Debunking the interracial marriage arguement.

The government doesn't discriminate between married and unmarried. They honor a legal contract.

 

The thousands of tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage aren't even a part of the contract. Its discrimination between the married and unmarried. And forbidding closely related adults from marrying while allowing the gays is government discrimination that prohibits them from even entering such a contract

 

Incestous marriage is an entirely separate issue from gay marriage. The public has an interest in forbidding marriage between the related in order to protect the gene pool, but there is no interest against gay marriage. And the default position for the government ought to be liberty. Restrictions should only come in if there's a good reason for them.

 

Wow, would you believe, here is dixon lying again. He's now (or once again, since he never learns) claiming that laws must serve a government interest. Incredible. You have no rights until you can PROVE that the government giving you a right serves the interest of the government. Who cares about this "inalienable" stuff, who cares about this "endowed by our creator" stuff?

Fortunately, in the US rights are something we are born with, and the government CANNOT legally deny them without demonstrating a compelling harm to the public. Many tens of thousands of Americans have died defending this philosophy, but dixon doesn't care about them either, since they refute his prejudices.

 

It isn't. This is a lie you e repeatedly been called on.

 

It's your Strawman. No court has made any such ruling. Your arguments have been specifically addressed by the courts and rejected as invalid.

So like I said. The constitution specifically precludes your arguments. It's why you keep losing.

 

And as the courts keep telling you, you have that exactly backwards. You need a legitimate interest served by EXCLUDING a them. It's why you keep losing.

- - - Updated - - -

They mean different things.

- - - Updated - - -

Correct. There has to be an interest served by the exclusion of same sex couples. Nobody can come up with one, which is why you keep losing.

 

There is no intent to exclude them nor a legitimate interest served in excluding them. The interest is only served by including heterosexual couples, the only couples with the potential of procreation.

 

Only couples of the opposite sex in a sexual relationship have the potential of procreation. The interest is in improving the well being of children that only homosexual couples produce

 

Lol, except for the bans specifically excluding them.

.
Which is why the bans are unconstitutional. I'm glad you've finally learned that.

Proven false. Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry. Over 20 federal courts keep telling you that an interest must be served by EXCLUDING same sex couples. It's why you keep losing.

- - - Updated - - -

Not only false, but irrelevant to marriage.

invalid argument. It's why you keep losing.

 

Yet again, an appeal to tradition. Just because it's "always" been that way (even though that's not true) is not a valid reason for it to continue.

 

There is no reliable historical proof that gay marriage existed in the pre modern era, or even hundreds of years ago.

 

It doesn't (*)(*)(*)(*)ing matter. It exists now, and there's no valid reason that it shouldn't be universal. Don't like that? I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*). Whether or not you like it is absolutely irrelevant.

 

Why should I support something being legal, if it goes against my religious beliefs?

 

Because we do not live in a theocracy. I don't care what your religious beliefs are. I don't care what mine are. Unless there's a valid, non-religious reason for a law to exist, it cannot exist. Sorry. Why the (*)(*)(*)(*) do you care what other people do? Are you concerned you're gonna be forced to gay marry someone?

 

Because I believe what they are doing is sinful.

No.

 

It's none of your business.

 

Doesnt mean I should support it. How am I bigoted? I simply dont support things that do against my beliefs.

 

What makes you think your beliefs are so important that everyone have to live by them?

 

You wont find any law that as much as even mentions "homosexuals" homosexuality or sexual orientation, let alone exclude them.

 

What makes you think your beliefs are so important that everyone have to live by them?

 

They don't. I promise, you don't have to get gay married unless it's of your own free will. You don't have to have gay sex unless you want to. I can't promise you'll never see a naked man, that depends on many factors including your job and lifestyle, but if you have the right job and lifestyle, you'll never even have to see that. If you're a doctor, you're probably gonna have to see naked men from time to time, sorry.

 

And you can keep pretending that this is an argument, but you'll comtinue losing.

Same sex bans were put in place to specifically exclude homosexuals pretending they weren't makes you look like an idiot.

 

Does the fact that I consider gay marriage to be morally wrong make me a bigot-yes, or no?

 

Yes. It's none of your business. If you don't wanna get gay married, don't. Otherwise, problem solved. For you to insist that because YOU don't want to, others cannot, is an unwarranted conclusion. You don't have that authority.