based on gender.



Let us know when sheep and goats can give informed consent and enter into legal contracts.



Not discredited at all. Women deserve the same rights as men. A man can Civilly Marry a woman and that is denied to women.



Loving established that the government must have a compelling government interest when attempting to discriminate against someone based on a biological condition and that invidious laws were unconstitutional. Last I checked gender was a biological condition.



Sure there is.

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal

The discriminating condition in the above is gender.

All women have an equal right to marry. All men have an equal right to marry. Thus no discrimination.

Same logic presented in Loving. A colored can marry a colored and a white can marry a white.

Didn't hold water then either.

Again, you fail. And since it is for all the same reasons you've failed at failing.

Prior to 2004 there were zero legal entities in the United States that provided for Same-sex Civil Marriage and polls showed it was well supported.

In 2012 there are now 8 legal entities authorizing same-sex Civil Marriage and polls show that now a majority of Americans support equal treatment under Civil Marriage laws for same-sex couples.

No fail here.


>>>>

Repeating the same argument isn't proof of anything, except that you are out of arguments.
Women are not discriminated against because they are not men.
And again the only proofs you can offer are:
1) it's just like the civil rights movement (which it isnt)
2) Our side is winning (which is why it's been voted down in every referendum)

 

[WorldWatcher]

But all men are the same in this, as are all women.

No their not. A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry another woman. Different treatment based on gender.



Let us know when sheep and goats can give informed consent and enter into legal contracts.



Not discredited at all. Women deserve the same rights as men. A man can Civilly Marry a woman and that is denied to women.



Loving established that the government must have a compelling government interest when attempting to discriminate against someone based on a biological condition and that invidious laws were unconstitutional. Last I checked gender was a biological condition.



Sure there is.

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal

The discriminating condition in the above is gender.



Same logic presented in Loving. A colored can marry a colored and a white can marry a white.

Didn't hold water then either.

Again, you fail. And since it is for all the same reasons you've failed at failing.

Prior to 2004 there were zero legal entities in the United States that provided for Same-sex Civil Marriage and polls showed it was well supported.

In 2012 there are now 8 legal entities authorizing same-sex Civil Marriage and polls show that now a majority of Americans support equal treatment under Civil Marriage laws for same-sex couples.

No fail here.


>>>>

Repeating the same argument isn't proof of anything, except that you are out of arguments.

You mean like just repeating that it's not discrimination, it's not discrimination, it's not discrimination, it's not discrimination, it's not discrimination, it's not discrimination, it's not discrimination, it's not discrimination, it's not discrimination, it's not discrimination, it's not discrimination, it's not discrimination, it's not discrimination, it's not discrimination, it's not discrimination.

Women are not discriminated against because they are not men.

Didn't say women were discriminated against because they are not mean, I said there is gender discrimination because women don't have the same options as men.

An important difference.

And again the only proofs you can offer are:
1) it's just like the civil rights movement (which it isnt)

Sure it is - invidious, capricious, and discriminator laws written on a biological condition with no compelling interest other than denying equal treatment under the law for an unpopular group instead of treating like situated groups the same. In this case like situated groups includes law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, infertile, non-relating, consenting, adult different-sex couples and law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, infertile, non-relating, consenting, adult same-sex couples.

Law written based on biology - similar.
Law denying equal treatment - similar.
Arguments used to justify discrimination against colored people and arguments against homosexuals - similar

2) Our side is winning (which is why it's been voted down in every referendum)

2003, Number of legal entities recognizing Same Sex Civil Marriage = 0
Polling data percentage of the population supporting Same Sex Civil Marriage = 40%
Voting Results Against Same Sex Civil Marriage (2000 & 2004) = 23%-76%

2012, Number of legal entities recognizing Same Sex Civil Marriage = 8 (with 5 of 8 through legislative action)
Polling data percentage of the population supporting Same Sex Civil Marriage = 53%
Voting Results Against Same Sex Civil Marriage (2008 & 2009) = 2%-3%

With very good shots at Same-sex Civil Marriage being passed this year in either Maine or Washington (or both) based on referendum. You should try to get as much mileage out of that taking point while you can, you may not have it after November.


Ya, the side supporting continued discrimination is losing.



>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Yawn.
When you come up with something original let me know.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yawn.
When you come up with something original let me know.

Yawn.
When you come up with something original let me know.


>>>>

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Well yeah atually they do because only male=female unions will produce children.
You haven't made a single cogent point.
Total fail.

Since when is children a prerequisite for marriage? I'm afraid you're the one failing. That's just one irrelevancy after another.

No one said it was a prerequesitge for marriage.
You fail yet again.

I gotta admit I have trouble wrapping my mind around where you were going with the state having a vested interest in people only entering into unions that could theoretically produce children. If that ability is important, why not laws against marrying impotent men/infertile women? If the state's vested interest in unions that create more people is an important enough basis on which to impose the government's will on activities that otherwise don't affect anyone besides the two people in the union, then would you support laws forcing everyone to marry? Or at least to copulate?

Or is that not what you meant by a vested interest in whether or not a union could produce children?

 

[The Rabbi]

Since when is children a prerequisite for marriage? I'm afraid you're the one failing. That's just one irrelevancy after another.

No one said it was a prerequesitge for marriage.
You fail yet again.

I gotta admit I have trouble wrapping my mind around where you were going with the state having a vested interest in people only entering into unions that could theoretically produce children. If that ability is important, why not laws against marrying impotent men/infertile women? If the state's vested interest in unions that create more people is an important enough basis on which to impose the government's will on activities that otherwise don't affect anyone besides the two people in the union, then would you support laws forcing everyone to marry? Or at least to copulate?

Or is that not what you meant by a vested interest in whether or not a union could produce children?

Given your admission you can't really understand this, I'll try again.
The state has an interest in fostering some relationships over others. Specifically a relationship that results in healthy families produces better citizens than any other. This is why we have extensive laws about all this, and not just marriage laws.
Yes, some relationships will not result in the desired outcomes. But shockingly most of them do.

 

[Dragon]

No one said it was a prerequesitge for marriage.

If it isn't, though, then you have no case based on the fact that a gay couple can't have children. So either you ARE implying that it is a prerequisite for marriage, or you are saying nothing. Which is it?

EDIT: Actually, this discussion is pointless. Your views are pointless, because you are mortal, and the young agree with me. That means I win, you lose. Game over.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No one said it was a prerequesitge for marriage.

If it isn't, though, then you have no case based on the fact that a gay couple can't have children. So either you ARE implying that it is a prerequisite for marriage, or you are saying nothing. Which is it?

EDIT: Actually, this discussion is pointless. Your views are pointless, because you are mortal, and the young agree with me. That means I win, you lose. Game over.

Actually what he's attempting, using debate parlance, is to compare Apples to Oranges and declare they are different. Well duh!

However in discussions of the law and evaluation of equal protection, the comparision is made based on being in a like (or similar) situation and not different situations. In this case the closest similar situation is law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a different-sex relationship and law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a same-sex relationship. One couple is allowed to Civilly Marry, one couple is not.

Under the established premise of equal protection under the law, it would be the governments responsibility to provide a unique and compelling reason why one group is treated differently from another group in an Apples to Apples comparison based on the factor which is the key point of the law. Which in this case is gender.



(BTW - the logic fails on a second front in that infertile (with each other) same-sex couples can have children using the same method that infertile (with each other) different-sex couples can.)


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, men and women are like apples and oranges. To most people this is not a revelation but I guess you've never figured it out until now.

 

[The Rabbi]

No one said it was a prerequesitge for marriage.

If it isn't, though, then you have no case based on the fact that a gay couple can't have children. So either you ARE implying that it is a prerequisite for marriage, or you are saying nothing. Which is it?

EDIT: Actually, this discussion is pointless. Your views are pointless, because you are mortal, and the young agree with me. That means I win, you lose. Game over.

Your point is nebulous. Not to mention stupid.
The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relaitonships over others. That does not mean it must punish some kinds of relationships. Although they do.
That's probably too subtle for you to understand.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, men and women are like apples and oranges. To most people this is not a revelation but I guess you've never figured it out until now.

Na, I figured out that boys and girls were different about 50 years ago, then as an apple decided I really liked oranges a few years later.

However from a legal perspective restricting the choices available to men and women based on gender for no compelling government reason where biology is not a factor means that apples and oranges should be treated the same.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

No one said it was a prerequesitge for marriage.

If it isn't, though, then you have no case based on the fact that a gay couple can't have children. So either you ARE implying that it is a prerequisite for marriage, or you are saying nothing. Which is it?

EDIT: Actually, this discussion is pointless. Your views are pointless, because you are mortal, and the young agree with me. That means I win, you lose. Game over.

Your point is nebulous. Not to mention stupid.
The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relaitonships over others. That does not mean it must punish some kinds of relationships. Although they do.
That's probably too subtle for you to understand.

Allowing same-sex couples to Civilly Marry takes nothing away from different-sex couples with children, just as allowing biologically infertile different-sex couples to Civilly Marry takes nothing away from different-sex couples with children. And recognizes the fact that large numbers of same-sex couples are parents themselves raising children and deserve the same protections, rights, and benefits as different-sex couples raising children.


>>>>

 

[Dragon]

Rabbi: As always, I strip out as unworthy of a response empty rhetoric and pointless personal insults. You may as well not bother with those; they add nothing to your argument, and mainly make it look like you don't have one and are trying to use insults as a substitute. Up to you, though. Here's a response to the small portion of what you said that actually meant anything.

The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relaitonships over others. That does not mean it must punish some kinds of relationships. Although they do.

Actually, it does mean that the state must punish some kinds of relationships. Denial of a reward IS a punishment; the difference is purely semantic.

In any case, while the broad, vague statement that the state "has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over others" is obviously true, it doesn't follow that it has an interest in fostering opposite-sex marriages over same-sex marriages, let alone in refusing to recognize the latter at all. Earlier, you presented a rationale for this distinction based on procreation, and then, when called on it (due to the fact that many heterosexual couples are childless either by choice or for medical reasons), you claimed that you hadn't said that procreation was a prerequisite for marriage.

Technically, that's true, you didn't. However, if you didn't mean to imply that it should be, then your rationale is left empty. If having children isn't a prerequisite for marriage, then the fact that gay couples can't have children (at least not in the usual biological way) represents no reason to deny same-sex marriage.

So, again: either you WERE saying that having children is a prerequisite for marriage, or else you've really said nothing at all. Since, strictly speaking, you didn't claim that having children is a prerequisite for marriage, it could just as easily be that you said nothing at all; I don't presume to say which. But you certainly did one or the other.

 

[The Rabbi]

If it isn't, though, then you have no case based on the fact that a gay couple can't have children. So either you ARE implying that it is a prerequisite for marriage, or you are saying nothing. Which is it?

EDIT: Actually, this discussion is pointless. Your views are pointless, because you are mortal, and the young agree with me. That means I win, you lose. Game over.

Your point is nebulous. Not to mention stupid.
The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relaitonships over others. That does not mean it must punish some kinds of relationships. Although they do.
That's probably too subtle for you to understand.

Allowing same-sex couples to Civilly Marry takes nothing away from different-sex couples with children, just as allowing biologically infertile different-sex couples to Civilly Marry takes nothing away from different-sex couples with children. And recognizes the fact that large numbers of same-sex couples are parents themselves raising children and deserve the same protections, rights, and benefits as different-sex couples raising children.


>>>>

No one is barring same sex couples from marrying. Where did you ever get that idea?

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi: As always, I strip out as unworthy of a response empty rhetoric and pointless personal insults. You may as well not bother with those; they add nothing to your argument, and mainly make it look like you don't have one and are trying to use insults as a substitute. Up to you, though. Here's a response to the small portion of what you said that actually meant anything.

The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relaitonships over others. That does not mean it must punish some kinds of relationships. Although they do.

Actually, it does mean that the state must punish some kinds of relationships. Denial of a reward IS a punishment; the difference is purely semantic.

In any case, while the broad, vague statement that the state "has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over others" is obviously true, it doesn't follow that it has an interest in fostering opposite-sex marriages over same-sex marriages, let alone in refusing to recognize the latter at all. Earlier, you presented a rationale for this distinction based on procreation, and then, when called on it (due to the fact that many heterosexual couples are childless either by choice or for medical reasons), you claimed that you hadn't said that procreation was a prerequisite for marriage.

Technically, that's true, you didn't. However, if you didn't mean to imply that it should be, then your rationale is left empty. If having children isn't a prerequisite for marriage, then the fact that gay couples can't have children (at least not in the usual biological way) represents no reason to deny same-sex marriage.

So, again: either you WERE saying that having children is a prerequisite for marriage, or else you've really said nothing at all. Since, strictly speaking, you didn't claim that having children is a prerequisite for marriage, it could just as easily be that you said nothing at all; I don't presume to say which. But you certainly did one or the other.

Oh well. I knew it was concept you could not understand. And this post proves it.
Good luck with life, s0n. Remember, "Do you want FRIES with that?"

 

[WorldWatcher]

Allowing same-sex couples to Civilly Marry takes nothing away from different-sex couples with children, just as allowing biologically infertile different-sex couples to Civilly Marry takes nothing away from different-sex couples with children. And recognizes the fact that large numbers of same-sex couples are parents themselves raising children and deserve the same protections, rights, and benefits as different-sex couples raising children.


>>>>

No one is barring same sex couples from marrying. Where did you ever get that idea?

There are no laws or State Constitutional amendments barring same-sex couples from entering into legal Civil Marriages, those recognized under civil law, the same as different-sex couples?

Well who knew, I guess there is no problem then.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Allowing same-sex couples to Civilly Marry takes nothing away from different-sex couples with children, just as allowing biologically infertile different-sex couples to Civilly Marry takes nothing away from different-sex couples with children. And recognizes the fact that large numbers of same-sex couples are parents themselves raising children and deserve the same protections, rights, and benefits as different-sex couples raising children.


>>>>

No one is barring same sex couples from marrying. Where did you ever get that idea?

There are no laws or State Constitutional amendments barring same-sex couples from entering into legal Civil Marriages, those recognized under civil law, the same as different-sex couples?

Well who knew, I guess there is no problem then.


>>>>

Moving the goalposts again?

 

[WorldWatcher]

No one is barring same sex couples from marrying. Where did you ever get that idea?

There are no laws or State Constitutional amendments barring same-sex couples from entering into legal Civil Marriages, those recognized under civil law, the same as different-sex couples?

Well who knew, I guess there is no problem then.


>>>>

Moving the goalposts again?

Nope, you must have missed the "Civilly Marry" part of the posts, which is why I expanded them to big, bold, underlined text to make sure you could see it.

Go back and read my posts, I'm very careful to use the terms "Civil Marriage" and "Civilly Marry" instead of just "marriage" and "marry" to specify legal Civil Marriage recognized under the law. You can look at the time stamps of my posts and your quote of it and see it wasn't changed.


I do this just to prevent stupid posts like "No one is barring same sex couples from marrying". Most of the time it works, sometimes though there are still people that click and respond without reading or comprehending what was written.


The goalpost never moved. I just hope you didn't hurt yourself when you ran smack-dab into it.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

No one is barring them. They simply can't do it. Big difference. No one is denied anything. They weren't entitled to it in the first place. Any more than you can go marry yourself and claim the tax deduction.

All of it is simply the fag lobby demanding the rest of us taxpayers support their deviant lifestyle. That's it. All other arguments are smoke screens.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No one is barring them. They simply can't do it. Big difference. No one is denied anything.

I can't believe that I have to explain this...

.............. A State law or State Constitutional Amendment limiting Civil Marriage to couples of opposite genders...

............................ Does bar Civil Marriages to couples where both are the same sex.

They weren't entitled to it in the first place.

All citizens are entitled to liberty, freedom, and the equal protection of the laws unless there is a compelling government reason why they should not.

Any more than you can go marry yourself and claim the tax deduction.

>>>>