SCOTUS protects marriage equality

AProudLefty said:
Are you claiming that their marriage certificates don't exist?
Click to expand...
Free Modern Funny Marriage Certificate Template to Edit Online
 
Yakuda said:
Again the govt decides all kinds of things. What I'm ok with is irrelevant I only care about the law being applied evenly. To say a black man and a black woman can't buy a house violates what the government allows therefore the reason to refuse them would only be for discriminatory reasons.

None of this though solves your problem that gay people were never refused marriage because they were gay.
Click to expand...
I didn't deny that the government decides all kinds of things.

I'm asking if you'd be ok with the government saying that ONLY a male and female can buy a house together or enter into a business agreement together. So, it would be illegal for two women to start a business. Does that makes sense to you?
 
ZenMode said:
I didn't deny that the government decides all kinds of things.

I'm asking if you'd be ok with the government saying that ONLY a male and female can buy a house together or enter into a business agreement together. So, it would be illegal for two women to start a business. Does that makes sense to you?
Click to expand...
And I said to you, what I'm OK with isn't relevant to the discussion. If a woman can start a business then it can't be discriminatory. Does it have to be with another woman? That doesn't make sense but the law needs to be applied evenly bit make sense. We all know about those idiotic law like in Beavertooth Arkansas you can't eat ice cream while walking backward on a Sunday. (Just a silly example) Does it make sense? No. Is it a law yes. And as long as no one can eat ice cream while walking backward on a Sunday then it's not discriminatory.

And again this doesn't solve your problem that gays were never refused marriage because they were gay.
 
ZenMode said:
it's to make the point that there is nothing preventing states from allowing gay marriage. We aren't obligated to abide by a definition of marriage from thousands of years ago and the people who are fighting gay marriage today are almost entirely the religious right, because they want to force their religious definition of marriage on us.
Click to expand...
Most certainly the religious right. Goes back to the Leviticus bullshit. Then, you have all this Yakuda-like mental gymnastics to try to defend it.
 
Yakuda said:
And I said to you, what I'm OK with isn't relevant to the discussion. If a woman can start a business then it can't be discriminatory. Does it have to be with another woman? That doesn't make sense but the law needs to be applied evenly bit make sense. We all know about those idiotic law like in Beavertooth Arkansas you can't eat ice cream while walking backward on a Sunday. (Just a silly example) Does it make sense? No. Is it a law yes. And as long as no one can eat ice cream while walking backward on a Sunday then it's not discriminatory.

And again this doesn't solve your problem that gays were never refused marriage because they were gay.
Click to expand...
They were refused marriage because the state said that only a male and female can enter into a legal agreement that is recognized by the state.

So, again, does that make sense and would it make sense to apply that to other state legal agreements?
 
ZenMode said:
it's to make the point that there is nothing preventing states from allowing gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Gay marriage is already allowed regardless. Nothing is stopping a man and a woman from getting happily married and remaining happy about it.
ZenMode said:
We aren't obligated to abide by a definition of marriage from thousands of years ago
Click to expand...
Marriage remains marriage; the "marriage formula" hasn't changed one bit.

Sure, you can try to imitate marriage all you want via tweaking the "award-winning-formula", but Clancy's chips will NEVER quite taste the same as Doritos chips. Only ONE specific formula is the "award-winning-formula"... the fruitful formula that allows for procreation.
ZenMode said:
and the people who are fighting gay marriage today are almost entirely the religious right, because they want to force their religious definition of marriage on us.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with gay marriage. In fact, I HIGHLY recommend it. Marriage works MUCH better when the husband and the wife are mutually happy about their marriage.
 
ZenMode said:
They were refused marriage because the state said that only a male and female can enter into a legal agreement that is recognized by the state.

So, again, does that make sense and would it make sense to apply that to other state legal agreements?
Click to expand...
Again you keep harping on what makes sense. See this why useful conversations cannot be had here. I've answered this at least twice now.

Yes the state said only a man and a woman can get married and says NOTHING about them having to be straight.
 
Yakuda said:
Again you keep harping on what makes sense. See this why useful conversations cannot be had here. I've answered this at least twice now.

Yes the state said only a man and a woman can get married and says NOTHING about them having to be straight.
Click to expand...
Yes, because things should make sense, should they not?

Does it make sense for state governments to say that in the case of ONE specific legal agreement that the two people involved have to have different genitals?
 
gfm7175 said:
Gay marriage is already allowed regardless. Nothing is stopping a man and a woman from getting happily married and remaining happy about it.

Marriage remains marriage; the "marriage formula" hasn't changed one bit.

Sure, you can try to imitate marriage all you want via tweaking the "award-winning-formula", but Clancy's chips will NEVER quite taste the same as Doritos chips. Only ONE specific formula is the "award-winning-formula"... the fruitful formula that allows for procreation.

I have no problem with gay marriage. In fact, I HIGHLY recommend it. Marriage works MUCH better when the husband and the wife are mutually happy about their marriage.
Click to expand...
Same-sex marriage is allowed because SCOTUS forced states to stop being dumb, not because it's what the religious right wants.
 

Evidence of GFM7175 Lacking Critical Thinking Skills​


He attacks sourced material with only his opinion. Look almost any of his posts.

He is a tiny hive cultist that makes America First stink.

:BKick:
 
ZenMode said:
Yes, because things should make sense, should they not?

Does it make sense for state governments to say that in the case of ONE specific legal agreement that the two people involved have to have different genitals?
Click to expand...
Should they? Yes. Do they? Not always and it's not a requirement.

Again if you keep saying "make sense" you're wasting my time. You haven't shown the law discriminates against gays because they are gay. As far as I can see your entire argument is based solely on it doesnt "make sense".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top