(June 1, 2015 at 11:02 am)Cinjin Wrote: good thread.
I kept wanting to add my thoughts, but someone kept nailing them as I read on.
Additionally, it's nice to see a Christian arguing his position without blatantly throwing his religion in everyone's face.
I like it.
To me (someone who hasn't studied law) it just looks like intense usage of legal jargon to try and justify indirect discrimination towards homosexuals.
I slightly understand that if you loosen up the freedom to marry too much than this means that you could end up with adults marrying children, but to say that homosexuals can't get married because if we do that then that means we have to let children get married doesn't seem like a very versatile way of doing things.
I'm sure there was a point when homosexuals couldn't join the army, now they can join the army, that happened and no one said "Ok now the gays can join it means we have to let 3 year olds join the army."
I realize this post may have dumbed down the thread slightly and I didn't include the "can x marry y = yes/no (violates equal protection)" that seem to be aimed at making some sort of a point that I don't understand.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
Impersonation is treason.
