Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

Marriage equality would involve marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage. Gay marriage is UNEQUAL by design for the benefit of gays.

 

Your statement didn't even contradict my claim let alone refute it.

 

How so. Now two straight males can also marry. Two straight females can marry. The law does not preclude ANY two individuals of approved age and familial relationship
from entering a legal contract of marriage. Your argument is a fail.

 

directly refuted it.

 

getting the same rights as opposite sex couples is equal, not unequal. lol

 

Nonsensical and shameless trolling! Are you calling advocates for gay rights and marriage equality hypocrites for not supporting or advocating for incest/ I can smell the desperation to score points. All that you are doing is using logical fallacies. In this case, a little known but special one. Actually my favorite because it exposes the degree to which your "argument" is pathetic. Learn this word:

 

It is not trolling by any definition.

It points out when homosexuals allege they are for "marriage equality" they lied to all of us.

Rather simple concept to understand.

 

Using your logic, those who usually vote for Democrats, (has to be pointed out since Democrats brag this is their view) make the same case, were it about equal rights for all, you all would post the list of currently banned marriages and tell us all that those also must get included.

But alas, Democrats make excuses to keep the currently banned locked down.

- - - Updated - - -

See who you excluded?

 

BS.

Gay people NEVER said they were fighting for your right to marry your sister's daughter. Now you're pretending be mad at them
because you think that if you can only tie same sex marriage to your desire for incest, that it will give gay people a black eye.

You are trolling - and it's pathetic.

 

Why do you ask? My sexual orientation and gender identity is no body's business and has nothing to do with my position on these issues. The only legitimate reason to want to know is if you're looking for a date. When people assume something about my sexuality, I do not confirm or deny it because to do so only would validate their bigotry and stupidity.

I included all those who might be considered LGBT in this discussion because, while to some extent they are separate issues, they all have similar experiences and face the same obstacles thrown down by the bigots. Any more questions, Bubba?

 

Trolling is what you just did.

Why not stop doing it?

- - - Updated - - -

Nope Mr. Rudeness, I read quite enough to know it is bluster.

 

THAT is your answer? Seriously dude? That is a pretty pathetic comeback. You have no argument so now you are just spewing nonsensical blather. Please ! Go away.

 

My arguments are normally vell well structured and not rude as yours are. Nor do I tell posters to leave. Nor do I insult them.

 

No. Your "argument" is pathetic trolling. It's the unimaginative - and transparent - "if I can only tie gay marriage to incest and marrying your pet, I will have won the day ..." scenario.

It's a false argument that's been done to death by people much more eloquent than yourself, and it was still pathetic.

 

You think that I'm rude. Oh my, I am so hurt! You do not even know what rude is and you think that my attacking your so called argument ( and at this point I don't even know what the hell it is anymore because your are all over the map with your bovine excrement) that I am attacking you. I never once call you a name. You on the other hand insinuated that I and all advocates for gay rights are hypocrites for not supporting mother- son incest. That is just STUPID. Notice that I did not call YOU stupid. I said that your post was stupid- and pathetic. I am so bored with you! This tread started out on an idiotic premise and you have done NOTHING to lift it out of the gutter. NOTHING!

Furthermore, you have an abysmal understanding of constitutional law. You have no understanding of or compassion for LGBT people and you have not real interest in learning more about either. Rather, you try to mask your ignorance and callousness behind red herrings such as incest. We are done here bubba.

 

Except of course there is no biological argument that if applied to 'men and women' in addition to same gender couples that works.

Because no state has ever held any marriage between a man and a woman to that biological standard.

Which is why your argument failed because the law was not applied equally.

If my 80 year old uncle and his 70 year old wife are allowed to marry- but two 20 year old women are not- there is no credible biological argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really.

Are you claiming that the Lovings were lying when they said they wanted marriage equality?

- - - Updated - - -

Not really.

Are you claiming that the Lovings were lying when they said they wanted marriage equality?

 

But the single mother and grandmother are of the same sex and prohibited from gay marriage or any marriage. Like I said UNEQUAL by design for the benefit of the gays.

 

When are you going to start your campaign to make marriage legal for that mother and son?

 

Non sequitur.

 

Getting the same rights as someone else isn't unequal, lol.

 

Homosexuals are not honest if they claim Obergefell made things equal.

I side with the 4 dissenting justices.

 

Did the Lovings accept the bans still remaining in law?

The marriage laws are still loaded with bans.

Law should be blind. A law that allows homosexuals free right to run stop lights, because cops and ambulances and firetrucks do, is not correct.

 

Of course there is.

"Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple"
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis..."
"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

THATS why the courts had to characterize marriage limited to men and women as having nothing to do with procreation and solely intended to exclude homosexuals. There is no justification to exclude homosexuals based upon animus towards homosexuals.

????uuuuh all 50 states did hold every couple to that standard until recently.

 

Please stop embarrassing yourself with this inane blathering. Try actually contributing something useful to the topic if you are able.

 

What?????????????????

Your attacks don't contribute.

I stand by my comment that I side with the 4 justices.

Were they blathering in their decision?