5/14/2013 7:03 PM
You haven't remembered about 150 pages of this thread.   It's a daily battle for you, I imagine.

Maybe you're like Drew Barrymore in the Sandler movie.
5/14/2013 7:06 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2013 7:03:00 PM (view original):
You haven't remembered about 150 pages of this thread.   It's a daily battle for you, I imagine.

Maybe you're like Drew Barrymore in the Sandler movie.
What exactly did I forget?
5/14/2013 7:12 PM
What's the point in telling you?

Someone will just have to do it again tomorrow.
5/14/2013 7:36 PM
Really? Or you could just make a point already. I mean, it's been 150 pages and your prize winners so far:

-Polygamists might want to marry.

-People are offended by gays.

-Right is what the law says, sir.

-More people will be gay if we allow gay marriage (but also, we don't know what will happen if we allow gay marriage and how dare you for suggesting that nothing bad will happen after only seeing gay marriage in place for nine years without anything bad happening)

-We can't legalize gay marriage if we can't legalize crack

I will concede that I may have forgotten one or two, it's been 150 pages and bistiza has clogged several of them up with his retardedness.
5/14/2013 9:34 PM
"Why do you consider eating at a restaurant a right?"

I don't.
5/14/2013 9:46 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/14/2013 2:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):
CU/DP would not have the same "meaning" as marriage.  Just the same benefits/right.    There would be a different view of them in society. 

But, if you admit that, you can't carry this argument on for another 150 pages, can you?

Do you try to be a dick or does it come naturally?
Oh, really, mister pot?

Marriage carries special significance for most people. I wouldn't want to tell you that you aren't allowed that significance. Maybe you just like bring able to tell other people how to live their lives?

Why would allowing gay marriage increase society's gayness but allowing civil unions wouldn't?
"Marriage carries special significance for most people."

This is true.  Yet you feel that it's absolutely necessary to change marriage to be something other than what it currently is.  Are you incapable of understanding that doing that may negatively impact the "special significance" that it currently has for many people?
5/14/2013 9:48 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/14/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):
As it relates to this conversation? It's for equal rights.  Yes, I'd call marriage something that is a right.
Why do you consider marriage a "right"?
5/14/2013 10:43 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2013 9:34:00 PM (view original):
"Why do you consider eating at a restaurant a right?"

I don't.
Yet denying someone a seat at a restaurant based on gender/race/religion is a violation of their rights under the constitution. Marriage is a right in the same sense. It isn't specifically cited but falls under the equal protection clause.
5/14/2013 11:07 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/14/2013 10:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2013 9:34:00 PM (view original):
"Why do you consider eating at a restaurant a right?"

I don't.
Yet denying someone a seat at a restaurant based on gender/race/religion is a violation of their rights under the constitution. Marriage is a right in the same sense. It isn't specifically cited but falls under the equal protection clause.
Which article / amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically talks about restaurants?
5/14/2013 11:10 PM
There isn't one. It falls under the equal protection clause.
5/14/2013 11:16 PM
Baker v. Nelson, 1972.  The U.S. Supreme Court essentially ruled that the equal protection clause did not apply to same sex marriage.
5/14/2013 11:17 PM
And now they are reconsidering.
5/14/2013 11:21 PM
Unless/until they reach a different decision, the current law of the land is that same sex marriage is not a right that is guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
5/14/2013 11:22 PM
"Marriage is a right in the same sense. It isn't specifically cited but falls under the equal protection clause."

This is an inaccurate statement under the current law of the land.
5/14/2013 11:24 PM
Um ok, in my opinion the court will go in the other direction this time.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.