Droopy wrote:Droopy, do you remember about a year ago, when I asked you why---if equal protection for gay people is a "liberal" issue---the plaintiffs' attorney in Perry v. Schwarzenegger is well-known as being a conservative?
I don't know. Perhaps the plaintiff's attorney here is a dip in the road. Perhaps he's not really a "conservative" in a substantive intellectual sense (terming certain useful examples (Brooks, Bernake et al, et al) as "conservatives" and then holding others to their standards is a well worn trick I've long grown used to fielding). Perhaps he has personal, emotional or psychological reasons. Do you know? No, I didn't think so.
See: No True Scotsman FallacyThe one thing I do know is that, from a constitutional and philosophical perspective, homosexual marriage is not an equal protection issue at all. That sophistry is easy to knock out of the ballpark, and I and others have done it time and again.
You have? Oh, for joy! I can't wait for you to show me where you did this!
I would like to see a direct quote from Jesus regarding his feelings about gay people.
Jesus apparently never wrote a book. His apostles, however, did do a great deal of writing, and they, whom Jesus tells us if we do not hear, will not hear him, have made a number of clear statements on the subject, in both ancient and modern times.
In other words, you are unable to show us what Jesus himself thinks about gay people, only what those who purport to speak for him think.
How about if we just limit it to the four Gospels? Plenty of things in there are attributed to Jesus. What did Jesus say in the four Gospels about gay people?
Thank you for conceding the point that the LDS Church's banal platitudes about loving gay people and treating them equally as long as they live the law of chastity are in fact nothing but banal platitudes.
Your own personal phantasm regarding the nature of most homosexual relationships, as well as your substantial misunderstandings (or, more likely, willful misconstrual) of the text of the constitution, have painted you into a corner that allows you very, very little intellectual or moral breathing room.
That is non-responsive either to my statement or to the OP.
However, let's talk about painting yourself into a corner that allows you little breathing room---even if that is a mixed metaphor. We'll start with the rational basis test.
Droopy: name me ONE jurisdiction in the United States that requires having children---or having the ability to have children---as a condition precedent to enter a legally valid marriage.