Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

So, what the gays need to do, to justify equality..is get the shit beaten out of themselves, get themselves infected with deleterious disease, and just generally endeavour to make their lives as shitty as possible...and then you'll be satisfied that they've suffered through adequate introductory rites....

Legit, provided that I get to pick the incense and chants.  I'm still loving these terms as much as when we began.  Continue.

Sure. Why not. Since you want to misconstrue what I have said than we will go with that. When they have actually suffered enough they may have consideration to the club. After all we do no give protected class status to just anyone. Or didn't you know that?

[Anima]

Oh no, some fucking bigots might lose their business. Serves them right for being bigots.

Newsflash:  It's not persecution to not want to do business with someone or hire someone because they're an asshole.

If I might paraphrase your very statement:

Oh no, some fucking gays might lose their business. Serves them right for being gay.

Newsflash:  It's not persecution to not want to do business with someone or hire someone because they want an asshole.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure.  Why not.  Since you want to misconstrue what I have said than we will go with that.  When they have suffered enough they may have consideration to the club.  After all we do no give protected class status to just anyone.  Or didn't you know that?

Well, I don't really know what protected class status has to do with this one, not really looking to single out teh gayz myself for anything...again, you're the excluder, but sure, our discussion has been eye opening, though probably not regarding the subject you think.  I mean, I'm on the edge of my seat here, lemme try a little recap.

Gays are different things, presumably inferior, and the state might have an interest in preventing them from marrying -which harms heteros/the rest of us/whatever...somehow-.......but none of that would mean much if more of them would get seriously hurt (a floating variable....wondering who gets to determine that..seems to be you, in this equation, which is convenient, I suppose), ostensibly granting them protected status that is justifiable in your groups case ...or some groups case, I assume?

 We up to speed?  You got more for me?

[Divinity]

If I might paraphrase your very statement:

Oh no, some fucking gays might lose their business. Serves them right for being gay.

Newsflash:  It's not persecution to not want to do business with someone or hire someone because they want an asshole.

I get that you're a bigot, and are really upset that you're on the wrong side of history (as bigots always are), but it's definitely persecution to refuse to hire someone on the basis of their preferred gender.  That's pretty much textbook definition of persecution.

You can't refuse to hire someone just because they're black.  You can refuse to hire someone because they're a member of the KKK.  You can't refuse to hire someone just because they're gay.  You can refuse to hire someone because they're a shithead who thinks gay people are icky (or possibly are worried cocks are secretly delicious)

[Anima]

Sure.  Why not.  Since you want to misconstrue what I have said than we will go with that.  When they have suffered enough they may have consideration to the club.  After all we do no give protected class status to just anyone.  Or didn't you know that?

Well, I don't really know what protected class status has to do with this one, not really looking to single out teh gayz myself for anything...again, you're the excluder, but sure, our discussion has been eye opening, though probably not regarding the subject you think.  I mean, I'm on the edge of my seat here, lemme try a little recap.

Gays are different things, presumably inferior, and the state might have an interest in preventing them from marrying -which harms heteros...somehow-.......but none of that would mean much if more of them would get seriously hurt, as your group did?  We up to speed?  You got more for me?

Homosexuals are seeking protected class status in order to assure strict scrutiny in regards to any laws which directly or indirectly prohibit them. There current push is to be declared a protected class so as to subject their terminations to inquiry to verify if said termination was discriminatory. As an advocate you really should inform yourself lest you speak ignorantly.

Close. In regards to marriage specifically it is argued that marriage is not a fundamental right. As such the State may legislate what parties may enter into the marriage contract in accordance with the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses under rational basis scrutiny; where the State has a legitimate interest in the procreative result of marriage and their limitation of marriage (and its benefits) to hetero couplings is reasonably related to that interest.

In regards to biology it has been argued homosexuality is an inferior defect which the species and nature do not seek to propagate and is self limiting due to its very own inclination. It is further argued that the inclination leads to an act which has a negative particular resultant that if made universal continue to be negative. As such we should endeavor to further limit the negative potentiality by endeavoring to keep it from becoming an actuality. This is to say to eliminate the defect from the outset or to limit the procreative activity of those so effected with said defect so as to not propagate to the next generation (something many countries due in regards to other genetic defects).

[Divinity]

Yeah, cause gay people are the ones who have gay kids. Makes total fucking sense.

[Anima]

If I might paraphrase your very statement:

Oh no, some fucking gays might lose their business. Serves them right for being gay.

Newsflash:  It's not persecution to not want to do business with someone or hire someone because they want an asshole.

I get that you're a bigot, and are really upset that you're on the wrong side of history (as bigots always are), but it's definitely persecution to refuse to hire someone on the basis of their preferred gender.  That's pretty much textbook definition of persecution.

You can't refuse to hire someone just because they're black.  You can refuse to hire someone because they're a member of the KKK.  You can't refuse to hire someone just because they're gay.  You can refuse to hire someone because they're a shithead who thinks gay people are icky (or possibly are worried cocks are secretly delicious)

So I have heard for many pages now. You may as well save your breath (or in this case your time) because ad hominem is not going to work on me.

Now I am interested to hear this out. If it is not persecution to not do business with or hire an asshole than why is it persecution to not hire someone for their orientation? I imagine you will say because the asshole can stop being an asshole. Do we really believe that? Admittedly you can try to make the asshole stop being an asshole by hurting them, but then does that not imply that their assholeness is ingrained? Most likely they will not stop being an asshole though they will pretend they are not one.

May the same be said for he who is wanting of asshole. We can try to get them to stop wanting asshole by hurting them. Even if they do not stop wanting it they may pretend to not want it and we would be none the wiser as to their true desire.

So how is it not persecution to not want to business or hire someone I do not want to be in business with because I do not agree with their views on things and at the same time have it be persecution to not want to do business with or hire someone who has other views I may not agree with?

In both cases I am not doing business with someone simply because they have views I do not agree with. Both are unlikely to change those views though they may pretend to in order to get my business.

[Anima]

Yeah, cause gay people are the ones who have gay kids.  Makes total fucking sense.

So states geneology. Well if they had kids using their own genetic material that is.

[Divinity]

Yeah, cause gay people are the ones who have gay kids.  Makes total fucking sense.

So states geneology.  Well if they had kids using their own genetic material that is.

I'm guessing you failed biology.  You see.... a gay couple can't have children.  And plenty of straight couples have gay children.  So where are these gay children coming from exactly?  Also you're freely admitting that being gay isn't a choice.

[The Grand Nudger]

An advocate of what, equality?  Sort of goes with the territory for me.  We hold these truths to be self evident - recall the line?  You know, they might not see the need to seek protected status.......if they weren't roundly and openly discriminated against, food for thought.  I told you I wan;t actually interested in arguing your "arguments", I'm just looking for the executive summary.  

Gays are different things for "reasons" - your reasons don't concern me one single iota.

Gays are inferior for "reasons" - your reasons don't concern me one single iota.

The state has an interest in discriminating against those different, inferior gays for "reasons" - your reasons don't concern me one single iota.  

I just want to give you as many opportunities as possible to repeat those claims, in as many forms as you can imagine, and I made that clear from the start, did I not? So it doesn't matter "what is argued", because there's no one on this end to argue against. Is my summary inaccurate? Is this not your position?