Kyle Boller to wed MISS USA Carrie Prejean on Friday! (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

This has really become a Free For All thread, but it's been done already so many times over there, I'll leave it here in the Shark Pool at least for now. I trust that everybody who isn't interested in the topic has already learned to quit clicking on it.

 

[Lake Titicaca]

I love this thread.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

There's nothing irrefutable about the idea that limiting marriage rights to opposite-sex couples will or should survive scrutiny under standard equal-protection type analysis.

What the Supreme Court says or doesn't say about "how a state can discriminate" somewhat misses the point to the arguments I have been presenting. [And the rationale for recent decisions on this matter follow no clear line of thinking - at least that would be what Scalia would argue.]My argument was primarily a philosophical one -- explaining the "why" we discriminate, and "why" it is prevalent, "why" it is a good thing in most cases -- as well as showing how this outlook is consistent with the rule of law in this country for most of its existence, and for why recent Supreme Court decisions are to be scrutinized.

 

[fatness]

Also, homosexuals are allowed to enter into a legal and government recognized relationship similar to marriage called a Civil Union, the main difference being that it would be an avenue for Gays with similar rights and penalties as if you were married.So, I'll ask again, whats the difference? So that they have a right to call their union a legal marriage rather than a civil union? Whats the big deal?

Tax benefits. Health care benefits. There's 2 for starters, and they're pretty substantial things. Why do you oppose 2 adults marrying if they wish to marry? Why do you not want them to enjoy the benefits you enjoy? What's in it for you, and others who want to deny them the rights you have?