Michigan's gay marriage ban struck down

[The Rabbi]

That's correct. They did not have the same rights. There was discrimination on the basis of race, which is illegal per the Constitution.
On what basis is there discrimination in marriage?

Answered in Post #120 already.

A man can marry a woman, a woman cannot marry a woman. The basis of discrimination is on gender which is unconstitutional without a compelling government interest - something that does not exist when comparing like situated couples. Those couples being tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in different-sex relationships and tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in same-sex relationships.


>>>>

Just curious. You brought fertility into this twice.

Would not Roe V. Wade prohibit this as a basis due to reproductive privacy rights?

Not arguing, simply curious

It's a strawman because libs do not understand the argument.
The argument goes like this: States have a compelling interest in producing future citizens. Therefore the state accords recognition to unions that are likely to produce good citizens, which have been proven to be married couples, i.e. a man and a woman.
The idiots don't understand the difference between a tendency and a rule. So their retort is we allow people who are infertile to marry. That is irrelevant but when you point that out to them, they tend to disappear, only to mention the same nonsense in a different thread.

 

[Plasmaball]

No discrimination on gender. All women can marry. All men can marry. There is no right that men have that women do not have and vice versa.

Its fun watching you try to beat people into thinking you are right by constantly repeating the samethings over. Where as if this was a court room you would be laughed out of the courtroom.

This is a messageboard.
And you've been laughed out of a messageboard. How stupid is that?

No I havent...I know all your opinions are based of lies but seriously this was just lazy

 

[The Rabbi]

Its fun watching you try to beat people into thinking you are right by constantly repeating the samethings over. Where as if this was a court room you would be laughed out of the courtroom.

This is a messageboard.
And you've been laughed out of a messageboard. How stupid is that?

No I havent...I know all your opinions are based of lies but seriously this was just lazy

 

[Pop23]

Answered in Post #120 already.

A man can marry a woman, a woman cannot marry a woman. The basis of discrimination is on gender which is unconstitutional without a compelling government interest - something that does not exist when comparing like situated couples. Those couples being tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in different-sex relationships and tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in same-sex relationships.


>>>>

Just curious. You brought fertility into this twice.

Would not Roe V. Wade prohibit this as a basis due to reproductive privacy rights?

Not arguing, simply curious

It's a strawman because libs do not understand the argument.
The argument goes like this: States have a compelling interest in producing future citizens. Therefore the state accords recognition to unions that are likely to produce good citizens, which have been proven to be married couples, i.e. a man and a woman.
The idiots don't understand the difference between a tendency and a rule. So their retort is we allow people who are infertile to marry. That is irrelevant but when you point that out to them, they tend to disappear, only to mention the same nonsense in a different thread.

Yet isn't that part of the argument, there is no difference between an infertile Hetero and a homosexual couple. Doesn't Row V Wade make that a mute point?

 

[The Rabbi]

Just curious. You brought fertility into this twice.

Would not Roe V. Wade prohibit this as a basis due to reproductive privacy rights?

Not arguing, simply curious

It's a strawman because libs do not understand the argument.
The argument goes like this: States have a compelling interest in producing future citizens. Therefore the state accords recognition to unions that are likely to produce good citizens, which have been proven to be married couples, i.e. a man and a woman.
The idiots don't understand the difference between a tendency and a rule. So their retort is we allow people who are infertile to marry. That is irrelevant but when you point that out to them, they tend to disappear, only to mention the same nonsense in a different thread.

Yet isn't that part of the argument, there is no difference between an infertile Hetero and a homosexual couple. Doesn't Row V Wade make that a mute point?

Moot.
I dont think so. I dont think Roe speaks to marriage at all.
Again, the ability to procreate is not a requirement to get married. Rather in general heterosexual couples tend to procreate. The fact that some don't is irrelevant. But no homosexual couples can procreate.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Again, the ability to procreate is not a requirement to get married.

That's correct, and also what makes laws against Marriage Equality unequal.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, the ability to procreate is not a requirement to get married.

That's correct, and also what makes laws against Marriage Equality unequal.

Wrong.
It is what gives the state a compelling interest in recognizing heterosexual marriage over homo.

 

[bodecea]

Answered in Post #120 already.

A man can marry a woman, a woman cannot marry a woman. The basis of discrimination is on gender which is unconstitutional without a compelling government interest - something that does not exist when comparing like situated couples. Those couples being tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in different-sex relationships and tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in same-sex relationships.


>>>>

No discrimination on gender. All women can marry. All men can marry. There is no right that men have that women do not have and vice versa.

Its fun watching you try to beat people into thinking you are right by constantly repeating the samethings over. Where as if this was a court room you would be laughed out of the courtroom.

Let's try this: No discrimination on race. All black people can marry. All white people can marry. Virginia in their arguments to the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia. The Justices DID laugh. Out loud.

 

[Plasmaball]

Again, the ability to procreate is not a requirement to get married.

That's correct, and also what makes laws against Marriage Equality unequal.

Wrong.
It is what gives the state a compelling interest in recognizing heterosexual marriage over homo.

Nope.

 

[The Rabbi]

No discrimination on gender. All women can marry. All men can marry. There is no right that men have that women do not have and vice versa.

Its fun watching you try to beat people into thinking you are right by constantly repeating the samethings over. Where as if this was a court room you would be laughed out of the courtroom.

Let's try this: No discrimination on race. All black people can marry. All white people can marry. Virginia in their arguments to the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia. The Justices DID laugh. Out loud.

Link to justices laughing out loud?
No discrimination based on race.
Definitin of marriage as one man one woman not based on race. Not based on sex. Not based on religion. Not based on age. Not based on handicap.
Compelling state interest in recognizing only hetero marriages. State power derived from 10thA.
Ergo states can define marriage however they want.
QED.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's correct, and also what makes laws against Marriage Equality unequal.

Wrong.
It is what gives the state a compelling interest in recognizing heterosexual marriage over homo.

Nope.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Again, the ability to procreate is not a requirement to get married.

That's correct, and also what makes laws against Marriage Equality unequal.

Wrong.
It is what gives the state a compelling interest in recognizing heterosexual marriage over homo.

See if you can do the logic here. Homos don't get married, and don't have kids. Homos do get married, and don't have kids. Show us the State's Interest here? Do I get more kids if the homos can't get married, less kids, or just the same?

 

[The Rabbi]

That's correct, and also what makes laws against Marriage Equality unequal.

Wrong.
It is what gives the state a compelling interest in recognizing heterosexual marriage over homo.

See if you can do the logic here. Homos don't get married, and don't have kids. Homos do get married, and don't have kids. Show us the State's Interest here? Do I get more kids if the homos can't get married, less kids, or just the same?

Are you asking whether it's OK to marry your sister?

 

[WorldWatcher]

That is incorrect. Rights accrue to individuals, not groups.

Then you should write a letter to the United States Supreme Court and tell them they got it wrong in the Loving decision.

Good luck with that.


>>>>

You should read the Loving decision and some other landmarks and you then go kill yourself in shame.

I've read it, repeatedly. The idea that there was no discrimination because blacks could marry and white could marry, just not to each other - which is analogous to men can marry and women can marry, just not to each other - is shameful. One being wrong based on race the other being wrong based on gender.

Now, maybe YOU should go back and read the Loving decision and make note that the case WAS NOT decided based on the individual (which you claim is the standard), but in fact was decided on how the couple was treated under the law.

But please, don't kill yourself. You and posters like you are one of the main reasons the younger generation doesn't buy into the extreme rhetoric concerning gays. You are one of the best assets they have in changing minds to be more accepting of equality.


>>>>

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Wrong.
It is what gives the state a compelling interest in recognizing heterosexual marriage over homo.

See if you can do the logic here. Homos don't get married, and don't have kids. Homos do get married, and don't have kids. Show us the State's Interest here? Do I get more kids if the homos can't get married, less kids, or just the same?

Are you asking whether it's OK to marry your sister?

The question is clear. What is the State Interest in keeping people who aren't going to have children anyway from getting married? The number of children, which the state does have an interest in, stays the same.

I would argue that the State has an interest in all adults being married. That is a more stable design for households, therefore society.

 

[bodecea]

Wrong.
It is what gives the state a compelling interest in recognizing heterosexual marriage over homo.

See if you can do the logic here. Homos don't get married, and don't have kids. Homos do get married, and don't have kids. Show us the State's Interest here? Do I get more kids if the homos can't get married, less kids, or just the same?

Are you asking whether it's OK to marry your sister?

Fascinating where your mind went with that one.

 

[Plasmaball]

See if you can do the logic here. Homos don't get married, and don't have kids. Homos do get married, and don't have kids. Show us the State's Interest here? Do I get more kids if the homos can't get married, less kids, or just the same?

Are you asking whether it's OK to marry your sister?

The question is clear. What is the State Interest in keeping people who aren't going to have children anyway from getting married? The number of children, which the state does have an interest in, stays the same.

I would argue that the State has an interest in all adults being married. That is more stable design for households, therefore society.

He is just here to troll. He lost this debate before it started.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's correct. They did not have the same rights. There was discrimination on the basis of race, which is illegal per the Constitution.
On what basis is there discrimination in marriage?

Answered in Post #120 already.

A man can marry a woman, a woman cannot marry a woman. The basis of discrimination is on gender which is unconstitutional without a compelling government interest - something that does not exist when comparing like situated couples. Those couples being tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in different-sex relationships and tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in same-sex relationships.


>>>>

Just curious. You brought fertility into this twice.

Would not Roe V. Wade prohibit this as a basis due to reproductive privacy rights?

Not arguing, simply curious

Often one of the reasons that opponents of SSCM try to argue (unsuccessfully) is that Civil Marriage is based on procreation. I say unsuccessfully because there is not one State in the Union that requries that a couple be fertile, as a matter of fact I could show you a law that the couple is required to be infertile.

Under determining whether there is a compelling government interest in examing why couples in like situations are treated differently. If infertile different-sex couples are allowed to Civilly Marry without restriction (and in some cases are required to be infertile) then procreation is not a standard that can be applied only to same-sex couples since it doesn't apply to different-sex couples. When you use one standard for one group and don't apply the same standard to the other group, then you are not comparing like situations.


Hope that helps.


>>>>

 

[Nyvin]

It's basic statistics that married couples without children use less welfare then other groups as well.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't. They can get married all they want. They can set up and play house and take turns calling each other mom and dad, for all I care.
But don't make the rest of us part of that farce. Don't legitimate it.

We can get married all we want in 17 states and growing (fast).

You're too late. We're legitimate.

Too legit, too legit to quit, baby!

And winning was all it ever was about to you folks.

If nothing else I hope forcing legitimacy onto the nation makes you feel better about yourself.

Since "winning" means equality, sure. Equality is what we're "winning".