Constitutional rights and equal protection (gay marriage related)

[fated]

If equivalence doesn't exist, then there is no discrimination.

An objective truth such as one sex, is not equivalent to a self-identification or an activity.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Word soup strikes again!

 

[fated]

Word soup strikes again!

I'm here, I'm reasonable, get used to it.

If equivalence doesn't exist, then there is no discrimination.

An objective truth such as one sex, is not equivalent to a self-identification or an activity.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I'm here, I'm reasonable, get used to it.

You ARE here. Your capacity to be reasonable however, is highly questionable. And you HAVE been told on numerous occasions that your posts on certain subjects are not only not reasonable, but don't seem to share any meaningful relation to the topic at hand.

If the shoe fits.

 

[fated]

You ARE here. Your capacity to be reasonable however, is highly questionable. And you HAVE been told on numerous occasions that your posts on certain subjects are not only not reasonable, but don't seem to share any meaningful relation to the topic at hand.

If the shoe fits.

Mere assertion. In order to proved discrimination one needs to show equality. In this instance, my failure to conclude that unequal relationship demographics (as in groups) are equal makes me somehow unreasonable.

Suppose I'm working with Holly bushes to improve their qualities by crossing specimens. They come in male and female. Not all are fertile. Should, I then, mix them any which way, or should I only put one male with one female. Obviously I cross only males and females. That is reasonable.

Asserting the marriages don't require children, then, is still beside the point.

 

[SiderealExalt]

And as I said. Your nonsensical posts have been dismantled in other areas. If you want to rehash old, bad ideas. I'm sure there are plenty of OTHER threads for you to traipse out non-logic.

Though I'm sure Wolf and others will be along to smash yet another funky post of yours to smithereens.

For me, I'm sure bored with the nonsense I'll skip out.

 

[fated]

And as I said. Your nonsensical posts have been dismantled in other areas. If you want to rehash old, bad ideas. I'm sure there are plenty of OTHER threads for you to traipse out non-logic.

Though I'm sure Wolf and others will be along to smash yet another funky post of yours to smithereens.

For me, I'm sure bored with the nonsense I'll skip out.

I've already heard those arguments too.

Some people have children! Still does not establish equivalence.

Some marriages fail! Only regards people who aren't married.

And as for what I think of Wolf's objections black people aren't black because of an activity they participate in or simply as a result of claiming that they are black.

 

[HappyHealthyHolyRoller]

It common knowledge that evangelical Christians have the highest divorce rates. Meanwhile atheists and Jews have the lowest.

Do you actually believe this? I perceive this lie as yet another attack on our humble faith. Truth be told, atheists have the lowest divorce rate only because they can never get married in the first place! Since when do pedophiles, homosexuals, prostitutes and other socially deviant individuals get married?

 

[wanderingone]

. Truth be told, atheists have the lowest divorce rate only because they can never get married in the first place! Since when do pedophiles, homosexuals, prostitutes and other socially deviant individuals get married?

Knock it off.. where's my troll doll?

(not to mention you don't understand statistics do you?)

 

[fated]

Do you actually believe this? I perceive this lie as yet another attack on our humble faith. Truth be told, atheists have the lowest divorce rate only because they can never get married in the first place! Since when do pedophiles, homosexuals, prostitutes and other socially deviant individuals get married?

Why play his game? You realize you aren't even discussing the issue, but something else entirely.

 

[fated]

Knock it off.. where's my troll doll?

(not to mention you don't understand statistics do you?)

What do you mean? What percentage of atheist couples get married? How does that compare with Christian couples? You'd need those statistics to conclude that his logical conclusion is wrong.

 

[wanderingone]

And as for what I think of Wolf's objections black people aren't black because of an activity they participate in or simply as a result of claiming that they are black.

What activity do you think someone has to conduct in order to be gay?
and gay people aren't gay just because they "claim" to be any more than you're "straight" just because you "claim" to be.

 

[wanderingone]

What do you mean? What percentage of atheist couples get married? How does that compare with Christian couples? You'd need those statistics to conclude that his logical conclusion is wrong.

He said their divorce rates are lower because fewer of them get married. It doesn't matter how many - it matters the percentage that get divorced. His logical conclusion is wrong.....

 

[fated]

What activity do you think someone has to conduct in order to be gay?
and gay people aren't gay just because they "claim" to be any more than you're "straight" just because you "claim" to be.

What does it mean to be gay then? I've read plenty of literature, and it seems to be a self-identification based on a urge to participate in an activity, or even a desire to want to desire that activity. That's what being gay is. A self-identification. Not everyone who has gay impulses would claim to be gay or needs to be classified as being gay.

 

[fated]

He said their divorce rates are lower because fewer of them get married. It doesn't matter how many - it matters the percentage that get divorced. His logical conclusion is wrong.....

He points out that if the demographics of "who gets married" within the groups is incongruent, then, it is a study of "apples and oranges."

 

[SiderealExalt]

LoL Good luck wandering. I'd say it's like talking to a wall, but it's really not.

 

[wanderingone]

What does it mean to be gay then? I've read plenty of literature, and it seems to be a self-identification based on a urge to participate in an activity, or even a desire to want to desire that activity. That's what being gay is. A self-identification. Not everyone who has gay impulses would claim to be gay or needs to be classified as being gay.

What is this activity?

How do you identify yourself- based on what you are. Most of our labels are for someone else's benefit. If you're attracted to people of the opposite sex you know it, if you're attracted to people of the same sex you know it... and no.. not everyone who is attracted to people of the same gender is gay.. some of them are bisexual....

 

[wanderingone]

LoL Good luck wandering. I'd say it's like talking to a wall, but it's really not.

Walls don't talk back

 

[fated]

What is this activity?

How do you identify yourself- based on what you are. Most of our labels are for someone else's benefit. If you're attracted to people of the opposite sex you know it, if you're attracted to people of the same sex you know it... and no.. not everyone who is attracted to people of the same gender is gay.. some of them are bisexual....

I see, so if someone has homosexual urges, even if they are faithfully married, you can conclude they are gay (they aren't really attracted to their spouse, say). That would be a married gay person.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Heh. Just try to get him to explain how heterosexuality and homosexuality being two different things has anything to do with equality under the law.