Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Losty]

But you can't say no to other people about things [u]that don't concern you[/u].

If you only react to things that only concern you, by definition does that not make you selfish.  

Selfish: 1. Devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interest, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. "

"Selfishness is blind"-Gandhi

It is wrong to ask others to be just as selfish as you when wanting others to only take action/address things that only concern them.  One, it is common but wrong to assume that you have knowledge of what are concern's of another. Two, one’s level of being selfish may not be the same for another. {You personal have no knowledge what so ever of what my ties to the homosexual community I have. Whether it is personal, professional or mutual.}

It's not about beliefs, ideas, or views).. . .to think anyone gives any fucks about your beliefs. We don't. No cares what you believe so long as you're not using your beliefs to restrict someone else's rights

I think you misunderstood the team belief in how I was using it.
I am not using belief as in religion but as ideology/sentiment. . "that what you feel/thing/view to be''?

You can think whatever you want about it. So long as you're not harassing anyone that you have.

I agree, but want is considered harassment? Who decides that? And what if I fell that your post are harassing to me

or trying to deny them rights

I have not ejected the idea for any one's rights to be taken away. On the contrary I want true equality just as much you, perhaps more. Before the ruling, the restrictions of two people only, non-incest, adult age, of free will and sound of mind to enter into marriage were, and still are today, applied to ALL who marry. Even the restriction of opposite sex only, all marriages had to be heterosexual this to was also marriage applied equally to both heterosexuals, bisexual, , asexual, homosexuals, any and all type of sexual preferences had this requirement placed on them. One self-identifying a sexual preference was never an issue of obstacle to marry.

In fact many bisexuals, trans, hetero, and even homosexuals had agreed to this requirement by engaged in an opposite sex marriage. (Thus, to marry was always present for the homosexual to act upon. Never was it denied them.)

Even now, after the ruling equal rights is still what I articulate for. Now marriage has elevated those who are in this institution to be seen as one of dignity and security with benefits. Creating second-class citizens of all who are not married. This is no different from Civil Unions V. Marriage which was rule unconstitutional because it created a second class citizen (civil unions were not viewed as marriages but something different) and allocated different rights between the two groups.

This discrimination is still present but has now been created between the married and non-married: asexual, heterosexual and homosexuals signals who are also signal parents, or cohabitation parents. Who are not legally classified as a dignified class or granted little to no a benefits. This is classic separate and unequal in legal and social classification as well as financial, insurance or spousal benefits. Yes to this I call discrimination.

You must feel pretty special

Not at all. But I do know that I live in a democratic nation that gives its citizen's rights, such as the right of free speech. Free speech constitute that which is vertebral, written, expression, and action.

Like I said, no one gives any fucks about your beliefs, religious or otherwise. You can't restrict people from doing things unless you have a valid reason. There is no valid reason to restrict anyone from marrying someone of the same sex. If you have one, let's hear it.