Originally Posted by tristanrobin

jaxian and foundit - I give you miles of credit for responding to the same dreary time-worn circular arguments from the boringsher over and over again.

Originally Posted by foundit66

Except handicapped parking HAS a legitimate state interest.
Excluding gays from marriage does not.

Originally Posted by winston53660

He's fun to poke a stick at.

Originally Posted by garysher

What legitimate state interest exists for providing handicapped parking privileges?

To provide tax paying citizens equal access to goods and/or services.

Or for redefining marriage to accommodate homosexuals?

Originally Posted by Jaxian

You're speaking in technicalities. The truth is, while homosexuals do have the option of marriage available to them, a restriction exists which stops gay people from using marriage in any fashion that they'd ever want to use it.

Furthermore, this restriction is designed for the sole purpose of preventing homosexuals from marrying.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Now you're speaking in technicalities. Restrictions also exist for polygamists, close relatives, minors, those already married etc.



It's like if I said, "Everyone is free to engage in religious worship, so long as that worship doesn't involve Christianity. You're still free to be Christian, and you can still worship if you're Christian, you just have to worship a non-Christian God." For all intents and purposes, I've denied Christians the freedom to worship. Sure, Christians can worship Buddah, but realistically, they'd never want to do that. This restriction treats Christians unfairly, and I'm only able to say "everyone has the freedom to worship" because of a technicality.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Not an analogous situation.

IT would be more accurate to say that the homosexual militants want to force Jews or Muslims to celebrate a Catholic Mass by redefining the meaning of that ceremony





In the same fashion, while everyone is free to engage in marriage, our marriage laws include a restriction which effectively stops homosexuals from using it. This restriction is unfair, it effectively denies marriage to gay people, and it makes gay people inferior.

You and I both know this to be true, and no amount of word games is going to excuse treating gay people as inferior.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Nope. Non-qualification doesnt make you inferior. You are deliberately trying to use emotive language





The DMV DOES have a restriction which exists for the sole purpose of denying driving licences to the blind. And because of that, blind people are treated as inferior to people with sight.

However, I can JUSTIFY that inferiority: A blind person is obviously a danger to everyone if he is allowed to drive a car, because a blind person would not be able to see where he is going.

You see, it is okay to treat people as inferior, but ONLY if there is a really good reason for it. There is no good reason to treat gay people as inferior.

>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't regard blind people as inferior and I'm disappointed that you obviously do






You and I are absolutely denied the benefit of a handicapped parking permit. How can you say otherwise? Handicapped parking is a benefit, and you and I are denied it. There is no debating this.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Does this make you feel "inferior" to handicapped people?





You have not cleared things up. The argument that "gay people have equal access to marriage" is nothing but a word game. We both know who is affected by the restiction on same-sex marriage.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Nope. See above



Further, your examples of blind people and handicapped people are indeed examples of one group being treated as inferior. But there is a justification for this inferiority.

So I ask again, how do you justify treating gay people as inferior?

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

jaxian and foundit - I give you miles of credit for responding to the same dreary time-worn circular arguments from the boringsher over and over again.

Originally Posted by garysher

Originally Posted by akuma

A marriage license will do, thank you.