Proof that Michele Bachmann takes lesson from joe_cavalry
true
Side Score: 1
|
 |
Wait..., what? No!
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
I've been saying for years that marriage does not discriminate against gays because gays can marry anyone they desire..., so long as it's someone of the opposite sex ;) Well think about it for a second…., and your head will hurt ;) But…, what she’s saying is that the gay community wants a special treatment under the law that states that gay people are exempt from marrying someone of the opposite sex. If the government does this then the government would have created a law that benefits a particular group of people (gays) and discriminates against the other group (heterosexuals) based on sexual orientation (which is unconstitutional). Side: True
If the government does this then the government would have created a law that benefits a particular group of people (gays) and discriminates against the other group (heterosexuals) based on sexual orientation (which is unconstitutional). Except that it does not discriminate against heterosexuals. Then they too would have the option of marrying someone of the same sex. Of course most heterosexuals wouldn't be interested in taking this option, but it would be an "option" for them the same way current marriage laws are an "option" for homosexuals. Meanwhile, not choosing to take the new option in no way diminishes the benefits or gains of those who take the original option. Well think about it for a second...and your head will hurt ;) If you find yourself having similar logic to Michele Bachmann, it may be time to think harder ;) Side: Wait..., What? No!
1
point
I don't see why one group of people who are offended by something should be forced to watch their tax dollars used to support the very thing that offends them. I don't think that gays should be forced to watch their tax dollars used to support heterosexuals. ;) The government should get out of the marriage business. It's none of their business. And gays should resist the desire to empower the government in the marriage business ;) Side: Wait..., What? No!
1
point
|
