"I made a conscious choice to take pride in my work."
"by all means enjoy yourself with fanciful imaginings about a hypothetical bestiality-rights movement."
Lol. Does that mean you have fanciful imaginings about gay sex, or was that just your way of saying you realize you're wrong, but prefer to remain that way, so you will attack me since my point is bullet proof?
I would defer to Michael Steele on this one, being as he is in the group that was the target of the derogatory name. This isn't however, a problem of a poor choice of words. It would not all be better if he had said "an African American dialect". His statement underscores his view that a light skinned black man is more acceptable than a dark skinned black who speaks in a dialect consistent with his race. Drop the racist word, and it's still a bigots point of view.
Nice try, David. But not true. If the straight twin loves his sister, mother, or some other immediate blood relative he cannot marry her. That is the point. This is the argument, and it is unbreakable because it is a fact. The law treats both sides as equals because it is an equal law. You may not like the law, and that is fine. But to call it "unequal" or discrimination is absolutely ridiculous.
True, but based on that logic a suitable partner for a pedophile would be a child. For one who practices bestiality, it would be an animal. For a polygamist it would be multiple partners. Hence, we make laws to protect those who cannot consent and leave the rest to get in where they fit in. Nobody says one can't have multiple partners, we just say you can't marry all of them. Should we allow a brother and sister of consenting age to marry? How about mother and son? Most of us wish the best to gay couples, and I frankly could care less if they do marry. It is not right however, IMO, to call it inequality or discrimination, when all are treated equally under the law.
I'm not a fan of Atheist groups. I don't believe. Do I need a group to help me believe less or to make my disbelief stronger? As far as Atheist persecution, I have never personally experienced that or seen it in action.
You are currently seeing full marriage equality. In order to discriminate against someone, you have to know the characteristic that causes the discrimination is there. In other words, if I wish to discriminate against you based on your race, religion, or gender, I have to know what your race, religion, or gender is.
At no point in a marriage application process does one need to determine the sexual preference of the given couple. The law allows marriages under certain conditions. It does not allow (without regard to your sexual preference) marriage to minors, immediate relatives, people who are already married, or people of the same gender.
This is the definition of equal treatment under the law. If I am straight and my twin brother is gay, the law allows us to marry all of the same people, and at the same time forbids us from marrying all of the same people. That is, by it's very definition, marriage equality. To spin this issue as some type of discrimination is incorrect, no matter where you stand on the issue.
I was hoping they would stick with "the system worked perfectly" approach. That line was at least comical. Now we go back to mere incompetence.
That is pretty funny. The fact is, these people are incapable of figuring out how to get the consequences they intend.
As for the people of my State of Illinois who are excited about the "job creation" angle, I'll bet the Chicago Fire created a lot of jobs too.
That happens everywhere. As a trucker, I can tell you that even in places where they don't get snow, people forget how to drive in the rain in between storms. Or maybe people just don't know how to drive.