Thread: Legalizing Gay Marriage: The 'Slippery Slope' Argument doesn't exist

Originally Posted by dixon76710

No, the courts held that marriage limited to heterosexual couples is intended to discriminate against homosexuals, motivated by animus towards homosexuals. It is this animus towards homosexuals they reason neccessitates a "compelling governmental interest" to justify such discrimination.

There is no authority for any person of any public trust under the United States to deny or disparage the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States; Reagan even had to apologize for it.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

I of course was refering to the institution, not the word.

Originally Posted by rahl

which as I and others have alread pointed out, is incorrect.

Yeah, you and the others who are so freakin full of themselves that they can convince themselves, that they know better than I, what I was referring to. DELUSIONAL!

Originally Posted by danielpalos

There is no authority for any person of any public trust under the United States to deny or disparage the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States;

Do you really think repeating this for the 21st time in this thread really adds anything to the conversation?

Originally Posted by Perriquine

So you're going to appoint yourself the judge of who does or doesn't understand the law just because you have a law degree?.

LOLOLOL!!!! Yeah, as opposed to YOU appointing YOURself judge of who does or doesn't understand the law because you are a homosexual.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Have you already forgotten about this:

Make a point if you can.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

No, the courts held that marriage limited to heterosexual couples is intended to discriminate against homosexuals, motivated by animus towards homosexuals.

They held that new laws which limited legal recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples were adopted out of animus toward persons of same-sex orientation. We're talking here about modern laws, like Prop 22, Prop 8, etc.. Not your made up nonsense of "1000s of year old limitation to heterosexual couples", but the very specific, newly adopted laws that were being challenged.

Crap like that is why I'm skeptical of your claim that you have a law degree.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

It is this animus towards homosexuals they reason neccessitates a "compelling governmental interest" to justify such discrimination.

No, it is the law's creation of a classification for a suspect purpose that the court found to necessitate scrutiny of the sort that would require demonstration of a compelling government interest being served.

The fact that you can throw legal terms around doesn't mean you understand what you're talking about, alleged law degree or not.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

LOLOLOL!!!! Yeah, as opposed to YOU appointing YOURself judge of who does or doesn't understand the law because you are a homosexual.

Really? That's what you're going with?

Being a person of same-sex orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not one understands the law and can make a sound judgment of the arguments put forth by others about it. I find your arguments about the law in these matters lacking not because my homosexuality makes me superior (it doesn't), but because the crap statements you make, being devoid of any honest truth that would give them value, do nothing to forward anyone's understanding of the cases or the laws.

It's obvious when you sense yourself losing the argument, because the number of "LOLOLOL!!!!" become more frequent, as if you think you can inspire others to discount your opponents' arguments by laughing at them.

As far as I'm concerned, the joke's on you.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

You are so full of it. Do you really think calling homosexuals "individuals oriented toward marrying a same-sex partner" changes ANYTHING?

If I meant just "homosexuals", then I would have said "homosexuals". I did not mean only homosexuals. I meant persons who, for whatever reason, would choose a spouse of the same sex, regardless of the direction of their feelings of attraction or romantic attachment. The law did not make a classification excluding just homosexuals; it excluded anyone who would marry a person of the same sex.

Do you think that misrepresenting the facts of the case and the court's decision will win you this argument?

Originally Posted by dixon76710

It is this animus towards homosexuals they reason neccessitates a "compelling governmental interest" to justify such discrimination.

Originally Posted by Perriquine

No, it is the law's creation of a classification for a suspect purpose that the court found to necessitate scrutiny of the sort that would require demonstration of a compelling government interest being served.
.

Always amusing when you restate what I have said, and convince yourself youve contradicted me in order to pretend you actually have a point to contribute.

Originally Posted by Perriquine

If I meant just "homosexuals", then I would have said "homosexuals". I did not mean only homosexuals. I meant persons who, for whatever reason, would choose a spouse of the same sex, regardless of the direction of their feelings of attraction or romantic attachment.

What silliness. Someone isnt "oriented" towards marrying someone of the same sex because someone decides to do so. Recent California case went to great lengths to define homosexual orientation as an inherent trait like racethat people are born with.

Originally Posted by Perriquine

The law did not make a classification excluding just homosexuals; it excluded anyone who would marry a person of the same sex.

Yes it does. But they held it was only a violation of the constitution when it excludes homosexuals.